RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts

RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

Method -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/26/2008 2:13:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize I already told you how ID can be falsified. Yes, you said that if evolution can do something then ID is falsified. That is not a falsification. That is changing the subject. What fossil, if found, would falsify ID? What genetic analysis of living organisms would falsify ID? Anything? quote: Already given, keep ignoring. Just because you choose to ignore the evidence doesn't mean it's not there. All you gave was a statement that creationist LETTERS would likely not be published. Letters are not articles. quote: Again, ID is falsifiable. UCD is not. Show me how ID is falsifiable without mentioning evolution. Bet you can't do it. quote: We've gone over this several times in other threads. If the ERV code does produce an advantage, then it makes sense for a designer to put it there. If they don't, then there is no reason for them to distribute themselves across an entire population. You have heard of genetic drift, have you not? It is guarateed that neutral mutations will be fixed in populations. And no one is saying that ERV's are all neutral or detrimental. What people are saying is that the source of ERV's is viral, and they are inserted randomly among thousands of insertion sites. ERV's are like every other change in DNA sequence. They can be detrimental, neutral, or beneficial. quote: Cousins can share traits and genes that brothers don't share. We are not talking about traits that they don't share. We are talking about traits that they do share. Changing the subject again, I see. quote: If some genes are useless then it's entirely plausible for organisms with a further relationship to share useless genes that organisms with a closer relationship don't share and there is no reason for a useless gene to spread itself across to an entire specie. You know this. Keep ignoring though. You have heard of population genetics and genetic drift, have you not? Fixation of neutral mutations is an unavoidable consequence of population genetics. quote: I already told you how ID can be falsified. We see humans design IC and SC systems and IC and SC systems exist in nature. If you can demonstrate the emergence of original IC and SC systems (like the bacteria flagellum, new organs, organ systems, body plans, appendages, limbs, or the DNA for them) independent design then you would falsify ID. Since humans were not around millions of years ago then ID is falsified. The source for IC and SC systems was not there. quote: Again, they discriminate against Humphry and Gentry only after it is known that they question naturalism. How does one question naturalism within science? That's like a mathematician questioning the order of numbers. quote: I think otherwise. It is true and you are smart enough to know it. You are gullible enough to believe that creationists produce research that is worthy of being published.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/26/2008 2:27:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method Yes, you said that if evolution can do something then ID is falsified. That is not a falsification. That is changing the subject. No, I said if you can show the emergence of IC and SC structures independent existing IC and SC structures and design that would falsify ID. This emergence can be via abiogenesis, via evolution, or if you can even show geological processes (independent design and independent existing IC and SC structures) producing something like a car, it would falsify ID. It is falsification. quote: What fossil, if found, would falsify ID? What genetic analysis of living organisms would falsify ID? Anything? What fossil, if found, would falsify the notion that the moon exists? What genetic analysis of living organisms? Anything? What you're saying is irrelevant, you are resorting to poor logic (typical of evolutionists). quote: All you gave was a statement that creationist LETTERS would likely not be published. Letters are not articles. It's a statement of discrimination and they did discriminate against Gentry and Humphry only after it was known they may question naturalism. quote: Show me how ID is falsifiable without mentioning evolution. Bet you can't do it. Already did, but even if I mention evolution, it still doesn't invalidate the falsification. quote: You have heard of genetic drift, have you not? It is guarateed that neutral mutations will be fixed in populations. And no one is saying that ERV's are all neutral or detrimental. What people are saying is that the source of ERV's is viral, and they are inserted randomly among thousands of insertion sites. ERV's are like every other change in DNA sequence. They can be detrimental, neutral, or beneficial. None of which is evidence for UCD. quote: We are not talking about traits that they don't share. We are talking about traits that they do share. Changing the subject again, I see. I am not changing the subject. quote: You have heard of population genetics and genetic drift, have you not? Fixation of neutral mutations is an unavoidable consequence of population genetics. There is no reason for any neutral trait to become fixated within an entire population. Within the human population alone there are many traits that are not fixated among the entire population. Some people have green eyes, some have blue, etc... quote: Since humans were not around millions of years ago then ID is falsified. The source for IC and SC systems was not there. You are assuming that which you are trying to prove. Bad logic. quote: How does one question naturalism within science? That's like a mathematician questioning the order of numbers. Again, in order for something to be scientific it must be falsifiable. ID is falsifiable, UCD is not. quote: You are gullible enough to believe that creationists produce research that is worthy of being published. Gentry did. Then he got discriminated against only after it was known he was a creationist. You are not gullible enough to think that ID advocates and Creationists aren't dishonestly discriminated against. The fact is that they are and you are smart enough to know it.

Method -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/26/2008 3:02:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize No, I said if you can show the emergence of IC and SC structures independent existing IC and SC structures and design that would falsify ID. Isn't this exact scenario described in Genesis 1? quote: What fossil, if found, would falsify ID? What genetic analysis of living organisms would falsify ID? Anything? quote: What fossil, if found, would falsify the notion that the moon exists? Changing the subject again. IDers are good at that. They won't let ID be criticized. quote: It's a statement of discrimination and they did discriminate against Gentry and Humphry only after it was known they may question naturalism. How does one question naturalism within science? What does that mean? Secondly, all scientific journals are up front about their discirimination policies. They publish good science and do not publish junk science. It is no the fault of scientific journals that creationism and ID are junk science. quote: Already did, but even if I mention evolution, it still doesn't invalidate the falsification. You aren't listening. If you have to mention evolution it isn't a falsification. It is a change of the subject. quote: None of which is evidence for UCD. What? Your only refutation of the evidence has been shown to be false. Population genetics ensures that neutral mutations will become fixed, and that includes ERV's. quote: I am not changing the subject. This thread is about ID and yet all you can talk about is UCD. Without evolution IDers would have nothing to talk about. quote: There is no reason for any neutral trait to become fixated within an entire population. The entire field of population genetics disagrees. You might want to think that one over. quote: You are assuming that which you are trying to prove. Bad logic. That's your bag, not mine. The only mechanism you have put forth has only been around for 100,000 years or so. It can't explain anything before then. quote: Again, in order for something to be scientific it must be falsifiable. But that is not challenging naturalism. What does it mean to challenge naturalism within the context of science? quote: Gentry did. Then he got discriminated against only after it was known he was a creationist. He was denied a grant. Being denied a grant is not discriminatory. Were the other 50% of grant applicants in that pool also creationists? Like I said before, I think I will declare myself a creationists so I can mess around at work and never get fired by threatening a discrimination law suit. quote: You are not gullible enough to think that ID advocates and Creationists aren't dishonestly discriminated against. The fact is that they are and you are smart enough to know it. If they produced research which could be discriminated against you could actually claim discirimination. Again, Rosa Parks actually had to get on the bus in order to file a lawsuit.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/26/2008 3:23:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method Isn't this exact scenario described in Genesis 1? The Bible implies that we are a product of design. quote: Changing the subject again. IDers are good at that. They won't let ID be criticized. No, I am not changing the subject. Your argument is irrelevant. quote: How does one question naturalism within science? What does that mean? Secondly, all scientific journals are up front about their discirimination policies. They publish good science and do not publish junk science. It is no the fault of scientific journals that creationism and ID are junk science. Again, ID is falsifiable. UCD is not. quote: You aren't listening. If you have to mention evolution it isn't a falsification. It is a change of the subject. No, it is not changing the subject and yes, it is falsification. But it is you who is not listening. I don't have to mention evolution, but there is no reason not to. quote: What? Your only refutation of the evidence has been shown to be false. Population genetics ensures that neutral mutations will become fixed, and that includes ERV's. It has not been shown to be false. quote: This thread is about ID and yet all you can talk about is UCD. Without evolution IDers would have nothing to talk about. I mention the fact that UCD is unfalsifiable and ID is falsifiable. quote: The entire field of population genetics disagrees. You might want to think that one over. Then why don't all people have the same hair color? quote: That's your bag, not mine. The only mechanism you have put forth has only been around for 100,000 years or so. It can't explain anything before then. Your response doesn't even address mine. quote: But that is not challenging naturalism. What does it mean to challenge naturalism within the context of science? ID does not necessarily have to challenge naturalism. It just has to be falsifiable (and it is). quote: He was denied a grant. Being denied a grant is not discriminatory. Were the other 50% of grant applicants in that pool also creationists? Again, they had no problems granting money before it was known he was a creationist. Afterwords, they don't grant him anything. quote: If they produced research which could be discriminated against you could actually claim discirimination. Again, Rosa Parks actually had to get on the bus in order to file a lawsuit. Gentry did produce research. Again, in the case of Humphry quote: On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article * �Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps� to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn�t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn�t even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp They didn't discriminate against him before it was known he was a creationist, only after.

Veritas -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/26/2008 7:55:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: All you gave was a statement that creationist LETTERS would likely not be published. Letters are not articles. It's a statement of discrimination and they did discriminate against Gentry and Humphry only after it was known they may question naturalism. As I've come to expect from Answers in Genesis, the statement you quoted "It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism." was taken out of context. Here is the entire letter: quote: Dear Dr. Humphreys: Thank you for your letter of 30 July. It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism. This is because we decide what to publish on the basis of scientific content. The letters we received objecting to the study reported by Roger Lewin contained arguments that were largely conjectural or anecdotal. They were therefore not considered acceptable material for Science. Yours sincerely, /s/ Christine Gilbert Christine Gilbert Letters Editor Science Everybody discriminates. Quoting the sentence out of context makes it appear that they are discriminating against creationists because they are creationists. As the very next sentence shows, they "decide what to publish on the basis of scientific content." You may disagree with them, but it is dishonest of AiG to make it appear they are discriminating against creationists because they are creationists when that is not the case.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/26/2008 9:44:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veritas Everybody discriminates. Quoting the sentence out of context makes it appear that they are discriminating against creationists because they are creationists. They are not quoting out of context. quote: As the very next sentence shows, they "decide what to publish on the basis of scientific content." So you argue that the secular community doesn't publish creationist work because it's not scientific and that it's not scientific because the secular community doesn't publish it. Again, that's circular reasoning. There is no scientific reason not to publish the work of a creationist (just because it may contradicts naturalism). Science welcomes an open array of views and criticisms from all sides to be considered, it doesn't discriminate against someone just because they may question the naturalistic religion. quote: You may disagree with them, but it is dishonest of AiG to make it appear they are discriminating against creationists because they are creationists when that is not the case. They are discriminating against the creationist because they are a creationist. They arbitrary label creationist work unscientific and work that doesn't contradict naturalism scientific and then they dishonestly discriminate against creationist work. Creationist work is no less scientific than work that seeks a naturalistic explanation for origins.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/26/2008 12:27:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize So you argue that the secular community doesn't publish creationist work because it's not scientific and that it's not scientific because the secular community doesn't publish it. No, putting the two sentences together, they say that creationist letters are "not likely" to contain "scientific content". This is quite true. For each creationist essay with useful scientific content, I can probably find 10 that misuse the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Veritas -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/26/2008 1:20:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: Veritas Everybody discriminates. Quoting the sentence out of context makes it appear that they are discriminating against creationists because they are creationists. They are not quoting out of context. Quoting out of context is exactly what they are doing! By including only the part where she says Science "not likely to publish letters supporting creationism," without including the reason she gave, AiG gives the false impression that is the reason is that the letters are from creationists. The next sentence makes it clear this is not the reason. Leaving the reader with this false impression is dishonest. It is sad that creationists resort to such dishonest tactics. quote: quote: As the very next sentence shows, they "decide what to publish on the basis of scientific content." So you argue that the secular community doesn't publish creationist work because it's not scientific and that it's not scientific because the secular community doesn't publish it. Again, that's circular reasoning. I argue no such thing. I do NOT argue that the letters are not science because they are not published. The reason they are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism is that such letters tend not to be scientific. quote: There is no scientific reason not to publish the work of a creationist (just because it may contradicts naturalism). Science welcomes an open array of views and criticisms from all sides to be considered, it doesn't discriminate against someone just because they may question the naturalistic religion. Science investigates the natural world. Investigation of the natural world is not religion; that is what science is. quote: quote: You may disagree with them, but it is dishonest of AiG to make it appear they are discriminating against creationists because they are creationists when that is not the case. They are discriminating against the creationist because they are a creationist. They arbitrary label creationist work unscientific and work that doesn't contradict naturalism scientific and then they dishonestly discriminate against creationist work. Creationist work is no less scientific than work that seeks a naturalistic explanation for origins. They do not arbritrarly label creationist work unscientific. Again science investigates the natural world. When creationism ventures outside of naturalism, they leave the realm of science and enter the realm of religion.

Method -> RE: Comments from Uncommondescent Posts (6/27/2008 10:58:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize No, I am not changing the subject. Your argument is irrelevant. No, it's not. You will not let ID be criticized. You believe it should be shielded from criticism. [quoet]It has not been shown to be false. Please find me one person trained in population genetics that claims neutral mutations can not become fixed in a population. quote: Then why don't all people have the same hair color? Hair color is not a neutral mutation. Hair color piggy backs with skin color which is strongly selected for in humans. quote: ID does not necessarily have to challenge naturalism. It just has to be falsifiable (and it is). Then what does it mean to "challenge naturalism" within the realm of science? Aren't you saying that you want to do away with science? quote: Again, they had no problems granting money before it was known he was a creationist. Afterwords, they don't grant him anything. Correlation does not indicate causation. quote: Gentry did produce research. So did the other 50% who did not get funding. Were they all creationists too? quote: On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article * �Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps� to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn�t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn�t even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Already covered that in another post. Humphrey's letter did not contain any data. The letter that was accepted did. That is why one was accepted over the other. quote: They didn't discriminate against him before it was known he was a creationist, only after. Were the other 50% of scientists who did not get funding from the same pool also discriminated against? I can't think of one scientist that has not had a grant application rejected. It happens A LOT. Right now only 10% of grant applications are being funded in my field. In real lean years it can get as bad as 5%. In good years it goes up to 30%. Your credibility here is shot. You have gone on record suggesting that a scientist who is not getting grant money, not doing research, and not graduating students deserves tenure. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge into how science works can see right through you.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI