(January 10, 2016 at 7:30 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 7:26 pm)AAA Wrote: Yeah but what I said happened to that guy really did happen

Great - give us his name and whatever other information we can use to check out the story.

Richard M. Sternberg. I would go to his personal site, RichardSternberg.com, to get the most direct source of his explanation of his mistreatment.

(January 10, 2016 at 7:27 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 7:03 pm)AAA Wrote: The dude who first peer reviewed a paper that mentioned intelligent design was demoted, had his access to samples taken away, was put under supervision of others who disliked him, had his religious views investigated, and was eventually pressured to resign. People don't want that to happen to them, so the don't peer review it.

Ahh, the truth comes out. You think that people who disagree with ID are a big conspiracy set on destroying the US by disrupting pseudoscientific progress. I don't think they have some sinister plot and master plant to destroy fake science like you seem to think.

It happened though, so it isn't theory. Would you want those things to happen to you? Do you deny that they happened to him? Somebody had a sinister plot against him

(January 10, 2016 at 7:30 pm)AAA Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 7:25 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Doesn't matter what you agree. Only what you can demonstrate.

If you can't show it... you don't know it.

Fair enough. You can't demonstrate the type of evolution that I disagree with. You guys may be having trouble seeing that natural selection and mutation are not what I am arguing against. I am arguing against their ability to lead to the life we see (from some ancient ancestor). If you can't show it you don't know it may be true, but you can decide the most likely alternative based on the evidence. We will never be able to show the way that life was formed, therefore we will never know.

Therefore skydaddy... A concept infinitely more absurd which you're comfortable with without question.
We like to question.

(January 10, 2016 at 6:21 pm)AAA Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 2:30 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: I agree, I'm wondering how someone tells the difference between designed life and non designed life.

You don't, that's why you have to compare life's qualities to the qualities of things that we know were designed and things that we know were not and see which one it lines up better with.

With what are you comparing it to, an engine, a building, what qualities are you using to determine design.

(January 10, 2016 at 7:34 pm)AAA Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 7:30 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Great - give us his name and whatever other information we can use to check out the story.

Richard M. Sternberg. I would go to his personal site, RichardSternberg.com, to get the most direct source of his explanation of his mistreatment.

Don't need to, as I'm pretty familiar with the whole Sternberg mess. He's not a martyr, his religious beliefs weren't called into question, and he allowed to be published (without consultation or editorial review) a really lousy article.

Boru

(January 10, 2016 at 7:30 pm)AAA Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 7:25 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Doesn't matter what you agree. Only what you can demonstrate.

If you can't show it... you don't know it.

Fair enough. You can't demonstrate the type of evolution that I disagree with. You guys may be having trouble seeing that natural selection and mutation are not what I am arguing against. I am arguing against their ability to lead to the life we see (from some ancient ancestor). If you can't show it you don't know it may be true, but you can decide the most likely alternative based on the evidence. We will never be able to show the way that life was formed, therefore we will never know.

What's the next number in the following sequence?

2, 4, 6, 8, 10, ?

12, right? How did you know? Because you saw a pattern there and kept going with it. There was no reason for you to think "no, the pattern needs to change now, so the answer is 13 (for example)"

Now think about this regarding evolution on the macro scale. You didn't see ancestral apes evolving into homo sapiens or some other "macro" species evolving into another species, but we do see clear patterns in this world shown that clearly suggest that macro species do over time evolve into new species through various generations.

Whatever pattern you see in "micro evolution" shouldn't all of a sudden without reason be stopped so that macro evolution never happens. That's just forcing an obstacle here it has not been shown to the case that there is one.

(January 10, 2016 at 7:55 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 7:34 pm)AAA Wrote: Richard M. Sternberg. I would go to his personal site, RichardSternberg.com, to get the most direct source of his explanation of his mistreatment.

Don't need to, as I'm pretty familiar with the whole Sternberg mess. He's not a martyr, his religious beliefs weren't called into question, and he allowed to be published (without consultation or editorial review) a really lousy article.

Boru

Looks like our friend got conned by Ben Stein.

(January 10, 2016 at 7:56 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 7:30 pm)AAA Wrote: Fair enough. You can't demonstrate the type of evolution that I disagree with. You guys may be having trouble seeing that natural selection and mutation are not what I am arguing against. I am arguing against their ability to lead to the life we see (from some ancient ancestor). If you can't show it you don't know it may be true, but you can decide the most likely alternative based on the evidence. We will never be able to show the way that life was formed, therefore we will never know.

What's the next number in the following sequence?

2, 4, 6, 8, 10, ?

12, right? How did you know? Because you saw a pattern there and kept going with it. There was no reason for you to think "no, the pattern needs to change now, so the answer is 13 (for example)"

Now think about this regarding evolution on the macro scale. You didn't see ancestral apes evolving into homo sapiens or some other "macro" species evolving into another species, but we do see clear patterns in this world shown that clearly suggest that macro species do over time evolve into new species through various generations.

Whatever pattern you see in "micro evolution" shouldn't all of a sudden without reason be stopped so that macro evolution never happens. That's just forcing an obstacle here it has not been shown to the case that there is one.

That could easily be used for the intelligence design argument. We see qualities typically associated with things we know to be designed present in life. Should we then dismiss the logical causal link because we cannot prove it?

(January 10, 2016 at 6:13 pm)AAA 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.

Please give me the evidence that makes you think that the neo-Darwinian evolution account for life's diversity is correct? Don't tell me that I'm ignoring the evidence when you robvalue in particular have not responded to me directly. I responded to one of your "poor design" statements with quite a few examples of what can be interpreted as inexplicable design. You never responded, yet you keep going on implying that you know more about science than me. You have me on ignore because you don't want to argue the evidence. I think you know that I am more knowledgeable about biology than you, so you just slap and run.

You keep insisting that your examples are of "inexplicable design". How the hell do you know that? How can anyone decide what is inexplicable just because they cannot explain it? Moroever, if you cannot explain something, then you have no business declaring it "designed"!

Where's the blueprints?

WERE YOU THERE?

(January 10, 2016 at 7:50 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 6:21 pm)AAA Wrote: You don't, that's why you have to compare life's qualities to the qualities of things that we know were designed and things that we know were not and see which one it lines up better with.

With what are you comparing it to, an engine, a building, what qualities are you using to determine design.

More like Digital code where instructions are present in the form of a specific sequence of characters that lead to a desired function.