Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(August 21, 2016 at 11:49 am)The_Empress Wrote: If you haven't seen this, get ready to rage:
I'm embarrassed to admit how much of this I actually got through, considering the entirety of the conversation can be summed up as a reoccuring cycle of "show me the evidence" ... "here's the evidence" ... "nope not evidence, show me the evidence".... "here's other evidence" ... etc
seriously do you the look in her eyes it's like the lights are on but nobodies home
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
(August 21, 2016 at 12:56 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Creationism gives me ass cancer in my turtle balls.
Oh shut up, you have a foreign sounding name, just convert and speak American. Pay no attention to the orange science denying asshole demagogue behind you. That is just stop and frisk. Hey, rich people can get away with that.
(November 29, 2016 at 1:06 pm)Orochi Wrote: And there is only ONE scientist qualified to speak on it academically who I know of who supports intelligent design. That is Michael Behe. During the Dover trial he was forced to admit on the stand that by the definition of "science" he had to use to include intelligent design as being a science, astrology would also be a science. The study of what kind of day I would have based on the stars in the sky on the day I was born is science. Intelligent design is textbook special pleading. We need to lower scientific standards to allow this to be a science because evolution hurts my feelings.
I realized that I forgot to comment about this.
I had not heard this quote; I have browsed over the conclusions and generals of the Dover case, but haven't really reviewed it all in depth. Most of it, I didn't find pertaining to Intelligent Design; but the individual case, and I would likely ruled against the school in this case as well.
However; as to your quote.
Welcome to the problem of the demarcation of Science.
I was curious, so I looked up the definition that he gave.
Behe Wrote:Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences.
I would largely agree with that definition. (I would encourage you to look up dictionary definitions and compare as well).
But then again, I don't define "science" as what works, or what is true, or based on it's conclusion. I think that science deals with the method and subject of inquiry.
I don't think that if two groups of scientist are studying the same topic, and come to different conclusions (sometimes from the same experiments), that at least one of them are no longer preforming science (or should not be called scientists. I also don't think that what was once considered science, because of consensus, suddenly becomes not science, as new information is. Perhaps the definition may change and things need to be re-evaluated; but whatever it was, hasn't changed at all.
Behe Further States Wrote:There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
So in saying that it meets the definition; does not mean that it is good science. I think that the contention could be made, that the inferences made by astrology also don't meet that definition (Behe was mistaken in saying that it did).
In light of this, I find your argument "the stand that by the definition of "science" he had to use to include intelligent design as being a science, astrology would also be a science" to be a little self serving and not entirely accurate.
So to justify your irrational belief in creatardism, you cite as authority a charlatan who not only redifined words solely to give creatardism a fake veneer of scientific plausibility, but eventually had to admit under oath that creatardism doesn't even satisfy his reduced criteria for scientificality?
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think that you are missing the point. And as an engineer, I can tell you that there are always limits, that you need to work within. And I don't think that they are saying that it is impossible to be otherwise, but there is a pretty good sample size, to say that in humans; melanin varies skin color within a certain range. If you think otherwise, then the onus is on you, to either provide evidence that it has occured, or show your reasons, that you think it is likely (a just so story, doesn't cut it for me).
What a coincidence. I also have an engineering degree. And mine also isn't in biology or genetics. Electronics for me. Fun fact, electronic engineers have this saying; "If you aren't smart enough to be an electronic engineer, be a mechanical engineer."
That is a coincidence... Electronics here as well. Although I work mostly now, with machine controls and, do not get into circuit boards very often (and would certainly take some work to do so). Although working with machine controls does require a certain level of multi-disciplinary aptitude, to know about what you are controlling and the consequences of actions.
Quote:
The "limits" you are talking about as an engineer, at least in mechanics and electronics, have NOTHING to do with genetics. They are simple and clearly defined. You can't make a part larger than the space which would contain it, for instance. Pretty straight forward. But that is NOT what they are saying. Your response here is just a clever way to try to slightly shift the claim they made to put the burden of proof onto me. But I never said that it could happen because it did, nor did I even say it is likely. I said nothing even REMOTELY close to what you are saying there, and you are SERIOUSLY downplaying what they are saying.
What they are saying is essentially that it is IMPOSSIBLE for humans to be any other color and, as proof, they are showing that humans have never been any other color (not entirely true. We have had orange and even blue people, but their coloration was not due to genetics). What I am saying is that historical precedence is not the same as a "limit". To show that something has never happened does not show that it cannot happen. "Has not" and "can not" are not equivalent.
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: And if you think they are inccorrect to be saying that their are limits to extrapolation, please explain why?
Because only this fringe group, made up of "not geneticists", believe this.
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I have found often, when engineering machine controls, that a customer wants to make a slight modification. Sometimes it is easy, and sometimes, they do not realize the many, many underlying changes that need to take place for what appears to be a simple change (sometimes, it is easier to start over, than to modify). I do think that he is correct, in that the change being extrapolated from what is seen in natural variations is incorrect and hasn't be demonstrated or justified.
Based on your vast experience in genetics? Being an engineer, your ONLY experience is that of "design". You have no experience or qualifications to speak about genetics.
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't deny that the signifigant majority of scientist say that they believe in evolution. And normally in this case, it is not explicit by what they mean by evolution. And I think that there are a number of reasons, for why they might say this. Some have studied the topic, and truly believe they are correct. I think that some are just repeating what they have been taught, and there are some that may fear backlash, from opposing the common dogma of the day.
That is not quite accurate. They don't "believe in evolution". They accept evolution as a valid theory and the best scientific theory currently available to explain changes in life over time. What they mean IS "explicit". They accept the theory of evolution as reality.
I don't think you have the slightest clue how the scientific process works. Scientists don't just "repeat what they are taught". It's not like their schooling in evolution is "evolution is real". They learn why. If they don't understand why then they're useless as scientists because science is about discovery, not repeating beliefs. That's church. The idea that there are scientists out there who fear a backlash and are afraid to speak out is pure fantasy. There was a hole lot of "I think" in those statements. Why? Ask yourself honestly, to you "think" these things because you have seen evidence to suggest these things, or is it simply what you would like to believe? I already know the answer to that. I have looked into this subject in depth and I KNOW that you are wrong.
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: If you would have just said, that it makes accurate predictions, then I probably could of guessed, that you would have mentioned Tiktaalik (either that or it would be talking about evolution that no one questions and is demonstrable). And unfortunately from more recent findings, he is a few million years late, and an ocean or so away from the first tetrapods. I do find that most of the evidence however does boil down to, this kinda looks like this, and therefore common descent. Unless of course, it doesn't fit the model, and walla they look a like because of convergent evolution.
Lol, I get my information from scientists. You get yours from the Discovery Institute. Scientists have a vested interest in the science being correct so that it is useful. The Discovery Institute has a vested interest in a 6 day creation. Which do you think is less biased on the matter of evolution?
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: As to the lists, I think that there only use is to show what people do say they believe X. After that, I am going to look at their reasons, and not argumentum ad populum.
I'm going to squash that bullshit right here. Science IS NOT argumentum ad populum. This is the way the scientific process works, and it DOES WORK. Scientific consensus is not arguing that something is correct simply because most scientists believe it, it is saying that it has passed rigorous scientific testing. It is a PROVEN METHOD of discovery. Argumentum ad populum refers to people "in general". In fact it literally translates into "appeal to the people", which is EXACTLY what intelligent design proponents are doing.
Quote:What's the difference between most people believe X and scientific consensus which is, at the end of the day, most scientists believe X? Doesn't this make out scientists to be somehow superior to the rest of the population?
There are two significant differences:
Scientific consensus doesn't claim to be true, it claims to be our best understanding currently held by those who study the matter. Scientific claims for truth are always tentative rather than final, even if they are often very impressive tentative claims for truth.
Scientific consensus is built upon a foundation of logic and systematic evidence - the scientific method - rather than popular prejudice. The consensus comes not from blindly agreeing with those in authority, but from having their claims to be thoroughly reviewed and criticised by their peers. (Note that even long-established scientific consensus can be overthrown by better logic and better evidence typically preceded by anomalous research findings.)
That you would stoop to making a fallacious argument that scientific consensus is a fallacious argument speaks mountains of your motives here.
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: As to controversy in the descent from darwin list, I know there are some which are argued have deceased since signing the list, and there are some who have asked to be removed from the list and have. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/ans...94331.html If there remains a significant number who do not wish to be on the list, who are they?
I never made that claim.
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: You also bring up the topic of qualification of those who signed. I would be careful here, as a computer scientist, may have more to say than you think concerning evolution, and may have expertise which is valid concerning the changes required in the neo-darwinian model and also in detecting design from random noise.
Where the hell did you get an engineering degree? Clown school? With an engineering degree in electronics I am not qualified to give an opinion on materials or designs in mechanics. Likewise, a computer scientists is NEVER qualified to challenge a PhD in biology on matters of biology. Do you understand what the word "qualified" even means? No, a computer scientists is not qualified to speak on biology and genetics any more than a plumber is qualified to design a car engine. I don't need to "be careful" when stating cold, hard FACTS.
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: You may also be making an assumption, that because their degree is in computer science, that they have not studied the relevant material or are making an informed decision.
I am not making that assumption, I simply don't care. What they have or have not studied is irrelevant. I studied the hell out of it and I am not qualified. You seem to be confused as to what constitutes "qualification". Open your own medical practice and you'll figure it out real quick.
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Similarly Faz Rana is listed under his major of chemistry. Now the case could be made that chemistry has quite a bit to do with evolution (specifically darwinian evolution), but this also ignores that fact, that his focus has been in bio-chemistry, and it was this study, that lead him away from evolutionary theory. For more on chemistry concerns in evolution see here ( http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...e-details/ )
You are focusing on the minutia here because the "big picture" doesn't agree with you. And you are making an assumption that his study in biochemistry is what lead him to disbelieve evolution when, in fact, he almost certainly already had his mystical creationist beliefs BEFORE studying chemistry. Someone with a degree in biochemistry is qualified to speak on matters biological, including evolution. But one drop of fresh water in the sea does not mean the sea is "wrong".
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: This brings up a last point concerning the list, their is a difference in the description on the list. The Descent from Darwin list, focuses more narrowly on the darwinian (or neo-darwinian) model. One can believe in common descent, and still reject the neo-darwinian explanation. I was reading the other day, where Larry Moran say's, that he would sign the list, but believes that it would be misconstrued as supporting creationism. The list of Steve's (I believe) only mentions evolution, in which depending on the meaning, I may agree, I may be skeptical, or I may disagree. I think that is an issue, in that evolution can have different meanings, and often a bait and switch is used, to take one meaning, which has very little controversy, and then transfer that to other meanings, where there is more controversy.
"Evolution" does have many meanings, convoluted by those who oppose "the theory of evolution", which is a singular, well-defined thing. It is a bait and switch, but not by scientists. The theory of evolution covers the whole of what you're talking about here.
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Do you think that if there is scientific information, which weakens the case for evolution, that it should not be taught along with the evidence for it?
No. Prevailing theory is what should be taught to school children. Anyone can claim that they have "scientific information which weakens the case" for some science. In fact, that is EXACTLY what ID proponents did, EVEN THOUGH it was in reality creationism in disguise. There was a smoking gun, irrefutable proof that ID was creationism repackaged. The problem you run into is, what constitutes "scientific information"? Who determines that? Apparently religious organizations with a vested interest in refuting the science and computer scientists with no related training. What is the purpose of teaching this "scientific information" to children? Quark theory was first proposed in 1964, but when I went to high school in the '80s there was nobody saying that I should be taught quark theory along side electron theory because some believed the electron wasn't the smallest particle. And today, kids ARE taught quark theory and they are NOT taught, as I was, that the electron is the smallest particle. Why is that? Because IT WAS NOT IMPORTANT to me, a high school student, to know and understand that the information I was being given may be outdated and showed to be wrong in 20 years. Electron theory worked fine for what I would use it for in my classes. I was a high school kid, not a particle physicist. I didn't need to know, nobody cared that I didn't know, I wasn't qualified to determine which was correct and I would STILL be in high school if I had to learn about every competing theory out there.
So your question is really a dishonest one. It's really special pleading in disguise. 30 years from now quark theory may be deposed, or even relativity. There are competing theories. But evolution is the only science you care about, the only one "special" enough to deserve a deeper look, specifically into any and every competing "theory", including and especially those on the very fringe of the subject. You're asking if I think, specifically, "negative arguments" for evolution should be taught and, not, I do not think non-scientific arguments should be taught in science class. There IS NO competing theory for evolution. There is nothing. ID is not a scientific theory, it is creationism. That is as plain as the nose on your face. True, it talks about the "designer" instead of the "creator". But would you go to the middle of the Pacific Ocean with me on a DESIGN for a rock-solid boat, the two of us floating around on a bunch of pages filled with the most beautiful design for a boat you've ever seen? Design is pointless, meaningless without creation. And it is insinuated, if not outright said, that this designer is also the creator. From the book, Of Pandas and People I take this:
Quote:Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.
Various forms of life "began abruptly". Does that sound like what happens when you "design" something? Does my boat "begin abruptly" when I "design" it? The very definition of ID is clearly talking about creation, which IS NOT SCIENCE.
So your question, should "scientific information which weakens the case for evolution be taught", presumably to school children, is answered with a resounding "NO!" for many, many reasons. It's not taught with literally ANY OTHER science, nor is anyone proposing it should be. This "scientific information" comes, not from "scientific" sources, but religious sources. A high school class is not the proper forum for debating the validity of a scientific theory. And ID is attempting to bypass the scientific community altogether and be taught directly without due process or peer review. There is no reason to teach this garbage in high school any more than there is reason to teach that an alien named Xenu dropped human souls into a volcano on earth and those souls escaped, flew up the asses of monkeys and that caused evolution into humans.
To be honest, while you may speak boldly and confidently; I think your premises, that you are not only unqualified, but incapable of understanding these things, makes everything else you are saying moot. Thus as long as you hold to this, it is going to be a very short conversation.
Don't get me wrong; there are a number of places, where I must rely on the information given by the experts. I'm not going to be extracting and examining the make up of chromsome 2. I wouldn't have the first clue on where to begin. But that doesn't mean that I cannot take the information and explanations, to evaluate an inference from that info. If one is not willing to give reason for why I should believe their claim, then I don't feel inclined to follow them.
I'm curious, RoadRunner, if you had to have an organ transplant, would you try and interpret how it's done and tell the doctor your opinion, or would you simply rely on his scientific expertise? Why is it that people that complain about the subjectivity of interpreting science have no problem going to see a medical scientist when they're sick and relying on their expertise? If you had to have knee surgery, would you rely on an astrophysicist to do it?
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
(December 9, 2016 at 11:24 am)Faith No More Wrote: I'm curious, RoadRunner, if you had to have an organ transplant, would you try and interpret how it's done and tell the doctor your opinion, or would you simply rely on his scientific expertise? Why is it that people that complain about the subjectivity of interpreting science have no problem going to see a medical scientist when they're sick and relying on their expertise? If you had to have knee surgery, would you rely on an astrophysicist to do it?
.. or just ask the local congregation to pray for him?
