32
   

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2014 04:43 am
That seems to me to be a reasonable surmise. We had someone here who argued the anti-evolution case fairly well, although with the complete array of dishonesty--partial quotes, quote mining, willful misinterpretation. He used the screen name "real life," and for all that he was a snake oil salesman, he never denied his god three time before the cock crew. He became very worked up over the possibility of Mr. Obama being elected, however, and we have not seen him since late 2008.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2014 04:50 am
@Setanta,
Maybe he "evolved" into a sentient form...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2014 05:29 am
Let's not go overboard here . . .
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2014 01:43 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
You don't have enough knowledge about science
     About Cosmology - perhaps yes, but is it really a science?
FBM wrote:
to post anything interesting or even intelligible.
     So and so you are posting continuously very interesting & intelligible references, can you tell without subtitles what are your personal assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory'?
FBM wrote:
Glad to know that you're a fellow non-believer, though. Sorry about the mixup.
     You don't understand something - an agnostic is not non-believer - he simply assigns probability to various hypothesis - and my personal are 45% God or some meta-intelligence (string theory or s.th.); 30% another ILF, sending the designs on the Earth even through some form of teleportation or another form of encoded communication (it might have extinct already by the time the information has came here), and perhaps 25% of the Big Bang and the theory that we are made out of star dust (whatever this might mean) and fused with the time by the Dark Energy and Dark Matter.
FBM wrote:
You don't have enough knowledge
      ... At least I have enough knowledge to distinguish and to see what I don't know, and to avoid denying a priori any of the hypotheses in order to present myself a great scientist of seventh star magnitude.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2014 05:54 pm
@Herald,
Quote:
my personal are 45% God or some meta-intelligence (string theory or s.th.);


Reification. Look it up. String theory is not an intelligent entity.

Quote:
30% another ILF, sending the designs on the Earth even through some form of teleportation or another form of encoded communication (it might have extinct already by the time the information has came here),


Cool. All you need to do is present some evidence to support that.

Quote:
and perhaps 25% of the Big Bang and the theory that we are made out of star dust (whatever this might mean) and fused with the time by the Dark Energy and Dark Matter.


The Standard Model, you mean. Rolling Eyes
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2014 06:42 pm
@Herald,
Quote:
we are made out of star dust (whatever this might mean)

That's because no heavy elements were made during the Big BAng. Heavy elements are a product of fusion in, and the death of stars
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2014 09:58 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Reification. Look it up. String theory is not an intelligent entity.
     Some people are claiming that the string theory is not only the theory of everything, but actually 'the mind of God'.
FBM wrote:
Cool. All you need to do is present some evidence to support that.
     The nanomechanics of the flagella of the bacteria cannot apear just so, by a lightning striking a bullion of various amino-acids, not to speak that the amino-acids themselves cannot appear just so, out of star dust. How many amino-acids have you made in the lab so far from any star dust? Can you repeat the experiment with the apperance of the bacteria in some lab - at a place without biosphere - on an asteroid or on the Moon, for example.
FBM wrote:
The Standard Model, you mean. Rolling Eyes
     Instead of rolling in ignorance, why don't you state out your own understanding of the assumtions of the Big Bang 'standard theory'. We have Time Zero, Ground Zero, Energy Zero - enters the Big Bang and starts performing various measures ... like creating the Universe, for example. How does that happen?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2014 10:10 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
Reification. Look it up. String theory is not an intelligent entity.
     Some people are claiming that the string theory is not only the theory of everything, but actually 'the mind of God'.


So what? People make all sorts of silly claims. Until there's evidence, it's just somebody's imagination.

FBM wrote:
Cool. All you need to do is present some evidence to support that.
Quote:
The nanomechanics of the flagella of the bacteria cannot apear just so, by a lightning striking a bullion of various amino-acids,...


So what? Nobody's claiming that it happened that way. Learn a little about scientists are actually saying instead of mocking up all these strawmen fallacies. You're just wasting time.

Quote:
why don't you state out your own understanding


Because my understanding is both inferior to and incomplete compared to the understandings of the greater minds whose work I present. We've been over this. Why do you insist on people presenting inferior thoughts? I'll present the best I can find, so get over yourself. You see, the facts don't give a **** about anyone's opinion. You've got the evidence or you don't. Period.

Quote:
...like creating the Universe, for example. How does that happen?


Good question. What's your answer?

Scientists are very clear about not knowing. They don't pretend to have an answer that they really don't have. That's why they still doing research: to find out. Like they did research to find out what causes polio, malaria, how to fuse and split atoms, etc, etc. Y'know, instead of just going by what some guy in a funny hat claims. Research. It's pretty good for finding things out. Myth. Not so much.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2014 10:16 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
That's because no heavy elements were made during the Big BAng.
     It is obvious that your 'standard' theory cannot make out of Ground Zero and Energy Zero directly Uranium 239 & Plutonium 242 .
     FM & your proselyte herein above, claim that your favourite 'standard' theories are explaining everything in a 'standard way' and that all the people that are questioning the standard scam are illeterate.
     You both are claiming that you are very high level of reasoning, a state of mind that doesn't worth waisting its time talking with the others. Why don't you prove it? One of the immanent characteristics of super-intelligence is the ability to make generalizations at a high level. Can you synthesise in no more than 25 words without any references, without any ad homs, and without hiding the insolvable contradictions into exotic terms what exactly the General Relativity Theory is claiming ... and how have you personally come from that to the even more mind-blowing idea of the Big Bang 'theory' - with no more than 25 words!
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2014 10:22 pm
@Herald,
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/science-doesnt-care-about-your-beliefs-Women-s-T-Shirts.jpg
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2014 10:23 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
So what? People make all sorts of silly claims.
     ... but the case here is claims made by the titulary of the very theory
FBM wrote:
So what?
     It is what and even how. If you cannot repeat an experiment this means that
“non-reproducible single occurrences are of no significance to science”.
FBM wrote:
Nobody's claiming that it happened that way.
     This is the claim written in every ABC book in biology, all around the planet ... and even in the Wikipaedia.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2014 10:28 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
So what? People make all sorts of silly claims.
     ... but the case here is claims made by the titulary of the very theory


Put the thesaurus down and slowly back away. This is babble.

Quote:
FBM wrote:
So what?
     It is what and even how. If you cannot repeat an experiment this means that
“non-reproducible single occurrences are of no significance to science”.


What's your point? How about a source for that quote so I can check the context.

Quote:
FBM wrote:
Nobody's claiming that it happened that way.
     This is the claim written in every ABC book in biology, all around the planet ... and even in the Wikipaedia.


Show me one scientific or educational publication that says anything like this:
Quote:
The nanomechanics of the flagella of the bacteria ... apear just so, by a lightning striking a bullion of various amino-acids, not to speak that the amino-acids themselves ... appear just so, out of star dust
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2014 10:54 pm
@Herald,
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/goodmorning.gif

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

Quote:
Claim CB200.1:

Bacterial flagella and eukaryotic cilia are irreducibly complex, Since nonfunctional intermediates cannot be preserved by natural selection, these systems can only be explained by intelligent design.
Source:

Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 59-73.
Response:

This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or co-option, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.

One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major co-option event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function):

A passive, nonspecific pore evolves into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). Passive transport converts to active transport by addition of an ATPase that couples ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex forms a primitive type-III export system.

The type-III export system is converted to a type-III secretion system (T3SS) by addition of outer membrane pore proteins (secretin and secretin chaperone) from the type-II secretion system. These eventually form the P- and L-rings, respectively, of modern flagella. The modern type-III secretory system forms a structure strikingly similar to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum (Hueck 1998; Blocker et al. 2003).

The T3SS secretes several proteins, one of which is an adhesin (a protein that sticks the cell to other cells or to a substrate). Polymerization of this adhesin forms a primitive pilus, an extension that gives the cell improved adhesive capability. After the evolution of the T3SS pilus, the pilus diversifies for various more specialized tasks by duplication and subfunctionalization of the pilus proteins (pilins).

An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive protoflagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins MotA and MotB are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independent of the flagellum.

The binding of a signal transduction protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift toward favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility.

Numerous improvements follow the origin of the crudely functioning flagellum. Notably, many of the different axial proteins (rod, hook, linkers, filament, caps) originate by duplication and subfunctionalization of pilins or the primitive flagellar axial structure. These proteins end up forming the axial protein family.

The eukaryotic cilium (also called the eukaryotic flagellum or undulipodium) is fundamentally different from the bacterial flagellum. It probably originated as an outgrowth of the mitotic spindle in a primitive eukaryote (both structures make use of sliding microtubules and dyneins). Cavalier-Smith (1987; 2002) has discussed the origin of these systems on several occasions.

The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential (Matzke 2003). One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function (Kuwajima 1988). Furthermore, many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but that are not required in the "standard" well-studied flagellum found in E. coli. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins (in Helicobacter pylori, for example, only thirty-three proteins are necessary to produce a working flagellum), so Behe's favorite example of irreducibility seems actually to exhibit quite a bit of variability in terms of numbers of required parts (Ussery 1999).

Eukaryotic cilia are made by more than 200 distinct proteins, but even here irreducibility is illusive. Behe (1996) implied and Denton (1986, 108) claimed explicitly that the common 9+2 tubulin structure of cilia could not be substantially simplified. Yet functional 3+0 cilia, lacking many microtubules as well as some of the dynein linkers, are known to exist (Miller 2003, 2004).

Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.
Links:
...


Numerous references cited at link.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2014 02:33 am
This thread needs some comic relief:

Herald
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2014 01:38 pm
@FBM,
Before explaining the bacteria from somewhere you have a long way to go:
Assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory' (time, space, energy standing) - after that the Big Bang creates the Universe (that might have always existed) - and after arranging successfully all the chemical elements without any reference manual the Big Bang starts creating various bacteria and somehow starts replicating them - at present comprising 5×10^30 on Earth. What is the question?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2014 06:20 pm
@Herald,
The question is, can you produce a hypothesis that is equally robust as the current scientific cosmology? If you don't have anything better, you're just pissing and whining. Show us a better explanation.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2014 10:56 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
The question is, can you produce a hypothesis that is equally robust as the current scientific cosmology?
    Robust in terms of what? For the question before that is - do we have sufficiently robust assumptions and uncontroversial knowledge to design various unsustainable theories about our origin and the origin of the Universe, when we don't even know whether the Universe has always existed or not, and whether the Intelligence of the Universe has not always existed (and we are simply its natural successors or manifestation or relay race or whatever) ... or has been created by lightnings ... and not entirely verified and analyzed fossils.
FBM wrote:
If you don't have anything better, you're just pissing and whining. Show us a better explanation.
      ... and if you don't have anything better as assumptions, you're not too much different. Why don't you formulate, verify and validate the assumptions before starting the construction any theory. For example: How has the water come down on the Earth ... only ... in pure form? How have the bio-processors of CO2 (cyano-bacteria and higher plants) appeared on the Earth ... only, and why are they not observed anywhere else in the Universe? If the processes for the appearance of Life on the Earth are that simple as you are trying to profane them, why aren't there any similar processes and any traces of them on some other places throughout the Universe ... and are we able to recognize them when we stumble against them in the radio telescope?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2014 12:22 am
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
The question is, can you produce a hypothesis that is equally robust as the current scientific cosmology?
    Robust in terms of what?...


Empirical evidence.

FBM wrote:
If you don't have anything better, you're just pissing and whining. Show us a better explanation.
      ... and if you don't have anything better as assumptions,[/quote]

"If."
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2014 12:24 am
@Herald,
Quote:
my personal are 45% God


How did you come up with this number? Research? Observation? Experimentation?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2014 03:49 am
Quote:
Someone always has to be difficult, confirm scientists
21-10-14
NEW research has found that in any situation involving multiple humans one of them will be deliberately uncooperative.
Usually it is the one with a beard.

The Institute for Studies examined groups of people in every conceivable context, from a family dinner to a simulated nuclear disaster.

Professor Henry Brubaker said: “In each scenario there was one person who wanted everything their way, which was the precise opposite of what everyone else wanted.

“For example in the simulated nuclear disaster aftermath, after considerable difficulty the group snared a rabbit which was their first meal for a week.

“However one ****** refused to eat the resulting meal because ‘rabbit is technically a red meat and I only really eat chicken’, necessitating the preparation of some nettle soup specially for them.”

Martin Bishop, who took part in the study said: “It gives me a sense of satisfaction to feel that I can influence a situation.

“Pissing everyone off is better than getting no attention at all, in my mind at least.”

It is believed that difficult behaviour dates back to prehistory, with cave paintings depicting one member of a group being awkward about crossing a river and the others accommodating him but then getting eaten by wild animals as a result.


http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/someone-always-has-to-be-difficult-confirm-scientists-2014102191927
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
The Evil of god - Discussion by giujohn
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 10:02:25