SX and Paradise Lost = Satanic ??

[Statler Waldorf]

Natural selection is not random chance. How is it random chance that a helpful mutation (Could be due to sexual recombination, so therefor "random" doesn't apply.) that allows an organism to better reproduce and produce offspring be chance? It doesn't make sense. The better adapted live and those that don't adapt perish.

As for the mousetrap argument:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM

Lol you're joking right? That video didn't explain anything. If a selective pressure arose requiring the organism to catch mice or die it couldn't catch any mice with the tie clip The other two parts of the trap would have to appear and be functioning. The guy also didn't explain that when the trap was used as a tie clip it was still irreducibly complex for that function, remove the spring and voila! no more tie clip. A pretty pathetic attempt, it's all the same co-option answer, it holds no water. The reason Behe's work has not appeared in their journals is because they work in a dogma, his work has appeared in other journals however, funny he didn't mention that. Reminds me of the Dr. Seuss story about Sneeches. Natural Selection does work on chance, the selective pressure and the structure that is best suited to overcome it is completely based upon chance. If I develop gills but my selective pressure is a drought I die off, that's the chance aspect. If Darwinism were valid you'd never see more than two different types of organisms, one out-competing the other.

 

[noble savage]

When Einstein published his theory of relativity in 1904, do you think the scientific community opened up their arms and welcomed this? No. In order for someone to overthrow the mighty Newton, it took a lot of experiments and correct results. Eventually, again I repeat, after many correct predictions and results it became excepted.

Why can't the same be said for ID? If this was such a revolutionary idea, why was it not independently discovered by other scientists before Behe and Dembski? If it is correct, than why are there no predictions that have been shown to be correct? I gave examples of some biological systems that where hypothesized to be irreducibly complex, they turned out to in fact be reducible.

Science is about continually discovering the nature of our world. If someone reveals an Earth shattering theory that revolutionizes the way things are understood, they are NOT immediately silenced and rebuked like you think they are. Unless their theory does not hold up to testing and is proven wrong. Those who still hold onto a wrong theory are called crackpots.

 

[noble savage]

Lol you're joking right? That video didn't explain anything. If a selective pressure arose requiring the organism to catch mice or die it couldn't catch any mice with the tie clip The other two parts of the trap would have to appear and be functioning. The guy also didn't explain that when the trap was used as a tie clip it was still irreducibly complex for that function, remove the spring and voila! no more tie clip. A pretty pathetic attempt, it's all the same co-option answer, it holds no water. The reason Behe's work has not appeared in their journals is because they work in a dogma, his work has appeared in other journals however, funny he didn't mention that. Reminds me of the Dr. Seuss story about Sneeches. Natural Selection does work on chance, the selective pressure and the structure that is best suited to overcome it is completely based upon chance. If I develop gills but my selective pressure is a drought I die off, that's the chance aspect. If Darwinism were valid you'd never see more than two different types of organisms, one out-competing the other.

You missed the point of the video. The mouse trap with the missing parts was not supposed to catch a mouse, it served another purpose. A tie clip. Analogous to the type three secretory system not serving the same purpose as the bacterial flagellum.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

When Einstein published his theory of relativity in 1904, do you think the scientific community opened up their arms and welcomed this? No. In order for someone to overthrow the mighty Newton, it took a lot of experiments and correct results. Eventually, again I repeat, after many correct predictions and results it became excepted.

Why can't the same be said for ID? If this was such a revolutionary idea, why was it not independently discovered by other scientists before Behe and Dembski? If it is correct, than why are there no predictions that have been shown to be correct? I gave examples of some biological systems that where hypothesized to be irreducibly complex, they turned out to in fact be reducible.

Science is about continually discovering the nature of our world. If someone reveals an Earth shattering theory that revolutionizes the way things are understood, they are NOT immediately silenced and rebuked like you think they are. Unless their theory does not hold up to testing and is proven wrong. Those who still hold onto a wrong theory are called crackpots.

Still mischaracterizing the facts. Einstein did not have to deal with the overwhelming media bias that is present today for one. Einstein dealt in the world of Physics, an Emperical Science. ID and Darwinism are both historical sciences they both lack direct observation and repeatability. Einstein could prove the merits of his theories through experimentation, Behe cannot because it's not an Emperical theory. Actually I think they have a really strong theory, look at the contraversy they have created with a thousandth of the funding the Evo guys get, pretty amazing really. I think it's great, now you have evo guys scrambling to make youtube videos to explain ID theories away, I love watching them squirm. It's good I think because it keeps them from getting lazy in their little dogma. For the record Behe and Dembski did not create ID, it was Dr. Peter Denton in the 80s who sparked it. There were actually over 400 scientists involved in the petition signed to create it and state their grievances.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

You missed the point of the video. The mouse trap with the missing parts was not supposed to catch a mouse, it served another purpose. A tie clip. Analogous to the type three secretory system not serving the same purpose as the bacterial flagellum.

But you missed my point, along comes the selective pressure requiring the organism to catch a mouse and bye bye. They still can't explain how those other two parts required could just magically appear in working order, impossible, I don't care whether the other three parts were used for something else. Irreducible complexity pertains to the structure and to the specific functional role it fills now, not anytime prior. The mousetrap and flagellated tail are both irreducibly complex for the purposes they serve now, who cares if one was a tieclip at one point, does not help the organism with catching mice.

 

[noble savage]

But I thought the premise of irreducible complexity was that if you removed a protein from an organism it will not function? Who cares what purpose they serve now, the important thing is they served a purpose as simpler, functioning organism in the past. Why do assume that the function of one organism serves the same purpose as another? The tie clip does not serve the purpose of catching mice.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

But I thought the premise of irreducible complexity was that if you removed a protein from an organism it will not function? Who cares what purpose they serve now, the important thing is they served a purpose as simpler, functioning organism in the past. Why do assume that the function of one organism serves the same purpose as another? The tie clip does not serve the purpose of catching mice.

Well that's how Behe defines IC. A structure that no longers serves it's current purpose when a piece or protien is removed. I know the tieclip does not catch mice, but in order for it to be co-opted into the mousetrap it would have to start catching mice when the selective pressure arose and it can't without those two pissing parts.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

For the record though, I do enjoy debating with you Noble Savage, you do a good job of backing yourself up, thanks.

 

[noble savage]

For the record though, I do enjoy debating with you Noble Savage, you do a good job of backing yourself up, thanks.

No problem, I enjoy it as well.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

No problem, I enjoy it as well.

I am watching a video right now on whehter or not the word "Day" used in Genesis 1 means "long period of time" or "24 Hours". Pretty interesting debate. Lots of Hebrew lol.

 

[progmetaldan]

I didn't really care to read all the shit in your post, BUT THAT IS THE BIGGEST LOAD OF CRAP I'VE EVER HEARD.

"The bible doesn't contradict itself!?!?!?!" PLEASE! Have actually read the book yourself?

Actually yes.

Okay... I'm not stupid. Someone said, "The Bible was written 2008 (or so) years ago," and I was poking fun at their wording (or lack of knowledge, whichever) with that sarcastic response.

yeah I know, I was clarifying for the other person, or anyone in general who may not have been aware...

I created the universe and my limited physical body to experiment how would it feel to be searching for the truth. In order to do that, I made myself to forget that I'm allmighty. When this physical appendage dies, I will reborn as the allmighty nexus of space and time.

Hmm, that sounds like a synopsis from an Ayreon album.

part of the growing up no doubt

why do people always put me on ignore.......

Its ok, I still love you...

 

[CantoX]

The same certainly holds true for Islam. The Sunni (Canto, please correct me if I'm wrong. I always get mixed up on the differences.) claim that the only true way to god is by being directly descended from Muhammad and the Shiite claim that the opposite is true.

I'll try to explain it in the best way I know.

See during the life of the Prophet Mohammed, he was told by God to let the people know who the successors of the faith of Islam were to be in such a way that they hold true the meaning of the Quran and rule the people in the correct way. These people were known as Imams.
Well, Prophet Mohammed dies, and guess what? Some Caliphs ( or religious rulers ) decide that they want to become rulers, so instead of wanting to listen to what the Prophet has said they decide to become the rulers of the land instead of letting the Imams rule.

And so you have a 2 sects of Islam, one of which do not believe in the Imams ( Sunis ) and one sect that does believe in the Imams ( Shia ). There are also minor differences in prayer and some islamic laws, but in essence that is the only major thing that divides Sunis and Shias.

The first Imam was Ali, the cousin of the Prophet. So maybe thats what you were implying when you said "directly descended from the Prophet"
Second ( Hasan ) being the son of Ali.
Third ( Husain ) being the son of the daughter of the Prophet.
And so on and so forth. ( theres 12, including one that lives to today supposedly )

 

[1by4by9]

No, I'm not allmighty. Waking up today was difficult.

 

[razoredge]

For the record though, I do enjoy debating with you Noble Savage, you do a good job of backing yourself up, thanks.

So as we can see.... the rest of us simpletons thats havent gone to college and spend all our days studying in these things.... had no right voicing an opinion on any of the various topics that have occured during these discussions. Nor were we qualified to come to our own conclusions on these matters in the first place

 

[razoredge]

I am watching a video right now on whehter or not the word "Day" used in Genesis 1 means "long period of time" or "24 Hours". Pretty interesting debate. Lots of Hebrew lol.

yes, this is the first giant stumbling block that occurs in the bible for aware modern man of recent times. Its an ongoing struggle to explain how the great invisible dude did all these wonderous things in 6 days when suddenly we have been slapped up side the face by the millions of prehistoric years........ now if Eve simply never ate that damn tempting fruit we would still be the equivelent of brain dead apes groveling happily at "his" invisable feet.... *leave it to a woman....


*not that I mean to imply the first testement of the bible reads as if it was written by self serving men

 

[Swabs]

I wish people would stop using the word "prove" in this debate.

 

[Wander]

I wish people would stop using the word "prove" in this debate.

I wish my wishes would come true.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

I wish the debate wasn't with a closed minded religious zealot, but wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which comes true.

 

[Horus]

wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which comes true.

Zach, that's brilliant.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

It's a very old saying, or at least variations thereof.