Evolutionry/religious nonsense

@brianjakub,

Quote:

I have evidence that Intelligence can and does produce complex interdependent systems.

so must we wait for the book or the movie?? Youve been on that "I can produce evidence" roll since youve been here and so far no show.

1 Reply

Interesting article on Catholicism. I think most protestant churches are losing parishinors. https://www.salon.com/2015/05/21/the_catholic_churchs_american_downfall_why_its_demographic_crisis_is_great_news_for_the_country/

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Quote:
Inteligent Design attempts to explain how matter and life came into existence along with suggesting that the embedded levels of complexity are to much to overcome by random introduction of new information.
Oh, almost forgot, Hows all that working out for you??
All youre aying is what ID WANTS to do, not what they are doing about it. Ive asked several times, when is this explaining going to begin??

I will give you an analogy.

We know there is rubber, plastic and steel going into a purely automated (if purely automated was possible) manufacturing plant that makes autos. Out comes automobiles and waste. We can prove and understand that the plant can build the autos. One day a new model comes out because the old one quits selling. What evidence are you going to look for to prove that somebody intelligent built the purely automated factory and made the design changes for the new model so they will survive as a company. How do you find out who those people are if the plant is millions of years old and a major model change hasn't happened in 250,000 years? Would you look for evidence of a person smart enough to build the plant that existed millions of years ago and evidence of another or the same person that existed when the last model change occured?

If most of the evidence is oral tradition that was eventually written down without a signature would you assume the factory spontaneously came into existence or would you do your best to understand and interpret the information you have. Now what if somebody came around 2,000 years ago, says he was the guy that created the manufacturing plant and leaves another oral account with more details that eventually gets written down but without signatures. Are you going to use that data as evidence? Or, are going to continue believing the manufacturing plant spontaneously came into existence and spontaneously developed new models though you can't replicate one spontaneously coming into existence.

I suggest the evidence supports this, "Life isn't smart. It is a dumb but very complex system made by a very simple but extremely smart person."

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

is the automated auto plant what you consider evidence??
*sigh*

Why not drop the car **** and consider biological systems rife with many many duplicate systems and different in form from members of the same clade in geographic areas that are clearly separated by a growing ocean basin or river system or mountain range. Wishing to deny evidence and then argue with analogies that dont even compare, thats what the creationists do. Analogies with cars boats and wrist watches may be ok for you, but as a scientist ,Im chuckling at your feeble attempt at claiming its "evidence"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

You hqve provided NO evidence unique to what youre preaching. You and LEadfoot rely upon science to discover or experiment and then you just sqy "Well thats the way ID woulda worked", yet you have no idea in hell whether that supposition is even testable with your stories.

You are efaulting everything to a GOD while science is drqwing comparisons to HOW and WHEN things occured and are finding out facts that fit the theory.
Major evolutionary jumps occur when cataclysms and environmental changes occur. EG, when Pangea's suture began to tear open from S to N (South America was not attached to N America but earlier Africa, Laurasis (N Am and Europe) and S America were attached. Theres about a 60 MY difference tween the attachement of Nam and S Am, so, almost ALL the dinosaurs that came to be were different between N and S America and the fossil dinos from Africa (and many of the plants) are more related to US, than they are to S America.. SO, all the evolution that nt on from the Trissic through the Cretaceous reflwcted environmental differences among the continent drifting apart.
Is that "Evidence" of an intelligent design??

Once again yo9u are providing evidence that proves, evolution happened and, and natural selection weeds out the losers. You provide no evidence that random introduction of new information can provide the information at the right time to multiple interdependent systems. The math says it is impossible.

Quote:

Im not sure where you wanna wind up but I think that youre going to slowly admit that evolution was merely a response to laws of science (chem, geo, physics and bio) , unless the Intelligent designer just liked "dickin around ", so then dickin around becomes evidence to you.

If we get there we are going to find out that the laws of science are way more complex than we thought with, layers of interdependent complex systems that could never spontaneously pop into existence without an intelligence determining its ontology. The reason is, the ontology for all the extremely different and diverse systems in all the layers of interdependant systems was developed over a long period of time but, still have the same ontology (which is to end up with a universe containing life that humans can talk about, share, and ponder). And random introduction of ontologies for multiple systems over long periods of time are never always going to be the same ontolgy. If they are, the random information generator is rigged.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Your fantasy is not analogous. Automobiles are purpose-built artifacts of humans, and not the production of any natural selection. Automobiles such as the Edsel and the Yugo demonstrate that natural selection is definitely not in operation. More than that, you still have never provided any evidence that there is a design in operation. You have never provided any evidence that the evolutionary process is an artifact of an intelligence. Your comments demonstrate time and time again that you don't understand natural selection.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

And no matter how long two cars sit in Brian.s garage, they will NEVER EVER produce a baby car that has a blend of their design in it and maybe some new and innovative design.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Catholic science teaching (at least today in Pa) really doesnt have time with religion in science. Scholarship i what they teach an Ive judged many a science fair project where the top ones were kids from Catholic Schools. They never HAD TO teach only evolution they were free to tech whqtever wqy they wnted to go. However, They , like most public schools, open the year of beginning bio with an understanding of where biology came from and what were the facts of history that drove it, (agriculture, medicine, taxonomy and husbandry). Then the year got underway with an attention to scholarship. I went to school in the 60's and saw the story of "Special Creation" as a scientific fact, disappear in all of Pa's Catholic Schools. Maybe UTAH is science unfriendly but I know tht BYU teaches science as science and not scripture. (Dont know much about the secondaries)

I would agree that most Jesuits do not think like a Catholic should but rather, "think like atheists" like you stated the Jesuit priest you knew did. That is a sad but true statement. Therefor, they do not ask the right scientific questions.

There is very little Catholic thought involved at the upper levels of scientific research and debate and the Jesuits have a lot to do with that since they espouse a lot of secular beliefs and they started most catholic universities.

Quote:

Catholic science teaching (at least today in Pa) really doesnt have time with religion in science. Scholarship i what they teach an Ive judged many a science fair project where the top ones were kids from Catholic Schools. They never HAD TO teach only evolution they were free to tech whqtever wqy they wnted to go. However, They , like most public schools, open the year of beginning bio with an understanding of where biology came from and what were the facts of history that drove it, (agriculture, medicine, taxonomy and husbandry). Then the year got underway with an attention to scholarship. I went to school in the 60's and saw the story of "Special Creation" as a scientific fact, disappear in all of Pa's Catholic Schools. Maybe UTAH is science unfriendly but I know tht BYU teaches science as science and not scripture. (Dont know much about the secondaries)

Catholic science teaching is developed the same place everyone elses is. either at secular run secular universities or at Catholic universities run by atheist or secular thinking Jesuits. So, the catholic education system is doing a good job of providing that one sided point of view. Fortunately there are many good teachers that still have the freedom to question the secular one sided orthodoxy and discuss alternative theories at the grade school and high school level so that one day, maybe all sides will be allowed at the discussion in academia everywhere again.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Re: brianjakub (Post 6641152)
Quote:
One judge judge that had a bias towards a "relativistic" philosophical point of view outlawed the discussion of the "common sense realism" philosophical point of view.
If your POV regrding this was followed (ie "qe should all sit down and discuss this philosophically) why then did the entire science faculty of Dover HS come out against the DOVER JOINT SCHOOL SYSTEM SCHOOLBOARD's decision to slowly start including ID into the Biology curriculum.

Who cares. Is science and morality decided by agreement among a small group of peers that limit access to alternative view points be weeding out alternative points of view at the doctorate level in universities where all curriculum is debated and developed?

All Im saying is open up the debate to alternative philosophical points of view.

Quote:

I dont think that you have any idea of what your talking, know that?

I disagree. Lets talk about alternative interpretations of the evidence at all levels of academia so people enter college prepared to continue the debate.

Quote:

Federal district judges are assigned the cases. THE ID side had a very good chance to argue their case and could NOT detach themselves from religion driving the science curriculum.

The ID side did a poor job and the Judge did a poorer job of interpreting the constitution by outlawing teaching and discussing a philosophical point of view. I don't want to outlaw your point of view. why do you want to outlaw mine?

Quote:

Like the Cal case, it was a case that affected the STATE CONSTITUTION as well as the Supreme Court. after the Dover School Board LOST in Kitzmiller, they could have taken it to a higher court. BUT THESE GUYS either just disappeared or were VOTED OUT because the citizens (even the church leaders with the exception of three FUNDAMENTALIST churches in the entire school district) were angry at how Dover became a sort of "Hillbilly joke town" for even bringin the damn case UP.

First of all that is a pathetic use of name calling to make an argument. I agree there argument was poorly developed but, there is little debate on the subject in the doctorates of academia which is where the heavy lifting is done to develop the arguments.

Secondly this was a philosophical freedom discussion that was turned into a scientific and religious freedom discussion that ended up by outlawing one philosophical point of view because the proponents of the view had a specific belief in who the thought the creator was. What either side believes about God or, god or, lack of God should never be part of the discussion. The judge handled the case very poorly and illogically. Could you explain the logic behind the decision when he stated in his ruling he was deciding against the school board because, they were Christians.

4 Replies

@brianjakub,

How big must the group be in order to accommodate your desire to "debate it". Ive given you the example of the teachers of Dover an the citizen majority v the school board and a singular Evangelical Church group. According to you,That didnt qualify?? Why not??

The reasons the teachers did NOT join the suit was that they were in danger of losing their jobs for something that constituted "mutiny" . Talk about one sided justice.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

I don't want to outlaw your point of view. why do you want to outlaw mine?

I dont. You just dont understnd the issue well enough. Your opinions are typical DI borne (Weve hd several others here who claimed the judge DIDNT understand the US Constitution. If that was the case, why didnt the IDers carry it higher to the State Supreme Court??
Hint: the election came and the majority of the school board was dumped by the voters).

That IS the genius of our system.

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Secondly this was a philosophical freedom discussion that was turned into a scientific and religious freedom discussion that ended up by outlawing one philosophical point of view because the proponents of the view had a specific belief in who the thought the creator was

It was NEVER a philosophical argument. It was an argument that tried to seek relief from a strong armed religious tactic to bring the teaching of ID into SCIENCE CLASS. The entire issue WAS brought up by the history and PAD faculties to be taught as a"Problems Of American Democracy"(social Studies), and the three school board members who were heavy handing the entire ID issue would NOT back down. They were being fed free literature and textbooks by the Discovery Institute (Who were the fraudniks in the entire case). Basically the school board left the citizens with NO alternative but to seek relief in court.

The judge did an excellent job. He is a Devout Christian and a conservative who just could NOT back off on the issue of the establishment clause of amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights of our nations Constitution.

Now that you seem to want to deny the court' s and want to "debate it" . whether you understand or not, the debate part has left the station because after the Butler laws and Aguillard, I think weve pretty well established the rules for science classes. I assume thats why youve got your kids in Catholic SChools (but dont they teach evolution by natural selection as theory an Fact??).

As far as your trying to do a math expansion and concluding that there arent enough nodes or there inst enough time to promote the "information in a spcies DNA). Lets multiply the chances of winning the lottery by 5 times. SOMEONE WILL STILL WIN IT and it appears that, (in a normal numerical expansion, the number of nodes available it kinda like the Drake Equation in reverse,
The number approaching assurance gets bigger and bigger until the chances of "variability occuring" are nominal and the variability itself is quite variable, thus allowing nat selection to select FOR an individual with the good luck to hve the good genes. That , as a favored condition, expands throughout the population at varying rates.
Mathematically I believe your trying to deny the big numbers that sex cells provides

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Is science and morality decided by agreement among a small group of peers that limit access to alternative view points be weeding out alternative points of view

does this mean that you want us to "weed out" heliocentrism and phlogiston ?

Many times "weeding out" takes a greater sophistication than the science course is expected to get across

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

I would agree that most Jesuits do not think like a Catholic should but rather, "think like atheists" like you stated the Jesuit priest you knew did. That is a sad but true statement. Therefor, they do not ask the right scientific questions.

Arent you the one who stated that we should consider all arguments.
"Thinking like a Catholic Should" sounds like some kind of code.

Once again, bring up your evidence that you say you have in your back pocket, including the math that you say will "prove it'. Either that or go back to your monastery in time for vespers.
I dont believe you have anything except your denial and incredulity. Thats a start I suppose, but it aint evidence. Now you need to state a problem to test your hypothesis and then collect data to see where you stand and then, only then, draw conlusions.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Also, I think it speaks to the fact that church attendance has been falling.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Amen . . . so to speak. I'm rather embarrassed that I didn't think of that.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Evolutionists havent kept Creationists from teaching their stuff as science, THE CONSTITUTION DOES. Cmon, stop trying to be clever.

A poorly decided court case in Dover that was decided by an illogical judge decided it. The constitution does not promote excluding ideas from debate in academia on the basis of religion.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Quote:

I have evidence that Intelligence can and does produce complex interdependent systems.

so must we wait for the book or the movie?? Youve been on that "I can produce evidence" roll since youve been here and so far no show.

Intelligence built the computer I am working on and allowing us to exchange ideas. We have never ever witnessed or reproduced a complex system coming into existence from random sources, only from random sources or systems that are to ancient to easily determine the source of the intelligence. Can you provide evidence that random introduction of information is capable of introducing complex information capable of developing a complex system?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Why not drop the car **** and consider biological systems rife with many many duplicate systems and different in form from members of the same clade in geographic areas that are clearly separated by a growing ocean basin or river system or mountain range. Wishing to deny evidence and then argue with analogies that dont even compare, thats what the creationists do. Analogies with cars boats and wrist watches may be ok for you, but as a scientist ,Im chuckling at your feeble attempt at claiming its "evidence"

Because we can only replicate non living systems. I agree that by segregating systems they will more than likely develop differently. That's why cars have steering wheels on the right in England and on the left in the USA.

What does that have to do with how the new information was introduced that initiated the system of evolution or introduced the new information to the multiple interacting systems in a way that would cause macroevolution. It looks like somebody was planning for sexual reproduction or designed a complex system that would lead to it. The odds are against random introduction of information being capable of doing it. The math requires intelligence to develop the same ontolgy for different but, interacting and embedded systems.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Your fantasy is not analogous. Automobiles are purpose-built artifacts of humans, and not the production of any natural selection. Automobiles such as the Edsel and the Yugo demonstrate that natural selection is definitely not in operation.

Your fantasy that something way more compklex than an edsel came into existence when the system poofed into existence with an explosion called the Big Bang. The edsel and yugo are not in production because the market does not demand them. The market is determined by the decisions of human beings which are naturally existing intelligent creatures. Those cars don't exist because they could not physically adapt and compete with other cars. If that is not a form of natural selection, it offers a great analogy.

0 Replies

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know