(May 20, 2016 at 10:42 am)Crossless1 Wrote:

(May 20, 2016 at 10:37 am)AAA Wrote: Ok, well my biochemistry textbook has chapters called: the molecular design of life, and basic concepts and design of metabolism.

What's the name of the textbook, and who edited it?

Biochemistry a short course, third edition. Authors: John Tymoczko, Jeremy Berg, Lubert Stryer

(May 19, 2016 at 11:11 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Step One: Make an unfounded assertion of "facts" that are simply not in evidence, or better yet, garble your scientific definitions so you can chop down that strawman you've built by using those new "facts" you just invented.

(For instance, "Mutation and natural selection has not been shown to be sufficient to account for the complexity of living systems.")

Oh? Since mutation literally means any change in the sequence of the DNA during copying, what other mechanism of change in the DNA do you think we're overlooking, to drive the evolution which we observe happening over time? Is it magic? Oh, I hope it's magic!

Do you mean point mutations cannot account for the rapid changes we see? Well, that's quite true, and is usually the source of the quote-mining where you say "See? Professor McGenius says it's not enough!" Except you ignore that other mechanisms are proposed immediately afterward (and they turn out to not be magic, much to my chagrin, every time) to explain what is actually driving the rapid changes, such as homeotic developmental "instructions" in particular gene sets, in which small DNA changes result in huge phenotype shifts.

Step Two: Quote-mine small, out-of-context snippets from prominent scientists, then distort what they're saying so you can make it seem like your side is bravely and brilliantly pointing out the "flaws" in the scientific method (which you claim to be practicing) and models.

When the proper context of the quotes is tiresomely tracked down by the skeptics to whom you present this bullshit, and the actual information presented to you, you just deny the new information is valid, or you simply pretend you didn't say it, didn't make the mistake, and move on to the next quote mine, which leads to...

Step Three: Machine-gun lots of large, complicated-to-answer questions at your opponents. If they bother to track down and demonstrate your interpretations of that information are either in ignorance or simply full of crap, just move quickly on to the next "gotcha" question, thinking that THIS one will be the one that brings down that dastardly, godless evil-lushun. If they don't want to take the time to find the information you're asking for, don't want to give the equivalent of a semester-long course on genetics to answer it, and ask why you don't just look it up yourself, then you DECLARE VICTORY!, as if their fatigue at your slanted approach means it's really the right answer, after all.

Step Four: Pat yourself on the back for all the extra effort you went through, being ridiculed for thinking that there's a magical explanation anywhere we don't have 100% of the answers (and, based on your past appearances here, even in some places where we do have the actual, non-magical answers), and trying to bring "Tha Laht of da Lawrd" to a gawdless, heathen science-world with no magic in it.

Step Five: Be sure to reassure yourself, preferably in a mirror for extra effect, that even though you're out of touch with 99.9999% of the biologists in your field, worldwide, it's really your tiny little group of rebels and their belief in magic that are the True Scientists™... even if, as Michael Behe admitted on the stand, you're all using a definition of science that would include Astrology and Fortune Telling within its sweep.

GTFOH with that.

Ok, you honestly think that mutations and natural selection have been shown to lead to the types of things that we see in molecular biology? That would be wishful thinking.

Also I know there are more than just point mutations. Way to just put words in my mouth then go off defeating that. Also I agree that changes in regulatory sequences can lead to huge phenotypic changes. But I don't think that the changes in the actual gene sequences will.

You're pretty condescending for a retired biologist. You laugh at me saying biologists say life has design features, but my textbooks literally have chapters and units called Molecular Design of Life. Am I supposed to believe that you are a more credible biologist than them? I don't think I should.  Also you should know that the way to solve a problem is to approach it from multiple perspectives. But you want to not allow that for some reason. Some scientist you must have been. If we all had your mindset, science would halt.

(May 20, 2016 at 9:22 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Not intelligently designed, and Dawkins carefully explained it gives the appearance of design, not actual design. There are problems of language when an insensate natural process results in features that look designed but the word implies intention when natural algorithms in play have no intention. To use that linguistic imprecision to generate an equivalency between 'design' as used by Dawkins and 'design' as used by the Discovery Institute is a Fallacy of Equivocation.

I never was trying to say Dawkins thought it was intelligently designed. Obviously he thinks it was designed by natural selection and mutation.

(May 20, 2016 at 9:54 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(May 19, 2016 at 5:33 pm)AAA Wrote: Well Dawkins does.

LOL!  TripleA come ON.  You are actually trying to tell people on an Atheist forum that Richard Dawkins is an intelligent design proponent?    This is just...the saddest thing ever.  You've either never read a thing he's authored or you're just a bold-faced liar, and a STUPID liar if you thought such a ludicrous misrepresentation of his words would ever fly here.  

And actually...I remember this whole Dawkins nonsense coming from you four or so months ago, and you were corrected.  It's like you've got a script somewhere or something.  Now I'm leaning heavily toward "troll".

NOOOOOO. You should go read the last posts. I was saying his statement implies that he thinks natural selection and mutation is a designing force.

(May 20, 2016 at 9:22 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

AAA Wrote:

Not intelligently designed, and Dawkins carefully explained it gives the appearance of design, not actual design. There are problems of language when an insensate natural process results in features that look designed but the word implies intention when natural algorithms in play have no intention. To use that linguistic imprecision to generate an equivalency between 'design' as used by Dawkins and 'design' as used by the Discovery Institute is a Fallacy of Equivocation.

And it's on purpose, and it's not the first time he's done it:

Direct quote from AAA out of the most recent "Intelligent Design" thread back in November:

"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?"

He knows exactly what he's doing.

(May 20, 2016 at 11:14 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(May 20, 2016 at 9:22 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Not intelligently designed, and Dawkins carefully explained it gives the appearance of design, not actual design. There are problems of language when an insensate natural process results in features that look designed but the word implies intention when natural algorithms in play have no intention. To use that linguistic imprecision to generate an equivalency between 'design' as used by Dawkins and 'design' as used by the Discovery Institute is a Fallacy of Equivocation.

And it's on purpose, and it's not the first time he's done it:

Direct quote from AAA out of the most recent "Intelligent Design" thread back in November:

"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?"

He knows exactly what he's doing.

Yep. And that's why I mock and condescend to him. And rather enjoy his "innocent" protestations. 

I have no patience for people who refer to a generic chapter title, and use false equivalence arguments that have been debunked here (and everywhere else), and who disrespect the work of those scientists and authors by misrepresenting the claims they make.

People like this deserve nothing but scorn.

Meanwhile, the only 'evidence' for the Intelligent Designer (*cough*Yahweh*cough*) is the appearance of design. We know that mutations are real; we know that natural selection is a thing; we know that natural algorithms lack intention. What we don't have is any good evidence that there is intentionality behind the design we apprehend -- nothing other than an argument from personal incredulity.

Parsimony. It's a bitch.

(May 20, 2016 at 11:18 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(May 20, 2016 at 11:14 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: And it's on purpose, and it's not the first time he's done it:

Direct quote from AAA out of the most recent "Intelligent Design" thread back in November:

"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?"

He knows exactly what he's doing.

Yep. And that's why I mock and condescend to him. And rather enjoy his "innocent" protestations. 

I have no patience for people who refer to a generic chapter title, and use false equivalence arguments that have been debunked here (and everywhere else), and who disrespect the work of those scientists and authors by misrepresenting the claims they make.

People like this deserve nothing but scorn.

Ugh...what is their end game then, if it's intentional?  In AAA's case, is it just to stir the pot for the fun of it?  Or do you think he actually believes he can sucker someone into believing?

(May 20, 2016 at 11:23 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Ugh...what is their end game then, if it's intentional?  In AAA's case, is it just to stir the pot for the fun of it?  Or do you think he actually believes he can sucker someone into believing?

Part of it is simply fooling themselves. They work in small social circles of like-minded persons, and they repeat something "around the circle" until everyone THEY know agrees with it, so Therefore It Must Be True™. This is commonly found in religion-based universities, but is not unique to them. After a while, they think they represent a valid counter-view because they've managed to block out the counter-narrative. [Edit to Add: The "counter-narrative" here being the actual, primary narrative that they're trying to block. Sorry for the poor phrasing!]

The other part of it is why I constantly refer people to the Wedge Document, in which the ID/IC Creationists deliberately set about to create enough "static" (by which I mean plausible sounding "alternatives" that fool most laypersons) in order to keep the public convinced that there's serious debate on this topic going on, among scientists/academics. Giving the appearance of an ongoing controversy gives them the courtroom argument (or so they think; it continues to be rejected soundly by even the most conservative judges) that they should be able to have their ID Creationism taught alongside evolution. In other words, it gives their magic-based ideas access to the children in a school setting.

Since they're obviously aware, at some level, that their religion dies the moment it can't brainwash young minds, this is an important struggle for them. They need youngsters like AAA most of all, people willing to skew everything they read through the preset filter of their religion, and to churn out the highest degree (pun intended) of "legitimacy" to their arguments that they can produce, after going through college for the purpose of "fighting the good fight".

The sad part is, they lie so much and skew their views so much and for so long that they cease to realize they are Lying For Jesus™, and cannot accept that fact when others point it out to them. So you wind up with a "rinse and repeat" like this guy.

(May 20, 2016 at 11:18 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(May 20, 2016 at 11:14 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: And it's on purpose, and it's not the first time he's done it:

Direct quote from AAA out of the most recent "Intelligent Design" thread back in November:

"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?"

He knows exactly what he's doing.

Yep. And that's why I mock and condescend to him. And rather enjoy his "innocent" protestations. 

I have no patience for people who refer to a generic chapter title, and use false equivalence arguments that have been debunked here (and everywhere else), and who disrespect the work of those scientists and authors by misrepresenting the claims they make.

People like this deserve nothing but scorn.

You're the one who thinks there is no evidence of design in nature. If you don't like their chapter titles, then take it up with them. They don't believe in intelligent design, but don't laugh when I say scientists think it has features of design. If they didn't want their chapter titles to be repeated, then they shouldn't have called them that. Are you seriously going to tell me that life doesn't have features of design?