(January 10, 2016 at 12:52 am)AAA Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 11:55 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: That is exactly what you don't understand. Perhaps you never took a good look at the history of life history, as paleobiologists understand it, but from what they can see they believe our planet's 4.5 billion year history is quite more than enough time for life to evolve and become just as it is.


You say you are a student in your field now, and most of your elders there disagree. You need to listen to them more, and opinionate less.

It's not that I don't understand with their position, it is just that I disagree. It's not that the only two options are agree with evolution or not understand it. It can be wrong. Here's what I'm getting from what you are saying: Don't question any scientific theory even if it is on scientific grounds. You must agree with everything you are told and never look at the evidence for yourself.

You should not put words in other people's mouths.

I'm going to spell it out for you plain - you admit to understanding the position of those with far more experience and collective intelligence than you, but you disagree for strictily willful reasons. This must be so because you have not, and cannot provide one single convincing fact which does any better than lay bare your misunderstanding of your field.

(January 10, 2016 at 2:06 am)robvalue Wrote: Has AAA mentioned yet what difference it makes if life does turn out to be designed by some sort of intelligence? Just interested if there is any point whatsoever behind this obsession with trying to poison one specific piece of science. Why is it always this one, I wonder? Could it be because it makes the bible look stupid as a side effect? Yes, I think it is. But he's using science to disprove science, by assuming all the rest of science is correct while it would also fall into being useless according to all these "objections". Someone has objected to it, at some point! You can always find someone who thinks gravity isn't real or whatever. What, they aren't a real scientist just because they say that?

I have him on ignore, I'm having a hard time believing he is any kind of science student. If he is, he needs to seriously learn from what people are trying to tell him here. Or the only kind of "science" he'll be doing is creationist science. He seems wholly unconcerned with evidence and instead treats science like some kind of popularity contest. I suppose it is possible to study the theory without knowing much about how science actually works.

Have you seen this?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

It's an organized effort to ruin science, just as AAA and Behe are using. There's nothing the least bit misguided about what Behe's employer, the Discovery Institute has been doing - it's an intentional assault on worldwide intellectual culture, and its success in the US is truly frightening!

(January 10, 2016 at 1:43 am)AAA Wrote: Natural selection and mutation are fact. Whether they can lead to improved information content in the organism is up for debate.

Okay, listen... I just got back to this thread, there's pages I haven't read yet, but is this seriously a contention you're making based on your understanding of evolutionary theory? Have you unambiguously defined what you think evolution is here yet?

Because I challenge you to find one single mainstream definition of evolution that even used the words "improved information content," let alone asserts that evolution necessitates that.

(January 9, 2016 at 7:40 pm)AAA Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 7:22 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: What I do know for sure is what you don't know. You admit to that, but still you make the claim of "design". What can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence, therefore, I need not prove you are wrong, but why do you maintain your assertion? If you don't know, then you just don't know!

It isn't without evidence. Did you read the last response where I listed many intricate systems? Can you honestly tell me that it doesn't at least give the appearance of design? Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges that life gives the appearance of being designed for a purpose. He just thinks that this is an illusion. It is not irrational or an assertion to say that the appearance of design may be due to the fact that it was designed. Why do I have to do mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious conclusion to try to find some other answer that may or may not exist?

It becomes an irrational assertion when you hold fast to it despite strong evidence to the contrary, as in evolution. Dawkins doesn't just "think" it is an illusion of design. He used his critical thinking skills and available scientific evidence to come to the most reasonable conclusion.

(January 10, 2016 at 12:25 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 7:40 pm)AAA Wrote: It isn't without evidence. Did you read the last response where I listed many intricate systems? Can you honestly tell me that it doesn't at least give the appearance of design? Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges that life gives the appearance of being designed for a purpose. He just thinks that this is an illusion. It is not irrational or an assertion to say that the appearance of design may be due to the fact that it was designed. Why do I have to do mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious conclusion to try to find some other answer that may or may not exist?

It becomes an irrational assertion when you hold fast to it despite strong evidence to the contrary, as in evolution.  Dawkins doesn't just "think" it is an illusion of design.  He used his critical thinking skills and available scientific evidence to come to the most reasonable conclusion.  

Reasoning in science? What a concept!

(January 10, 2016 at 12:28 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 12:25 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: It becomes an irrational assertion when you hold fast to it despite strong evidence to the contrary, as in evolution.  Dawkins doesn't just "think" it is an illusion of design.  He used his critical thinking skills and available scientific evidence to come to the most reasonable conclusion.  

Reasoning in science? What a concept!

Lol! Not after the theists get their sticky Jesus fingers all over it!

(January 10, 2016 at 12:01 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 2:06 am)robvalue Wrote: Has AAA mentioned yet what difference it makes if life does turn out to be designed by some sort of intelligence? Just interested if there is any point whatsoever behind this obsession with trying to poison one specific piece of science. Why is it always this one, I wonder? Could it be because it makes the bible look stupid as a side effect? Yes, I think it is. But he's using science to disprove science, by assuming all the rest of science is correct while it would also fall into being useless according to all these "objections". Someone has objected to it, at some point! You can always find someone who thinks gravity isn't real or whatever. What, they aren't a real scientist just because they say that?

I have him on ignore, I'm having a hard time believing he is any kind of science student. If he is, he needs to seriously learn from what people are trying to tell him here. Or the only kind of "science" he'll be doing is creationist science. He seems wholly unconcerned with evidence and instead treats science like some kind of popularity contest. I suppose it is possible to study the theory without knowing much about how science actually works.

Have you seen this?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

It's an organized effort to ruin science, just as AAA and Behe are using. There's nothing the least bit misguided about what Behe's employer, the Discovery Institute has been doing - it's an intentional assault on worldwide intellectual culture, and its success in the US is truly frightening!

No, I've not heard of that, ugh

The principal behind it I've heard an awful lot though. I think this is likely to blow up in their face and reveal their utter ignorance and desperation, as the new generation seems to be generally more enlightened.

(January 10, 2016 at 12:25 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 7:40 pm)AAA Wrote: It isn't without evidence. Did you read the last response where I listed many intricate systems? Can you honestly tell me that it doesn't at least give the appearance of design? Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges that life gives the appearance of being designed for a purpose. He just thinks that this is an illusion. It is not irrational or an assertion to say that the appearance of design may be due to the fact that it was designed. Why do I have to do mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious conclusion to try to find some other answer that may or may not exist?

It becomes an irrational assertion when you hold fast to it despite strong evidence to the contrary, as in evolution.  Dawkins doesn't just "think" it is an illusion of design.  He used his critical thinking skills and available scientific evidence to come to the most reasonable conclusion.  

Quite apart from which, Prof Dawkins goes on to say that the appearance of being designed for a purpose is deceptive, because we know the mechanisms by which the organisms came about naturally. I actually posted a video of him expanding on this very thing about a fortnight ago. AAA is basically quotemining at this point.

(January 10, 2016 at 1:35 pm)robvalue Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 12:01 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Have you seen this?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

It's an organized effort to ruin science, just as AAA and Behe are using. There's nothing the least bit misguided about what Behe's employer, the Discovery Institute has been doing - it's an intentional assault on worldwide intellectual culture, and its success in the US is truly frightening!

No, I've not heard of that, ugh

The principal behind it I've heard an awful lot though. I think this is likely to blow up in their face and reveal their utter ignorance and desperation, as the new generation seems to be generally more enlightened.

What I'm afraid of is that the new generation, although much more educated and open-minded to different ideas, may also turn out overwhelmingly confused by what the Discovery Institute has been doing to science since the 1990's. Most of them watch cable TV pseudoscience (which is what most of is in TV-Land), and most are liable to be still much more willing to believe AAA's line of reasoning, just because it makes them feel better to believe they aren't alone in the universe, whether or not they waste their time and money in churches or any sort of religious venue. Asshat science such as AAA is spouting is very well crafted to fool those who are not extensively educated in biology - as a lay person with only 6 unused college credits in that field (decades ago), I don't know enough to effectively unpack it all, and would have to consider some of it further but for there being better reason to trust the majority opinion of qualified biologists, especially those not working for the American right wing. Most people never take any biology after high school, which means they won't easily know the difference. DI tactics are largely responsible for the waves of medical quackery which their highly-publicized bullshit has opened the door wide open to, and I sure don't want to see mainstream medicine become infected by it as I age!

(January 10, 2016 at 1:46 am)ApeNotKillApe Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 1:43 am)AAA Wrote: Natural selection and mutation are fact. Whether they can lead to improved information content in the organism is up for debate.

Define 'information' and 'improved'.

I've done definitions dozens of times to different people, and it doesn't lead anywhere. Improved in the sense that a sequence that doesn't lead to a functional protein can ever get to the point where the protein is functional. Information in the sense that the sequence of nucleotides leads to specified structures with specified functions.