Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Warcraft3 · 05-29-2003, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BioBeing
What convenient assumptions? Genetic evidence shows that the base of the flagella and the type III secretory system are related. The "irreducible complexity" has been reduced. End of story.

Well since you said "end of story" I guess I really can not argue with your point. You just disproved every argument made by ID about "irreducible complexity" in only one short comment. I am sure the IDists will be upset when I let them know.

Quote:

Here is a good explanation The Flagellum Unspun

Yeah I read that one quite a while ago. Actually there are better arguments being made against IC in the forums (on www.iscid.org) than were made in that article. See Dembskis response to that article, and then read the arguments made against Dembski response.

Quote:

i.e. as pointed out by another poster, ID is an argument from ignorance, nothing more.

I keep on forgetting that

but thanks for reminding me.

Russ

Warcraft3 · 05-29-2003, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CALDONIA
It is interesting that H.L. Mencken addressed the ID issue in the early 1920s. He suggested that the examples of poor, inadequate or worthless design found in nature may point to the fact that there is no ONE designer. Only a COMMITEE of designers could have created such "designs" that suggest compromise and timidity.

It was a group of Intelligent Designers that decided after much argument to allow for near-sightedness and the human appendix.

The ID argument is nothing more than the argument from ignorance cloaked in scientific clothing.

I know, I know its all just an "argument from ignorance " cloaked in "scientific clothing". I will have to disagree with that statement, of course.

Russ

Warcraft3 · 05-29-2003, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Hi guys,

I just want to point out that stealdele does not have a position on the origin of the diversity of life. Last time I looked he was floating between OEC, ID, and evolution. As such, I suggest that we let him ask the questions. Otherwise, he'll just lurk. So how about it stealdele? You want to start a thread of your own?

Hey Rufus. Yes, you are quite correct on my current "floating" position on these issues. I do not mind if people ask me questions, since I really do like discussions/debates. ***Oh and by the way guys: I do have a sense of humor so do not take me too seriously if I use sarcasm in my posts.***

Sure I will try to start a thread when I think of something really good to discuss. I have Reserves this weekend and then I am going away with the Reserves from June 7-20. So I will start a thread sometime after my two weeks, so I can keep up with it.

Russ

Doubting Didymus · 05-29-2003, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by steadele

Sure I will try to start a thread when I think of something really good to discuss. I have Reserves this weekend and then I am going away with the Reserves from June 7-20. So I will start a thread sometime after my two weeks, so I can keep up with it.

Russ

I am looking forward to it. We deal with too much YEC here, so it'll be refreshing to see some discussions in ID with an actual protagonist in them.

Oolon Colluphid · 05-30-2003, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
I am looking forward to it. We deal with too much YEC here, so it'll be refreshing to see some discussions in ID with an actual protagonist in them.

Yup. <rubs hands together in glee> Maybe we could start with the intelligent design involved in giving eyes that do not work to creatures that do not need eyes at all?

Oh, and Steadele, it would help if from the start you could tell us how much evolution -- pure evolution, no supernatural input -- you are willing to allow. There's no point in me telling you about blind cave salamanders with useless, skin-covered eyes, if you allow sufficient evolution to acount for their eyes degenerating thus.

So the crux, as always, is: please could you define 'kind', or whatever you wish to term the grouping of organisms within which variation is possible, but no further.

Cheers, Oolon

Camaban · 05-30-2003, 04:26 AM

TY To Gallo for his esteemed, and much-respected university for pointing out these to me:

http://home.houston.rr.com/bybayouu/quotes.html

Creationist Quotations.

Quetzal · 05-30-2003, 05:44 AM

Of course, you can always use my personal favorite*:

Quote:

�In plain language, there came a moment in the evolution of hominids when God intervened and injected a human soul into a previously animal lineage.� Richard Dawkins, �When Religion Steps on Science's Turf�, FI #18, v2, 2002)

Who say's Dawkins is anti-religion? Here he quite plainly argues for the existence of a soul and divine intervention.

*It's my personal favorite 'cause I came up with it. Here's the full quotation, to show context.

Quote:

(from a discussion of the Pope�s tentative agreement that evolution doesn�t violate Catholic doctrine, which Dawkins actually calls �obscurantist�; the above quoted section is bolded):

"Never fear. As so often in the past, obscurantism comes to the rescue:

�Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seen irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being.�

In plain language, there came a moment in the evolution of hominids when God intervened and injected a human soul into a previously animal lineage. (When? A million years ago? Two million years ago? Between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens? Between "archaic" Homo sapiens and H. sapiens sapiens?) The sudden injection is necessary, of course, otherwise there would be no distinction upon which to base Catholic morality, which is speciesist to the core. You can kill adult animals for meat, but abortion and euthanasia are murder because human life is involved."[/b]

Oops. Maybe context really IS important. Here's Dawkins's full article.

Warcraft3 · 05-30-2003, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin
Fair enough, and the comments on I.D. and flagella were getting away from the OP. But I would like to leave Steadele with one question to mull over: do you think that the creationist side is being entirely upfront and honest with the "evidence" they provide against evolution, in particular when it comes to their use of quotations by "evolutionists"?

I knew there was still one more post I wanted to respond to

.

Yeah I know what you are talking about here......All too often creationists quote people out of context. I would say it happens often, but not always. But it is a problem that needs to be addressed within the creationist viewpoint.

Russ

Joe Meert · 05-30-2003, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CALDONIA
It is interesting that H.L. Mencken addressed the ID issue in the early 1920s. He suggested that the examples of poor, inadequate or worthless design found in nature may point to the fact that there is no ONE designer. Only a COMMITEE of designers could have created such "designs" that suggest compromise and timidity.

It was a group of Intelligent Designers that decided after much argument to allow for near-sightedness and the human appendix.

The ID argument is nothing more than the argument from ignorance cloaked in scientific clothing.

JM: I agree, it seems that creationists and ID'ers are in some 'unholy' alliance.

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/id.htm

Cheers

Joe Meert

Oolon Colluphid · 05-30-2003, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by steadele

But let me say this before we begin any such discussion, I have read several books and websites on these issues. I have seen some (there are so many I limit my experience to just some) of the arguments on both sides. I have seen the arguments by Hugh Ross, Eugenie Scott, Dembski, Behe, Dawkins, Wells, Gould, Keith Miller, Kenneth Miller, Mike Gene, Glen Morton, etc. I have seen these arguments and I think that both sides raise some good points. Usually when I discuss these issues with people and they bring up points or arguments they are nothing new, and are things I have already heard or read before. This does not mean I do not welcome discussion, because I do.

Fair enough. Just out of interest, though, when was the last time you looked in a decent science textbook -- something like Futuyma or Ridley (evolution in general), Brock (microorganisms), Eckert (animal physiology), Raven (biology of plants), Bush (parasites), Alberts or Lodish (cell biology), Alcock (animal behaviour), Dodson (ecology), Brown or Cox (biogeography), Aiello & Dean (human evolutionary anatomy), Klein (human evolution), Carroll or Benton (vertebrate palaeontology), Clarkson (invertebrate palaeontology), or Lewin (genetics) -- or even a journal such as Nature or Science (let alone the host of more specialist ones)? They are all recommended. Try especially Aiello and Dean, if you can get hold of it. You will soon see just how ludicrous are creationist arguments and claims.

By all means read at the �pop science� level. But if that�s all you read, that�s the level -- the explain-it-to-dumbasses level -- that you�ll remain at. I hate to mention it, but Gould, Dawkins, Behe and Dumbski are very far from the best places to learn about biology. And once you know something of biology, it becomes inconceivable that creationism has anything useful to say on the matter.

Quote:

Every and any theory on the topic of evolution/creation has elements that are "unverifiable" to a degree.

Oh really? Please don�t confuse the unknown with the cannot-be-known. Science thrives on the unknown... because it tries to find ways to make it known: to verify or refute hypotheses. Creation, when faced with anything counter to it, can and does retreat behind �it�s just the way god wanted it�. That, Steadele, makes it irrefutable, and hence not science.

Quote:

And what evidence do you think OEC "ignores"?

Nested homologies? The obvious implication of a host of fossils intermediate between separate �kinds�? Pseudogenes?

Quote:

To ignore something is to willfully do so, so are you implying that OECs knowingly ignore data?

Maybe, who knows? At the least, they are guilty of slothful induction. Mostly, they are either simply ignorant, or wilfully ignorant. Or stupid. Or insane. Because one or more of those three is what one is who thinks evolution is wrong.

Quote:

I am not sure how you meant that statement to be taken, but it does sound a bit insulting to me. "Any questions" is often meant as a declaration of victory after you have completely defeated an opponent and he is just sitting there silent in defeat, completely amazed at the totality of your victory.

Nope. I meant what I said. Literally, any questions... which presumably would arise from my blanket statements. Believe me, if my intention was to insult, you would be in no doubt about it.

Quote:

If you did not mean the statement in that manner, then I apologize for misjudging you.

Accepted

.

Quote:

I often meet people who think they are much smarter than everyone else and feel the need to tell everyone how superior they are.

I know for sure that I�m nowhere near as smart as many of the posters here, nor remotely as knowledgeable. I merely have some aptitude for spotting bullshit, and a broad enough knowledge of these topics to know what specific information to look up in my books. One day, I may even get around to reading them from one end to the other!

Quote:

So I can be a bit cynical of people at times, though I am trying to improve in this area.

Moderate cynicism, or �scepticism�, is a very valuable asset. Do not temper it too much!

Now, erm, any questions?

Shall we start a new thread? Pick a topic where you think evolution is weak, and we'll see what we can do.

Cheers, Oolon

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-30-2003, 04:26 AM	#46
Camaban Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 473	TY To Gallo for his esteemed, and much-respected university for pointing out these to me: http://home.houston.rr.com/bybayouu/quotes.html Creationist Quotations.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.