Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Undeniable proof (an article written by William Dembski himself) that the flagellum can easily be produced by natural selection: http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/okay-i-was-wrong-the-flagellum-did-evolve-after-all/
no, we dont "know" that. in fact we know the exact opposite. natural selection can and does result in IC systems. there are several ways that this can happen. one is scaffolding. a past system may have been larger, such that not all parts were necessary. evolution later removed the unnecessary parts leaving only the necessary ones. another such process would be co-adaptation. this is when two systems that dont rely on each other help each other out, and selection increases their reliance to each other over time. another such process is change of function, where a system does one thing in which it is not IC, but then starts doing something else in which it is. all three of these can happen by natural selection.
youre using a term that anti-scientific fundamentalist whacktards use. you arent using a proper scientific term. if you want to debate science, use scientific terms.
wtf are you smoking and where can i get some? this has nothing to do with falsifying evolution because evolution does not rely on knocking down hypothetical competing hypotheses. evolution stands on the positive evidence gleaned from the logical implications of its key ideas.
do you even know what you are talking about here, or are you just parroting something you read on a creationist website? the apparent diversity in the cambrian explosion is no more than the explosion of diversity after the KT meteor.
here are 29 key experiments with potential falsifications that you can do with JUST common descent. can you present any such list for ID? betcha cant.
what is a "really long time?" how do you determine how long you should wait? lets see some actual science from you. what if i wait a million years and nothing happens? does that prove ID? but if i waited a million and one years, maybe it would have happened. you dont know because you gave up after only a million.
im pretty sure thats a joke post. the IDiots are so wedded to the idea that the flagellum couldnt evolve that they would deny it even if you did evolve it in a tightly controlled lab experiment.
EPIC FAIL for not realizing that the blog post you just linked me to is a joke.
Can I have a peer-reviewed article explaining any IC system that evolved?snex said:
If ID is true, then we can expect to find things that are designed.snex said:
I know probably about as much as you know from taking talk.origins as your gospel.
And how does disproving anyone of those experiments falsify common descent? They don't.
I never said it proved ID, I said it the experiment would disprove ID.
this doesnt even make sense. how can you tell a "designed" object from a "non-designed" object? give us a scientific experiment we can perform.
i notice you failed to give an answer. if you cant back up your side, stop posting. you are wasting everyone's time. since you all but admit to being totally ignorant about the cambrian explosion, what makes you think you are in any position to critique it?
are you ********? the falsifications are listed right in the article. i know you couldnt have possibly read the entire thing in the short time between my post and yours, so you are just showing what a dishonest turd you are. READ the freaking thing before you claim its wrong.
you are full of **** and you know it. if a flagellum evolved in a test tube tomorrow, you would just move on to some other unsolved problem in science and then say the designer did THAT. youve already been given the example of the mammalian inner ear, an IC structure with a plausible evolution pathway demonstrated by real actual fossils. so will you give up your stupid claim? of course you wont. youll just spin.
no it wouldnt. how would you prove the designer didnt make that flagellum appear in your test tube bacteria? since you claim he did it once, why couldnt he do it again? once again, ID is unfalsifiable. you can claim the designer did anything, because anything is consistent with a designer.
Because they aren't worth noting and are nothing more than speculation that begs the question.
I already did.
Rocks don't come out of thin air.
I didn't give you an answer because your doing nothing more than baiting me away from the main topic.
Since spouting insults is your primary ammunition in this debate, I don't feel bad saying this: you have the reading comprehension of a 3 year old. I never said that those experiments couldn't be falsified, I said that any one of them doesn't falsify the concept because there are other possibilities to be considered.
Oh, so another of many in your repertoire of talents is psychic powers and assuming peoples motives?
Overlooking the ludicrous assertion that our first assumption would be supernatural intervention, it would still serve as falsification since we would be able to see exactly how it would evolve, then assess whether or not naturalistic forces could result in it.
It's not a matter of inconsistency, it's a matter of whether or not causation needs to be brought into the equation. If it's shown that causation isn't needed, then there's no reason to assume that there was any.
What if the so called designer then, were to force the flagellum to evolve in a way that for all our science could tell was completely the result of naturalistic forces. Essentially this creator made the process of mutation within our specimen a little bit less than random, of course we could never know for sure, since he might not do it the next time we try to verify the experiment. There is so much power in the hands of this totally ambiguous creator that NOTHING we do can prove he didnt play a part. And at that point we have something that cannot be tested and proven false.
in other words, you just ignore the evidence. they are not speculation or question begging. even if those fossils arent actually ancestors or even evolutionary transitions at all, they show a plausible pathway to build an IC structure. thats all you needed, remember? you said that if it could be shown that it COULD happen, ID is falsified. the fossils show it COULD happen, and now you are moving the goalposts to demanding proof that it DID happen. typical dishonest bull****. you would engage in the same exact behavior if test tube flagella were grown.
you did not. your alleged experiment wouldnt even fly in a 3rd grade science fair. "wait a really long time and then if the result didnt happen, intelligent design must be true" is not an experiment.
neither do bacterial flagella, stupid.
you didnt give an answer because you know i called your bluff. youre full of **** and all you do is pull sound bytes from creationist websites. you have no actual knowledge of any of the data under discussion, and you have no interest in learning any of it. your only purpose here seems to be to preach your brand of ignorant snake-handling fundamentalist bull****.
and this is relevant how? for all we know, YOU could have written that. for somebody who demands peer reviewed papers, you sure seem reluctant to go find them yourself to back up your case.
lol, my "primary ammunition" in this debate has been owning you in both logic and facts. youd have to ride the short bus to think otherwise.
it must be - since you did exactly what i predicted when i brought up the mammalian inner ear.
assume that we could somehow meet your impossible standard of observation and see every single DNA replication event in the test tubes. lets say we see a mutation that causes flagella to start showing up. prove the designer didnt cause that mutation. oh, you cant, can you? design is unfalsifiable.
inconsistency is exactly the heart of the matter. if no possible observation is inconsistent with your "theory," then your "theory" isnt scientific. get back to middle school where they teach this stuff.
I'm sorry I overlooked something this ridiculous. I didn't expect it.
Well duh? We know that the inner ear evolved, the whole point is that it's impossible through merely natural selection and mutations alone.
Your reading comprehension fails again. I said that if it did happen, then it would falsify intelligent design. I never claimed if it didn't grow it would prove ID.
Reverse engineer an irreducibly complex system and see if any of it's pre-existing parts served function or purpose in the earlier evolutionary stages. If it is discovered that it didn't then natural selection cannot select something worthless and therefore it must be concluded that causation is required
Exactly.
I decided to take your advice and I went out and finally found out what a phylum was. Wikipedia says "a phylum is a taxonomic rank at the level below Kingdom and above Class."
I guess I should dig up a peer-reviewed paper on the spherical nature of the Earth. I'm not the one who gave it the name "Cambrian Explosion".
wat is r fosil?
Anyone who rides the short bus could defeat you in an argument of logic.
Any one of those theoretical experiments becoming falsified (which the article even refers to as "potential falsifications") doesn't falsify common descent.
Are you claiming that God would be sitting there in the lab making the flagellum evolve?
Which is exactly why if a flagellum evolved naturally, ID would be falsified. ID would then become "not science" exactly when I make it immune from any negative observations.
Maybe it's because you referred to a joke video as "undeniable proof" against ID. How could I let something that juicy slide?blazedaces said:
Considering that 2/3rds of scientists believe in God, then I would say I'm not contradicting widely accepted scientific truth at all.
Despite the overwhelming amount of evidence showing otherwise?
You're completely missing his point. The experiment is an awful idea that would never be approved. Go ahead and try to get scientists to entertain it even for a moment. You'll be laughed at...
Hasn't snex argued against this a countless number of times by now? First he showed plenty of examples of so-called irreducibly complex systems that could easily have evolved through natural causes. Further more, he explained that even if evolution is found to be false, there are plenty of other viable theories out there. Disproving evolution does not prove ID. ID must prove itself! That's how science works!
How many sources have I shown you already? Did you read or watch any of them? The flagellum evolving naturally is not up for discussion by you or anyone else. It happened and we have plenty of evidence to prove it. Stop talking about this.
I understand. Showing some maturity in a serious discussion is beyond you. Duly noted.
First of all, thanks for providing a source to back up your claims, that always shows how much you really know your stuff...
What data? Oh yeah, I forgot, you never give or look at any.
Who are you to bash other people's beliefs? They're allowed to believe in whatever they want. ID is a belief, it requires faith like other religious dogma, but it is not science. Scientists know this!
-http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/12/scientists-v-in.html
if mutations and natural selection didnt do it, then what did? we have a clear lineage of fossils that go from reptile-like to mammal-like, and we can perform experiments to determine just how much of a hearing advantage each animal would have had over the previous type. we also know that mutations can affect bone structure, as they do in modern dog breeds.
no, it would not falsify intelligent design. what part of this is not sinking in? even if a flagella appeared, it would not falsify the idea that an intelligent designer exists, or that it even created that flagella right there in the test tube. i dont think you know what the word "falsify" means.
that is not design detecting. arrowheads are designed, yet your "experiment" would say that they werent. your own body isnt designed (it developed from a single cell), yet your "experiment" would say that it was. clearly your "experiment" doesnt detect design at all.
yes, so if rocks arent designed because we dont see rocks popping up out of nowhere, then flagella arent designed because we dont see flagella popping up out of nowhere.
you forgot to answer the other questions. here they are again:
the spherical nature of the earth isnt questioned by anybody except religious wackos like yourself. but REAL scientists who actually WORK with cambrian fossils ALL disagree with anti-evolutionists. why is that? maybe you should read what they are saying to find out. its ironic that creationists try to question the integrity of real scientists by attempting to cite work done by those scientists. if you dont trust the scientists, then how do you know that there even was a cambrian explosion? and if you do trust the scientists that there was a cambrian explosion, where is your justification to reject what conclusions they draw about it using the methods of science?
then why are you failing miserably? ive pointed out numerous logical fallacies made by you (straw man against what evolution says and false dichotomy for example), but which ones can you point out against me? i havent made any. i doubt you even know what logic is or how to present an argument in formal logical notation.
yes, thats exactly what they would do. thats what "falsification" means.
YOU are the one that claims that god sat around and made a flagellum sometime in the past (by the way, when did he do this? how did he do it? those are questions that science answers. if ID cant answer them, it aint science).
but it WOULDNT be falsified. an intelligent designer still might exist even if a flagellum evolved naturally. what part of this are you not understanding? you need an observation that would be inconsistent with an intelligent designer existing, not an observation that would make their existence superfluous with respect to only the observation made.
believing in god is not the same thing as believing in creationist twaddle. the number of actual biologists who do actual research on biology that deny evolution is far less than 0.01%. in fact, mike behe is the only one i can think of off the top of my head, and even he accepts common descent.
lol, what loophole is that? there is no evidence of any gods. "evolution hasnt been proven to my satisfaction" isnt evidence of any gods. its evidence that evolution is either wrong or the person making the claim is deeply ignorant of science. given the number of actual scientists who work in biology and their stances on the matter, guess which one seems more likely in your case?
Uhh, fossils show no such thing, which is my entire point. The fossil record highly ambiguous and extremely varying interpretations abound (as per usual) when it comes to the evolution of the inner ear.
It falsifies it because it shows that teleology does not exist in living things, therefore there is no scientific reason to invoke a designer on the biological level.
Arrowheads aren't biological organisms, and your parallel to my experiment claiming it would show the body was designed makes absolutely no sense. (hint: reverse engineering doesn't mean reversing the organism's life course)
To imagine that a chance set of mutations would produce all 200 proteins required for cilia function in a single generation stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point. And yet, producing one or a few of these proteins at a time, in standard Darwinian fashion, would convey no survival advantage because those few proteins would have no function-indeed, they would constitute a waste of energy for the cell to even produce.
wat is r stratta?
My bad, those loony scientists called it the Cambrian explosion because when they found nearly every phyla coming into existence simultaneously with fully formed appendages and organs. Man, they're stupid for coming up with that catchy moniker.
I hope using lots of expressive and pithy words helps you feel better about running in a hamster wheel.
So I go to the first evidence of the 29+ and I go down to the "potential falsification" (their words, not mine) of common descent. How exactly do nonvascular plants having seeds or flowers falsify common descent? It doesn't, it only creates another assumption on the evolutionary model, which (as I claimed) cannot be defeated merely on one falsification of one experiment.
Either we would see that the supernatural entity adhered to his usual babysitting of bacteria evolution, or he wouldn't. In either case we would see or not see it conform to what we assume is naturalistic evolution, appealing dimwitted divine intervention aside.
You seem to keep thinking that I think that evolution is erroneous.
Jesus said to him: "Again it is written, 'You must not put your Lord and God to the test." -Matt 4:7
since you have neither seen the fossils nor have you read the papers that describe them, what is your basis for this judgment? oh right, you have none! you just make **** up. go look at the fossils and read the papers about them.
it absolutely does not show that teleology does not exist in living things. teleology exists in plenty of things that arent IC, like arrowheads. if teleology exists in arrowheads, it can exist in life even if life isnt IC. so you still havent been able to provide a way to falsify ID.
arrowheads dont need to be biological organisms. we are discussing detecting design. we know that arrowheads are designed, so any method that claims it can detect design should be able to tell you that arrowheads are designed. if the method cant do this, then the method doesnt do what you claim it can do.Arrowheads aren't biological organisms, and your parallel to my experiment claiming it would show the body was designed makes absolutely no sense. (hint: reverse engineering doesn't mean reversing the organism's life course)
this paragraph reveals you know absolutely nothing about biology. those proteins would and do have functions. ALL proteins have some kind of a function. they are extremely large chemicals with odd polarities that will necessarily only combine with certain other molecules. and every single protein in the bacterial flagella is homologous to some other protein that has some other function. but you wouldnt know that because you only read creationist websites, you never read the actual science being done.
you forgot to answer the other questions, and your cowardice is showing. here they are again:
i would hardly call 10 million years "simultaneously." and which "fully formed appendages and organs" show up in the cambrian explosion? enlighten us.
more parroting of something you found on a creationist website. if you actually knew anything about cephalopod eyes, you would know that they are not homologous eyes. had you read some actual science, instead of creationist nonsense, youd know this. vertebrate eyes have the nerves pass through the retina, causing a blind spot. cephalopod eyes are wired in the opposite manner. this is not a simple change, as one can see by watching the development of a cephalopod embryo vs that of a vertebrate embryo. the fully grown eyes superficially resemble each other, but their development and the genes controlling it are completely different, demonstrating the non-homologosity.
i cant help but notice you failed to point out a single logical fallacy ive made. i also notice you failed to present the ID argument in formal notation - and you also snipped my request to do so in your reply. what are you afraid of?
the characters of all organisms can be organized into nested hierarchies. nested hierarchies are always formed by patterns of common descent with minor variations between generations. if life could not be arranged into a nested hierarchy pattern, then common descent could not explain it. every time we discover a new organism, that organism can either fall into the nested hierarchy we already have, or it could be completely against it. if we found even one organism that challenged one of the stronger trees of the hierarchy (a bird with mammary glands, an octopus whose eye developed the way a human's did, a nonvascular plant with seeds), this would be impossible to explain with common descent. because we know that mutations are random, the more derived a character is, the harder it will be to develop twice. wings and eyes are easy to develop multiple times - they require very simple things at base (light sensitive cells and aero-foil structures). but the way an eye develops in an embryo cannot be easily changed once that course has been set and the eye becomes necessary for life.
how would you "see" it? you cant see a supernatural entity in action if you dont want it to. how can you tell the difference between a truly random mutation and a mutation caused by god? it cant be done.
you think that natural features of life couldnt have evolved. youve done no scientific testing to demonstrate this (and neither has any other IDiot), and your only alternative is "god musta done it." thats an anti-scientific attitude if ive ever seen one.
if matt 4:7 is true, why do people claim that prayer healed them? are they lying? were they not actually healed? they put god to the test, and allegedly he came through. why would it work for them and not you?Jesus said to him: "Again it is written, 'You must not put your Lord and God to the test." -Matt 4:7
Anyways, that's not scientific at all, it's faith based, remember?
Oh by the way, I prayed to God about your matter and he said he was going to get rid of malaria.
And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away. -Rev 21:4
No evidence.
You're completely misinterpreting his words. He's saying, if we went through your proposed experiment, the one being where we produce flagellum through natural processes, even then there would be no way to conclude an intelligent designer isn't still involved. He's only showing that ID is not falsifiable, and therefore, unscientific.
Look ... up... the word... analogy. Your experiment shouldn't ONLY work on living organisms. Why would it? It should do what it claims, prove that designer existing for said object (living or otherwise). Yet this test clearly fails when speaking about arrowheads. Thus the test is invalid. You can't have it both ways Quicksand. Your test either works, or it doesn't.Arrowheads aren't biological organisms, and your parallel to my experiment claiming it would show the body was designed makes absolutely no sense. (hint: reverse engineering doesn't mean reversing the organism's life course)
I've given you a number of sources on this. If you read or looked at a single one you would know it didn't happen in one generation.
Oh what was that? No source again? Aren't the octopus eye and the eyes of higher mammals still different, despite their similarities? Wait, what's the I hear, an actual source coming to back up an argument?:
-http://www.ebiomedia.com/Eyes/What-animal-has-a-more-sophisticated-eye-Octopus-or-Insect.html
i want to expand on this, because the analogy i chose was horrible, and ive thought of a much better one. everybody played the game "telephone" as a child. "telephone" is an example of descent with modification. the end result is not the same as the beginning input because mutations get inserted and those mutations get passed along to the next kid. each kid in a "telephone" line can be thought of as a generation. from one generation to the next, the differences are minor. but when you look at the end vs the beginning, the differences can be large. now, imagine that instead of a "telephone" line you make a "telephone" tree. that is, one kid tells TWO kids his sentence, and they each tell two other kids, and so on. what you have now is descent with modification that is no longer linear, but something that will necessarily show a nested hierarchy.
This is a bit unfair. ID does not have to be supernatural. That is the beauty of ID. It could be anything from Martians to Thor who does the designing.
The onus is on you.
http://www.idthink.net/biot/eflag/index.html
wat is r gealogy?
Before:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." -Chuck Darwin
Adaptation causes natural selection, natural selection does not inherently lead to greater adaptation.
In that case, then evolution can't be falsified because if a road block comes up in evolutionary theory then I can always say that a leprechaun magically made it appear that way, just like God would in my flagellum test tube.
You better believe that the reason I believe in God is because of what science has shown me.
I would think a lot more people would be lining up in front of Benny Hinn if it was true.
Praying for God to get rid of malaria tomorrow and him not doing so doesn't prove he is either non loving or unpowerful.
ID is in no way opposite to evolution, both theories co-exist peacefully.
... I'm going to assume this is a joke... we designed them.
Go read about DNA.
A completely biased source with absolutely no credibility. Try to find a source that claims the same thing that isn't written by an ID proponent.
Misquoting at its worst. Exactly what I expect from ID proponents like yourself:
Learn how to read. If you actually read the information I posted above you would have seen they function in an EXTREMELY DIFFERENT manner.
I don't think you have a proper understanding of evolution. Natural selection is the observation that those better able to survive (through adaption or any other way) will be more likely to survive and therefore will be more likely to produce offspring. Continue this pattern and you'll see the end result. Natural selection is an observation about how the world works. It doesn't lead to anything... that doesn't even make sense.
You mean, if evolution is falsified you'll assume ID is true? Why? How does this change the fact that evolution can be falsified while ID can not?
Your missing his point entirely. An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy (look it up). You can't logically go from "I don't know" to "god did it". There has to be a reason to show "god did it". Another words, not knowing how something works doesn't imply that magic is making it happen (or god ... or leprechauns).
He didn't say it did, he said you should abandon your original hypothesis, whatever you were testing (whether or not prayer works the way people/the bible/religion claim).
Except the only way you have of justifying ID is to try and pick holes in evolutionary theory, which you fail to do miserably by the way.
we already know that mutations can cause changes to skeletal structure by looking at dog breeds. since you are claiming that they COULDNT cause the changes represented by fossils, the onus is on YOU to show this.
we know arrowheads are designed because we witness designers making them. we know WHY designers might want to make them. we know HOW designers go about making them, and we can find signs of this process in either the arrowheads themselves, or in the surrounding areas in which they are found.
it doesnt "know" anything. its just chemicals reacting to their environment dictated by the laws of physics and chemistry. and yet, there are the IC structures, built up over time in a mother's womb.
if you cant offer a substantive reply, im going to have to suggest that you be removed from the debate hall. this place is for people interested in serious debate, not childish trolls.
this is simply a bold-faced lie. there are TONS of pre-cambrian fossils known. a simple google search would have revealed this to you.
bravo, quote mining. a classic creationist tactic. it shows you havent even read the actual book, because if you had, youd know that in the very next sentence darwin goes on to offer a possible scenario in which the eye could have evolved.
except they dont, not any more so than any other two unrelated eyes. thus, your point fails.
this sentence neither makes sense nor addresses what it was in response to.
that has nothing to do with falsifying evolution. that has to do with falsifying god and leprechauns. the theory of evolution makes specific predictions which, if they fail, evolution is falsified. the hypotheses of god and leprechauns make NO specific predictions, and therefore cannot be falsified.
there is no scientific evidence of any gods, nor could there ever be, since all god hypotheses are either unfalsifiable, already falsified, or logically incoherent. if anybody did have any scientific evidence of any gods, theyd have performed a scientific experiment to demonstrate it and published that experiment in a scientific journal. theyd have probably also won the nobel prize for the greatest discovery of the century.
news flash moron, a lot of people DO line up in front of benny hinn and his con-man buddies. but thats beside the point. most people dont believe that benny hinn can heal you. most people DO believe that god can heal you. and lots of people claim he did just that. so how do you explain those people? you havent even tried. i bet you yourself would even claim that you have seen god heal somebody who prayed for it.
then what exactly does it prove? you humbly requested a non-selfish thing that would remove the suffering of millions. and it didnt happen. so what conclusions can we draw?
ID is not a theory precisely because it isnt falsifiable. you still havent offered a scientific experiment that would falsify it. "wait a really long time and see if flagella show up" is neither scientific, nor would it even falsify ID if flagella DID show up. youre grasping at straws here and its pathetic.
I'm not claiming that skeletal structures can't change at all. I'm saying that for natural selection to be able to select the skeletal structural change is far out of the reach of mere chance because several mutations are required to make the change useful at all.
So let's say you have no knowledge of Indians, and you're walking through the woods and you come across a large stone fashioned into a point and it is filed down very smooth on the sides and very sharp on the tip. On the bottom of a stone there is a protrusion with a hole through it, and on it there is a vine dried and woven into a straight pole.
The body knows exactly how to form because of millions of lines of information precoded into the genome. IC structures are made because the information and instructions are already there to show how to build it.
You expect appealing to whether or not I have ignorance of subjects as to affect the validity of my claims? I'm not a paleontologist but I've researched enough on fossils to know conditions that they are needed to form and not form. This is like saying I shouldn't be allowed to drive a car because I don't know how to put one together. Enough knowledge is readily available for me to become informed on things without becoming an expert on them. An attack on my knowledge (however so well founded it may be) doesn't have anything to do with my argument. It will stand if it is correct.
This place is for people interested in serious debate, not childish trolls whose favorite tactic is bombarding me with ridicule.
I never said there weren't any pre-cambrian fossils. Only problem is that they don't lead anywhere.
Yeah they aren't alike at all, they all just have a retina, a cornea, an iris, a lens, and a fluid-filled interior. All the essential parts of a working eyeball.
Your assumption is that those structures are easy to create and then build on, my response was to that.
Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation.
You're right, it doesn't. ID claims teleology. If teleology is not found, or better said, if the opposite of teleology is found in naturalism, then ID is falsified.
Since you see this as such undeniable proof that God heals people, then why don't you believe in God and the Bible? God obviously works miracles through Benny Hinn, why don't you express faith in him?
I never would claim to know if God healed someone who prayed to be healed. God is much less concerned about our physicality and much more concerned about our spiritual well-being and needs, since this system of things is to be done away with.
God doesn't want to remove the suffering of those people.
It falsifies ID because it shows that teleology is not in the flagellum. ID doesn't make claims past what can be observed, it stays in it's box, that's why it can be falsified.
None of these are positive evidence:
nonsense. changes in skeletal structure can be achieved through sexual recombination alone - no mutation necessary. and given the time it took for the shift from reptilian skull to mammalian skull to happen, there is plenty of time for mutations to do the job. all you need to do is measure mutation rates! you are just talking out of your *** here - you really have no idea how many mutations would be required to go from reptile ear to mammal ear, and you have no idea how long it would take to do so. you are just MAKING **** UP.
your scenario is impossible, because we DO have knowledge of spears and arrowheads. if we didnt have that knowledge, then thered be no science anyway and thered be nobody to do the asking. if you took a child too young to know anything about spears and arrowheads, he wouldnt assume that it was designed or natural. he simply wouldnt know. and thats the correct answer when you dont know something - "i dont know."
no, the body doesnt "know" anything. its just chemicals doing what chemicals do. there is nothing magical about it whatsoever. your claim is akin to asking how acids and bases "know" to make water when you mix them. they dont "know" anything - thats just what they do because they follow the laws of physics.
im sorry but "wut r strata" is not you researching and presenting a case. its you trying to desperately evade. if the information is out there like you say, why havent you read it from the people actually doing the research? nobody in the ID camp is going out fossil hunting and describing the fossils and why they make a case for ID. all they do is wait for REAL scientists to do all the hard work and then try to snipe at it. you havent read the original sources, you just filter them all through creationist websites, so you are in no position to critique anything.
lies and ignorant bull****. you showed a plain white image and said thats what represents the pre-cambrian fossils. that implies that there werent any. and then i corrected you, so you come up with another lie. how many original research papers did you read on pre-cambrian fossils in order to make the claim that "they dont lead anywhere?" can you show me the abstracts of the papers that support this conclusion?
1) if those are "all the essential parts of a working eyeball," then NO **** theyd be similar. otherwise theyd have NON-WORKING eyeballs, and what good would that be?
my post made no such assumption. in fact, it states the exact opposite. once a developmental process for a complex structure like an eye is in place, it is very HARD to change it. that is why the developmental processes for both the cephalopod eye and the vertebrate eye are good evidence that they are not homologous.
that is not POSITIVE evidence for design. "the lack of any known law..." is by definition a form of NEGATIVE evidence. are you seriously this stupid? where is the POSITIVE evidence for ID? im not asking you for why you think evolution is wrong; im asking you why you think design is right. why cant you separate the two? design must stand or fall on its own merits. if you have to make any reference to evolution or "known laws" then you have already lost the battle.
ok, then ID is falsified. i just looked at a rock and found no teleology. can you stfu now? no of course not, because youre an idiot. that is NOT falsification. you dont even know how to go about "looking for teleology." you cant identify any markers that ALL designed objects have and NO non-designed objects have.
you didnt answer my question. what are you afraid of?
then god is not good. good job, youve chosen to worship a mythical sadist.
this has nothing to do with anything.
it does not falsify ID for reasons ive already given several times. now, when are you going to give an actual SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT that would falsify ID? do you know what falsify means? here lets make this easier for you.
Okay fine, give me a plausible evolutionary pathway for a primitive reptilian inner ear to human.
It's not impossible to consider a scenario where you have never seen a spear. If you had never seen one you would know that a natural cause could not produce it because natural causes are unintelligent and cannot result in specified information. I know that causation is required for purpose, therefore I am able to infer design.
Actually, we know exactly what causes spheres with ridges: plasma discharges.
The body "knows" to put things in certain places because there is a massive amount of information, and like a computer and a machine, it reads it and builds a body.
What is your point? Take my claim for what it is and stop pissing and moaning about it. If you disagree then make a counter claim.
Way to take my striking generalization so literally. I hope no one ever tells you that they "have a headache and it's killing them" otherwise you'll probably call 911.
Irises are easy to make.
You got me there.
Again, the point is that you can't account for the iris, retina, lens, etc, all evolving in a COMPLETELY separate tree of life.
ID doesn't, nor tries to explain why there are similarity or differences. There isn't any reason for it to do so either.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=986
See above.
I'm answering your question by exposing the double standard you're adhering to. If you think I have to accept the claims of all these people because they couldn't all be lying, then I expect you to accept the claims of all these people who say they were healed by God, so you should express faith in God since that would be undeniable proof he exists.
Your mom is a mythical sadist.
It has to do with why God doesn't fix malaria as soon as I pray for it.
I think an experienced biochemist would do a better job than my non-strata definition knowing self.
since the human inner ear is exactly like all other mammal ears, no extra work is necessary. the fossils show the path and are in the talkorigins article you still clearly havent read. why are you afraid of information written by actual scientists?
i would not know that. i wouldnt know anything at all about how that particular object came to be, and until i started testing specific hypotheses on how it came to be, i would be ignorant. i cannot infer design from ignorance. by the same logic, if you knew nothing about erosion, you would have to conclude that a perfectly smooth rock was designed. but thats obviously wrong. ignorance of a process isnt implication of design.
idiot, this is a pseudoscientific nonsense website. it has no science content in it whatsoever. "plasma discharges" - as this website seems to be using the phrase - arent even recognized effects. you dont even know what the term means. the simple fact is that nobody knows why iapetus has a ridge, and this is NOT evidence that it was designed.
a perfectly natural rock that hasnt been worked in any way also has a purpose. you can open coconuts with it. is it designed? NO.
the body doesnt "know" anything. there is not a single thing happening in embryo development that cannot be reduced to chemistry, and even further, physics. its nothing but natural objects doing what natural objects do according to the laws of reality.
theres nothing to disagree with. youve been evading my questions for several posts now. what are you afraid of?
dont blame me for calling you on your lies. you clearly meant to imply that there were no precambrian fossils.
do you even know what a "primitive form" is? what do you think cambrian fossils are? why dont you show me some non-primitive cambrian fossils?
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossils/Cnidaria/Nemaia-simplex/Nemaiab.htm
not relevant to anything i said.
those parts are all relatively easy to form. an iris is little more than a muscle that opens and closes. muscles are abound in animals and can easily be co-opted. a lens is nothing but a transparent film that focuses light onto the retina. transparent films are abound in animals and can easily be co-opted. a retina is nothing more than the layers of light-sensitive cells, which the common ancestor of cephalopods and vertebrates would have already had. all they needed to do was line them up in one structure.
if ID cant explain anything, then ID isnt science.
point 1 is not a unique point to ID. evolution makes the same prediction. so the presence of complex functional structures is neither evidence for evolution or ID.
im not holding the double standard. you are. even if you dont believe in current healings, you believe that 1) god has the ability to heal people, and 2) jesus DID perform healings, and finally 3) jesus specifically states in the bible that if you pray to be healed, you will.
behe is confused. he doesnt seem to know the difference between falsifying ID and falsifying irreducible complexity. irreducible complexity is indeed a falsifiable idea. just show the steps that it took to evolve something, and IC is falsified.
Eh, its been been a month or so? Not that long.
That is a shame. Not because I particularly like theists, but because it seems that many people are unable to defend their beliefs from fairly cliched attacks.
You do realize that one mutation can have a wide variety of effects because genes interact. So the way a mutation affects the phenotype of one organism can (and to an extent will) be different from the way it effects another of the same organism. This can produce a large enough degree of phenotypic variation in multicellular organisms to change its environmental fitness. Furthermore for single celled organisms, a single mutation CAN produce a large enough difference to change an organisms environmental fitness. Simply because DNA is translated into RNA and RNA is translated into proteins. A single genetic change in a single celled organism will produce a change in a protein produced by that cell and a single protein has a large enough impact on a single celled organism to effect its ability to survive and reproduce.
back in the 70s some researchers discovered bacteria that had evolved the ability to metabolize nylon, an artificial substance. the exact mutation that allowed this was discovered - turns out it was piece of junk DNA that got turned on by a mutation.
I'm not debating ID vs. evolution at all. I fully accept evolution and it isn't at odds at all with ID. ID is at odds against scientific naturalism.
you arent going to get an answer; not even from atheists who insist that the word has a meaning.
Then I misunderstood what you were debating. I took the comment down.
Methodological naturalism or some other world view. There are dozens.
It's not an either or proposition. I can reject naturalism as a whole and still utilize science. Naturalism is just the acceptance of reductionist materialism (either as an absolute truth or a necessary truth) combined with the notion that science is the best method for observation. There is no particular reason for me to accept both
To a naturalist, there can never be a coherent definition of supernatural, so that may be a tad bit unfair. Ironically enough, metaphysical naturalism needs supernatural evidence in order to provide a noncircular proof of itself.
methodological naturalism is not a worldview. the word "methodological" should have tipped you off to this. quicksand was railing against "scientific naturalism," as if there were some other way to do science besides a naturalistic way.
the reason to accept both is science itself. science is not merely the best method for observation, it is the ONLY KNOWN RELIABLE method for observation. until some better or even slightly reliable other method comes along, science is all you have. and given science, philosophical naturalism is the only conclusion the evidence can support.
there can never be a coherent definition of "supernatural" regardless of one's philosophical leanings. the sole purpose of the word is to label things we know dont exist but want to continue believing in anyway. if the activities of deities were as prevalent in our lives as they allegedly were in the old testament, we would consider deities to be perfectly natural phenomena. no doubt the ancients thought of them as such. they had no use for words like "supernatural."
That's a fundamentally naturalist worldview, which was was he was pointing out. To somebody who isn't a naturalist, "supernatural" has a totally different connotation.