penn and teller (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-967128149563430244&q=penn+teller) sum the thread up nicely.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Look, I left the first time because we just went around in cirles. It was unproductive, it was mean-spirited, and nobody budged even an inch on their beliefs. Half the time, no one even actually addresses my points, they just attack me personally and use hyperbole to detract from the argument. That isn't a debate, that's little kids heckling each other on the playground.

So, I found a new forum that actually moderates each thread, ad hominem is not tolerated, and everyone's points are addressed specifically. Digi knew that she was going to be swamped when she got back into the debate, and asked if I would lighten the load by helping to answer some questions posed to her because its impossible to answer them all. So, I obliged. I've been active for like 5 pages, with at least 30 posts. Now we are right back to where we started and I'd really like to get back to forum now. That doesn't mean that I'll never be back or that I'm running away. You can try and play on my pride by insulting me enough to respond, but I'm above that. In fact, that just makes me not want to come back.

Everyone clear on that? I hope so because I'm not going to explain it again.

Hi buddy, you wrote alot, before you go could you respond to my post? It is sort of long but if you could make it your last response I'll really appreciate it...I will re copy paste it here since it may be hard to find:

A Scientific Theory, in order to be widely accepted needs evidence and experiments to back up its claims and a factor that would prove its claims false if found.

In the Theory of Evolution there have been tremendous amounts of experiments and evidence to back up the idea that creatures evolve and are not the same as they used to be long ago. A term which would prove Evolution False, according to many evolutionists, is finding completely modern creatures as extremely ancient fossils. This has not occured yet, but it is still required as a factor in which evolution would be proven wrong. All scientific theories in order to be widely accepted require evidence and terms which can prove it false. These terms do not need to prove it false, nor do they prove it right, they only need to be there. Please re read the above if you need to, it is basic.

In the Theory of Intelligent Design there have been no scientific experiments in a controlled environment which provide evidence to back up the claims that life has an intelligent designer, only philosophical arguments and showing the beauty and perfection of creation as proof of intelligent design, and Intelligent Design has no term which would prove it false.

Let me repeat this to make it even more clear:

Evolution has what it needs in order to be a Scientific Theory: Experimental Evidence and Terms which would prove it false.

ID does not have what it needs in order to be a Scientific Theory: No experiment in a controlled environment can prove the designer of life and creatures and there is absolutely no way or terms which would prove Intelligent Design false. This is why ID can never be a scientific theory.

ID is a Philosophical and Theological Theory, Philosophical and Theological arguments do not need terms which prove it false (often they can't be proven false), and do not require any evidence or experiments held in a controlled environment.

Please re read this as many times as you need in order to understand these extremely simple facts.

I will repeat it once more:

Evolution is a Scientific Theory because experiments can be performed to provide evidence which backs up the theory and there are terms which if met can prove the theory false.

ID is not a Scientific Theory because no experiments can be performed in a controlled environment to provide evidence which backs it up and there is no way and nothing that can EVER be found that will prove ID wrong. ID can never be a Scientific Theory, it will forever be a Philosophical and Theological Idea until an experiment or several experiments can be performed in a controlled environment to provide evidence to back up the theory and until there is a term or several terms which if met can prove the theory false.

The terms which prove Evolution false have not yet been met but the terms still need to exist in order for it to be accepted as a Scientific Theory.

There are no terms which can possibly prove ID false and no experiments that can possibly be performed in a controlled environment to provide evidence to back up the theory.

This does not mean Evolution is Right or ID is wrong, this only means ID can't be an accepted Scientific Theory.

Please Understand this. There is no argument. These are basic facts. Re read this simple post as many times as you need in order for these simple facts to sink in.

Now onto Lucifer (Please Read Both Links): http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2215 http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml

It's nice to know, this debate is finally over.

There's not really any point in arguing for creationism/id if you can't prove or disprove a creator/intelligent designer, because that would mean it is not a scientific theory to start with.

Not to mention many, many, other problems with the theory that were discussed but never successfully addressed.

Still it's about time this thread is over, will it be rearchived, or something to that effect?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Admitting that you have been wrong for the past 30 years of your life is a pretty humbling experience. I don't know too many people that would take kindly to it. So, instead of doing just that, they pretend like ID is not a valid scientific theory. They have effectively eliminated the possibility of their destruction within intellectual scientific communities....for now.

Nice projection. You believe all of this intuitively. You'll keep telling yourself what you want to hear no matter how many times you are proven wrong. Can't see any virtue in that.

quote:Originally posted by smallpox champion:

Nice projection. You believe all of this intuitively. You'll keep telling yourself what you want to hear no matter how many times you are proven wrong. Can't see any virtue in that.

Hyro's posts are full of that too. Take debating creationism with him. He'll make statements like "There is NO evidence for evolution," "Evolution is FAITH," "Evolution is irrational." It's almost comical.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

Hyro's posts are full of that too. Take debating creationism with him. He'll make statements like "There is NO evidence for evolution," "Evolution is FAITH," "Evolution is irrational." It's almost comical.

Exactly. He thinks science works the same way as his religion. If he percieves one flaw with a religion, he would feel the need to discard it completely, hence Digi and Hyro's extreme distaste for other Christian sects.

If he finds something sketchy in evolutionary theory, he discards the whole thing, yet he can't admit that ID is one big flaw. They can't turn that same scrutiny (that evolutionary theory has survived) toward things they hold near and dear.

Digi will probably read this and give a typical response with heavy sarcasm.

Rust, tell me what you make of this argument:

quote:Intelligent Design works by testing for the hallmarks of design in a system: specifically complex information (SCI). SCI can be found on Mount Rushmore. The mountain's rock face, with its jagged edges and many nooks and crannies, is certainly complex, but the presidents' faces are specifically complex. We can detect design in nature with the assistance of the concept of SCI using the Explanatory Filter, a logical algorithm for detecting design devised by mathemitician William Dembski. The Filter uses a three-step approach, where the "feature" is usually an organ or an organ system or an animal:

1. Contingency - Does the feature in question exist in more than one form?

2. Complexity - Does the feature in question exhibit relatively complex stuctures or function?

3. Specification - Does the feature in question have parts that are complex but fit into a pre-existing pattern, or does the feature itself fit into such a pattern? In other words: does the complex feature have a specific purpose within a larger system? (note that specification only applies to the organ system level and lower)

If a biological organ - say, the liver - is complex because of the huge number of chemicals that exist there, and it's specifically complex because those chemicals aren't randomly placed, but, rather, have a specific purpose within the liver, then design can be implied by the rules set forth in the Filter. However, design could not be implied if there were a natural process that can generate specificied complexity at the levels seen in life today because the Filter would lead straight down to that natural process. Therefore, design is implied because there is no known or observable natural process that can generate such specific complexity as exhibited in the liver. But many ask: what about unknown processes that may be able to generate such complexity - how can ID theorists be sure that design can be implied? Since design is detected indirectly, it's impossible to be 100% sure of design. But then again, a large portion of science relies on indirect detection. Archaeology is one example. If an archeologist were to say that a natural process produced a vase with inscriptions - a vase that exhibited SCI - that'd be silly. But we find SCI in nature, and there's no natural process capable of creating high levels of SCI.

A couple ways to test ID and therefore possibly falsify it for a biological structure:

1. Take a specifically complex system and test for an irreducibly complex core. If the core of the system is irreducibly complex, design is evident.

2. Find a natural process capable of producing SCI and irreducible complexity.

No, I didn't write that.

Sorry I haven't posted...life, and "stuff".

Anyway, let me know what you think about these methods of falsification.

quote:Originally posted by smallpox champion:

Nice projection. You believe all of this intuitively. You'll keep telling yourself what you want to hear no matter how many times you are proven wrong. Can't see any virtue in that.

I believe all of this because I have myself been convinced, which is no easy task. As a matter of fact, I am battling something I have found in the Bible very recently that has shaken my Christian faith to the core. I am having a very hard time wrapping my mind around it, and have written to several well-trusted Biblical scholars for answers. I will never cease believing that we were created, but...bah, I don't even know what I am saying, but if I say too much it will bite me in the ass later.

Suffice it to say I am treading tentatively right now...praying ardently that I receive the answer to the question, because if I do not, I don't know if I can bring myself to continue following this path. As it stands, I believe there is an answer, and that I have not yet found it. If there isn't an answer...well...

I only tell you this to show how I can question everything I believe and live for, because I too need things to be logical and proven. I think many of you are under the misconception that I was born into Christianity and blindly adopted the tenets because I am weak-willed or easily manipulated. That is not the case. I am one of the most critical, suspicious, cynical people I know.

The beliefs I have come to embrace do not eradicate these parts of my personality.

Darwin's theory does not make sense to me. Intelligent Design does. That doesn't make me an idiot, and it doesn't mean I settle for junk science because I desperately wish to prove the existence of my God. That is simply not the kind of person I am.

As for hearing only what I want to hear, that is a human condition...one we are all guilty of, including yourself. Take politics, for example. We are all socialized politically before we are even old enough to formulate our own conclusions. This type of socialization stems from our family, our schools, our peers, the media, etc. Once we come to believe something, it is very difficult to let it go. An odd sense of loyalty overcomes us, and often times defies logic. This is not something only Christians do. This is something everyone does. It is really pointless to use that as an argument against someone, when you do the very same thing.

I have not once claimed to be virtuous, nor have I pretended to be. That word is not in my vocabulary.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

It's nice to know, this debate is finally over.

It's over when I stop arguing.

I will let you know when that happens.

quote:Not to mention many, many, other problems with the theory that were discussed but never successfully addressed.

I am busy. So is Hyro. We will contribute when we have time...we dedicated two full days to the onslaught of attacks. Considering there are two of us against what...ten other people ? Psh. Be realistic.

quote:Still it's about time this thread is over, will it be rearchived, or something to that effect?

Why does it need to be "over" ? Is that a requirement, in your mind, for being able to gloat over how the IDer's were decimated (which has yet to happen) ?

Grow up. Some things are more important than "winning".

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 08-12-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:



Wait, the only reason no one budged is because you expected everyone to leap on the creationist band wagon and chose to ignore facts! Every time we showed you a fact, you ignored it and made the same statement, THAT is why we were going around in circles.

Uh, no. The reason we go around and around in circles is because you don't have any respect for people you are debating.

Every time we showed YOU facts, you ignored them and attacked us personally.

quote:As for the Ad Hom, get off of it, you wife constantly bitches at people at a personal level and insults their intelligence, just not as directly as me and some others. In fact, you and your wife paint an ugly picture of followers of Christ.

I'm sorry, but I never once insulted you, before you started calling me retarded. It was YOU that began the worthless ad hom.

For a kid that pisses and moans about how "unfair" God is, it's pretty rich of you to claim who does or does not paint a bad picture of those that follow Christ, aside from the fact that you are completely unqualified to say what a good Christian should be like.

quote:Also, all the posts asked the same thing, to provide FALSIFIABLE EVIDENCE FOR ID. But wait, you and your wife were retarded and didn’t no what falsifiable meant, either that or you were playing ignorance.

You’re running away, simple as that.

All the responses to our evidence focused on something that is questionable, at best. Instead of actually arguing the scientific evidence, it was about semantics, character, and questioning intelligence.

It would be nice if we could have a REAL debate on ID.

No one is running. We have kids. We have school. We have work. We have church. We do things besides post on totse. My husband is a genuinely nice guy, and it bothers him tremendously to engage in debates with people as disrespectful as you. He found a forum where people are actually interested in learning, which includes teaching and being taught. It's a reciprocal debate environment. He prefers that. He's 28 years old...it is not strange that he is not enticed by the immature rantings of teenagers. He came back to help me out, because there are MANY of you, and only one of me. It was an unfair fight from the beginning. He didn't have to help, and he doesn't have to stay. He loses nothing by leaving, especially his pride. It has nothing to do with inability, or lack of argument.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

In short: "You guys have me beat, so I'm pussying out and leaving."

Typical Creationist action: run for the door when proven a fool and carry on making the same claims in a different place. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Where have you contributed ANYTHING to this debate, by way of refuting ID ? I have pointed this out before, but I see I have to again: gloating over the seeming success of other posters is pretty damn pathetic. All of your posts have had nothing to do with ID whatsoever.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

No.

One of the wisest things you've said, Rust. Trust me, he's not worth it. I blocked him long ago...

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 08-12-2006).]

quote:facts

hahahahahahahahahahahaha, I'm trying to hold my sides in, wait a minute.... What facts now?

You haven't proven intelligent design to be a scientific theory; you haven't proven intelligent design to be falsifiable, in fact, you didn't even know what that word means - ROFL - and you haven't given any decent evidence against evolution that wasn't soundly refuted. In fact, all your evidence against evolution was merely ignorance or bending of the facts, but of course you won't admit to this and this isn't about evolution, this is about Intelligent Design; which you seem to confuse with creationism, even though you constantly point out to others that there is an important difference.

I'm still waiting for falsifiable evidence for intelligent design, and until I see some, it is not a scientific theory.

I'll leave Rust to easily refute your post, since it is not directed at me. Oh, and good to know you're talking to me again, biatch.

*dishes some more onto DS's plate*



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-12-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

You haven't proven intelligent design to be a scientific theory; you haven't proven intelligent design to be falsifiable...

I have yet to even try. What is the point of providing evidence for ID, if people refuse to accept it as a legitimate scientific theory ? It's called logic...something you seem to lack.

It is logical to first prove that it is a scientific theory, before getting into the rest. We haven't gotten past that part yet, so what's the point in asking for evidence of ID ?

quote:in fact, you didn't even know what that word means - ROFL -

Yes, squirt, I certainly do. Often times totseans are fond of throwing the Dictionary out the window, as if it is commonly incorrect in defining the words that hold our language together, and for the sake of the argument, I decided to be gracious and try to find a common definition we could all agree on. It was an attempt to help grease the debate. In case it has escaped your attention, we can end up arguing about inconsequentials for pages on end. I was trying to avoid that. It seems it is impossible to do so, with this crowd.

quote:...and you haven't given any decent evidence against evolution that wasn't soundly refuted. In fact, all your evidence against evolution was merely ignorance or bending of the facts, but of course you won't admit to this and this isn't about evolution, it's about Intelligent Design, which you seem to confuse yourself with creationism, even though you constantly point out to others that there is an important difference.

How perceptive of you to point out the very same thing I have said all along, which is that this thread isn't about disproving evolution. It is IMPOSSIBLE to keep you people on topic.

This thread is SUPPOSED to be about ID. It's NOT about Creationism. It's not about evolution. Had I been given the chance to give my argument in order, it would have made a hell of a lot more sense.

I am neither ignorant of the "facts," nor have the necessity to bend them. Assertions prove nothing, and I haven't given you enough to go on in this thread to make those kind of claims.

quote:I'm still waiting for falsifiable evidence for intelligent design, and until I see some, it is not a scientific theory.

You mean you're waiting for Hyro and I to answer truckfxr and Rust ? Because you certainly didn't have anything to say about falsifiable properties before they brought it up...

quote:I'll leave Rust to easily refute your post, since it is not directed at me. Oh, and good to know you're talking to me again, biatch.

*dishes some more onto DS's plate*

Amusing, you stroking your own ego, while in the same sentence proving what I have been saying for a few pages now: you are riding on the coattails of others, because you are incapable of formulating an argument against us on your own.

As for talking to you...I can fix that, biatch.

quote:This thread is SUPPOSED to be about ID. It's NOT about Creationism. It's not about evolution. Had I been given the chance to give my argument in order, it would have made a hell of a lot more sense.

Go tell that to your fucking husband.

You've still not proven Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, and therefore deserving of being taught in schools.

And who gives a fuck if it isn't my argument, you still haven't proven it falsifiable. And you've made so many arguments for intelligent design that aren't your own... biatch. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-12-2006).]

Finally we actually get to intelligent design.

DS:

quote:If a biological organ - say, the liver - is complex because of the huge number of chemicals that exist there, and it's specifically complex because those chemicals aren't randomly placed, but, rather, have a specific purpose within the liver, then design can be implied by the rules set forth in the Filter. However, design could not be implied if there were a natural process that can generate specificied complexity at the levels seen in life today because the Filter would lead straight down to that natural process. Therefore, design is implied because there is no known or observable natural process that can generate such specific complexity as exhibited in the liver.

Notice the things I bolded.

Randomness: SCI is basically based on comparing random chance to how likely something is to happen. The flaw here is that evolution isn't random chance, thus any filter that has to do with random chance isn't valid.

Natural process: This is correct. Although it's important to mention that design can't be ruled out if a natural process is found.

No Known: Here is the interesting part. Design is only assumed if we don't know how to answer it naturally. However we know we don't know everything. Thus to be more accurate when they say "design" they really should say "unknown process." To say anything more about the unknown process means we must know more about it. To suggest an cause of that unknown we need to provide either 1) Evidence of that cause, or 2) a way to test or falsify that cause. In other words, to go from unknown process to Intelligent designer we either need evidence the designer exists or a way to test for and falsify that designer.

quote:A couple ways to test ID and therefore possibly falsify it for a biological structure:

1. Take a specifically complex system and test for an irreducibly complex core. If the core of the system is irreducibly complex, design is evident.

2. Find a natural process capable of producing SCI and irreducible complexity.

1) Unless Irreducibly complex objects can be explained through natural processes.

2) Already done, evolution. Earlier in this thread Hyro provided an example of IC, blood-clotting. You will also notice others provided an explanation why blood-clotting was formable by evolution and not IC. Most things suggested as IC have turned out to be formable by evolution. IC makes a couple assumptions about evolution that have turned out untrue. It's possible for an IC system to evolve out of a non IC system through a number of different processes.



Thus, SCI doesn't mean design and doesn't addess evolution.

IC doesn't mean it can't be formed through natural processes.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

What is the point of providing evidence for ID, if people refuse to accept it as a legitimate scientific theory ?

If you dont provide evidence, people wont accept it as a scientific theory, because in order to be a scientific theory, said theory needs evidence.

People don't accept the theory that the earth spins around the sun because it sounds good, its because it has evidence. Its still just theory though.

NOTHING is fact, and people dont belive what they dont want to.

I think my post up here on this page summed it all up, though it has probably been summed up before.

quote:Originally posted by Digital Savior:

It's over when I stop arguing.

I will let you know when that happens.

Technically it's over when you stop presenting proof, so one could say a real debate never started since no proof was presented, and this thread has mostly been just an argument.

For one thing both you and hyro have failed in refuting the distance of stars light issue.

Also in order to prove intelligent design you have to prove an intelligent designer. If the intelligent designer is god that is impossible, because god cannot be proven true or untrue. If you think otherwise your not using the scientific method.

Besides DS arguing the longest doesn't prove your right, proof does, something you lack entirely.

If what your saying is true you have to:

1) Prove something capable of being an intelligent designer exists.

2)Without violating the laws of physics and using mathematics to back your claims, prove that intelligent "intervention" took place, and continues to take place.

3)Prove that these "interventions" could not happen naturally.

4)Prove all methods of measuring the distance of stars false.

5)Provide experimental proof of your claims

6)Provide VALID scientific sources for all your claims

All of these points have to be met before I even glance at ID. Why should I believe something without proof? I shouldn't, so I won't.

Also in reference to the star distance measuring techniques, I will list below, if your interested in proving ID correct.

The ABC's of Distances (http://tinyurl.com/om79f)

quote:Quoted from astro.ucla.edu:

The ABC's of Distances

It is almost impossible to tell the distances of objects we see in the sky. Almost, but not quite, and astronomers have developed a large variety of techniques. Here I will describe 26 of them. I will ignore the work that went into determining the astronomical unit: the scale factor for the Solar System, and just consider distances outside of the Solar System.

A. TRIGONOMETRIC PARALLAX

This method rates an A because it is the gold standard for astronomical distances. It is based on measuring two angles and the included side of a triangle formed by 1) the star, 2) the Earth on one side of its orbit, and 3) the Earth six months later on the other side of its orbit.

annual parallax diagram

The top part of the diagram above shows the Earth at two different times, and the triangle formed with a nearby star and these two positions of the Earth. The bottom part shows two pictures of the nearby star projected onto more distant stars taken from the two sides of the Earth's orbit. If you cross your eyes to merge these two pictures, you will either see the nearby star standing in front of the background in 3-D, or else get a headache.

The parallax of a star is one-half the angle at the star in the diagram above. Thus the parallax is the angle at the star in an Earth-Sun-star triangle. Since this angle is always very small, the sine and tangent of the parallax are very well approximated by the parallax angle measured in radians. Therefore the distance to a star is

D[in cm] = [Earth-Sun distance in cm]/[parallax in radians]

Astronomers usually say the Earth-Sun distance is 1 astronomical unit, where 1 au = 1.5E13 cm, and measure small angles in arc-seconds. [Note that 1.5E13 is computerese for 15,000,000,000,000] One radian has 648000/pi arc-seconds. If we use these units, the unit of distance is [648000/pi] au = 3.085678E18 cm = 1 parsec. A star with a parallax of 1 arc-second has a distance of 1 parsec. No known stars have parallaxes this big. Proxima Centauri has a parallax of 0.76". [The double quote is used to denote arc-seconds (as well as inches).]

The first stellar parallax (of the star 61 Cygni) was measured by Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel (1784-1846) in 1838. Bessel is also known for the Bessel functions in mathematical physics.

B. Moving Clusters

Not many stars are close enough to have useful trigonometric parallaxes. But when stars are in a stable star cluster whose physical size is not changing, like the Pleiades, then the apparent motions of the stars within the cluster can be used to determine the distance to the cluster.

Moving cluster parallax

The top part of the diagram above shows the space motion of a cluster of stars. Notice that the velocity vectors are parallel so the cluster is neither expanding nor contracting. But when we look at the motions of the stars projected on the sky we see them converging because of perspective effects. The angle to the convergent point is theta. If the cluster is moving towards us then the convergent point is behind the cluster but there is second convergent point on the opposite side of the sky and we use that. From the motions of the stars on the sky, known as proper motions because they are properties of individual stars, we measure theta and its rate of change, d(theta)/dt. We also need the radial velocity VR of the cluster measured using a spectrograph to see the Doppler shift. The transverse velocity, VT, (sideways motion) of the cluster can be found using VT/VR = tan(theta). The distance of the cluster is then

D[in cm] = VT[in cm/sec]/[d(theta)/dt]

D[in pc] = (VR/4.74 km/sec)*tan(theta)/{d(theta)/dt[in "/yr]}

The odd constant 4.74 km/sec is one au/year. Because a time interval of 100 years can be used to measure d(theta)/dt, precise distances to nearby star clusters are possible. This method has been applied to the Hyades cluster giving a distance of 45.53 +/- 2.64 pc. The average of HIPPARCOS trigonometric parallaxes for Hyades members gives a distance of 46.34 +/- 0.27 pc (Perryman et al.).

C. Secular Parallax

Another method can be used to measure the average distance to a set of stars, chosen to be all about the same distance from the Earth.

Statistical and secular parallax

The diagram above shows such a set of stars, but with two possible mean distances. The green stars show a small mean distance, while the red stars show a large mean distance. Because of the mean motion of the Solar system at 20 km/sec relative to the average of nearby stars there will be an average proper motion away from the point of the sky the Solar System is moving towards. This point is known as the apex. Let the angle to the apex be theta. Then the proper motion d(theta)/dt will have a mean component proportional to sin(theta), shown by the lines in the plot of d(theta)/dt vs sin(theta). Let the slope of this line be mu. Then the mean distance of the stars is

D[in cm] = V(sun)[in cm/sec]/(mu [in radians/sec])

D[in pc] = 4.16/(mu [in "/yr])

where the odd constant 4.16 is the Solar motion in au/yr.

D. Statistical Parallax

When the stars have measured radial velocities, then the scatter in their proper motions can be used to determine the mean distance. It is

(scatter in VR)[in cm/sec]

D[in cm] = ----------------------------------------

(scatter in d(theta)/dt)[in radians/sec]

E. Kinematic Distance

The pattern of differential rotation in our galaxy can be used to determine the distance of a source when its radial velocity is known.

F. Expansion Parallax

The distance to an expanding object like a supernova remnant such as Tycho can be determined by measuring:

1. the angular expansion rate d(theta)/dt using pictures taken many years apart, and

2. the radial velocity of expansion, VR, using the Doppler shift of lines emitted from the front and back of the expanding shell. When a spectrograph is pointed at the center of the remnant a double line is seen, with the red shifted emission coming from the back of the shell while the blue shifted emission comes from the front.

The distance is then calculated using

D = VR/d(theta)/dt with theta in radians

This method is subject to a systematic error when the velocity of the material behind the shock is less than the velocity of the shock. In supernova remnants in the adiabatic phase this is in fact the case, with VR = 0.75 V(shock), so the calculated distance can be too small by 25%.

G. Light Echo Distance

The center elliptical ring around SN1987A in the LMC appears to be due to an inclined circular ring around the progenitor. When the pulse of ultraviolet light from the supernova hit the ring, it lit up in ultraviolet emission lines which were observed by the International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE). The first detection of these lines at time, t1, and also the time when the lines from the last part of the ring to be illuminated, t2, were both clearly evident in the IUE light curve of the UV lines. If t0 is the time that we first saw the supernova, then the extra light travel times to the front and back of the ring are:

t1 - t0 = R(1 - sin(i))/c

t2 - t0 = R(1 + sin(i))/c

where R is the radius of the ring in cm. Thus

R = c(t1-t0 + t2-t0)/2

When the HST was launched it took a picture of SN 1987A and saw the ring, and measured the angular radius of the ring, theta. The ratio gives the distance:

D = R/theta with theta in radians

Applied to the LMC using SN 1987A one gets D = 47 +/- 1 kpc, based on t1-t0 = 75 +/- 2.6 days, t2 - t0 = 390 +/- 1.8 days, and a ring angular semimajor axis of 0.858 arc-seconds. (Gould 1995, ApJ, 452, 189) This method is basically the expansion method applied to the expansion of the shell of supernova radiation that expands at the speed of light. It can be applied to other known geometries, as well.

H. Spectroscopic Visual Binaries

If a binary orbit is observed both visually and spectroscopically, then both the angular size and the physical size of the orbit are known. The ratio gives the distance.

The following methods need the surface brightness of stars. The picture below shows how the surface brightness of stars depends on their colors:

3 colored circles on a black background

The colors correspond approximately to star temperatures of 5000, 6000 and 7000 K. The color shifts are quite small, but the surface brightness changes are large: in fact, I have cut the surface brightness change in half in order to make the cool star visible. By measuring the ratio of the blue flux of a star to its yellow-green flux, astronomers measure the B-V color of the star. This measure of the blue:visual flux ratio can be used to estimate the surface brightness SB of the star. Since the visual flux is measured as well, the angular radius theta of the star is known from theta = sqrt[Flux/(pi*SB)]. If the physical radius R can be found as well, the distance follows from D = R/theta with theta in radians.

I. Baade-Wesselink Method

The Baade-Wesselink method is applied to pulsating stars. Using the color and flux light curves, one finds the ratio of the radii at different times:

sqrt[Flux(t2)/SB(Color(t2)]

R(t2)/R(t1) = ---------------------------

sqrt[Flux(t1)/SB(Color(t1)]

Then spectra of the star throughout its pulsation period are used to find its radial velocity Vr(t). Knowing how fast the star's surface is moving, one finds R(t2)-R(t1) by adding up velocity*time during the time interval between t1 and t2. If you know both the ratio of the radii R(t2)/R(t1) from fluxes and colors and the difference in the radii R(t2)-R(t1) from spectroscopy, then you have two equations in two unknowns and it is easy to solve for the radii. With the radius and angle, the distance is found using D = R/theta.

J. Spectroscopic Eclipsing Binaries

In a double-lined spectroscopic binary, the projected size of the orbit a*sin(i) is found from the radial velocity amplitude and the period. In an eclipsing binary, the relative radii of the stars R1/a and R2/a and the inclination of the orbit i are found by analyzing the shapes of the eclipse light curves. Using the observed fluxes and colors to get surface brightnesses, the angular radii of the stars can be estimated. R1 is found from i, a*sin(i) and R1/a; and with theta1 the distance can be found.

For the hot O stars in the binary used to measure the distance to M33 the atmosphere contains a large number of free electrons. These scatter and reflect light without changing the spectrum. Thus the surface brightness can be lower than the surface brightness expected from the colors and line ratios if there is a larger than expected amount of electron scattering. The calculated distance would then be too large.

K. Expanding Photosphere Method

The Baade-Wesselink method can be applied to an expanding star: the variations in radius do not have to be periodic. It has been applied to Type II supernovae, which are massive stars with a hydrogen rich envelope that explode when their cores collapse to from neutron stars. It can also be applied to Type Ia supernovae, but these objects have no hydrogen lines in their spectra. Since the surface brightness vs color law is calibrated using normal, hydrogen-rich stars, the EPM is normally used on hydrogen-rich supernovae, which are Type II. The Type II SN1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud has been used to calibrate this distance indicator.

The following methods use the H-R diagram of stars, which gives the luminosity as a function of temperature. When the luminosity and flux of an object are known, the distance can be found using

D = sqrt[L/(4*pi*F)]

L. Main Sequence Fitting

When distances to nearby stars were found using trigonometric parallaxes in the late 19th and early 20th century, it became possible to study the luminosities of stars. Einar Hertzsprung and Henry Norris Russell both plotted stars on a chart of luminosity and temperature. Most stars fall on a single track, known as the Main Sequence, in this diagram, which is now known as the H-R diagram after Hertzsprung and Russell. Often the absolute magnitude is used instead of the luminosity, and the spectral type or color is used instead of the temperature.

When looking at a cluster of stars, the apparent magnitudes and colors of the stars form a track that is parallel to the Main Sequence, and by correctly choosing the distance, the apparent magnitudes convert to absolute magnitudes that fall on the standard Main Sequence.

M. Spectroscopic Parallax

When the spectrum of a star is observed carefully, it is possible to determine two parameters of the star as well as the chemical abundances in the star's atmosphere. The first of these two parameters is the surface temperature of the star, which determines the spectral type in the range OBAFGKM from hottest to coolest. The hot O stars show ionized helium lines, the B stars show neutral helium lines, the A stars have strong hydrogen lines, the F and G stars have various metal lines, and the coolest K and M stars have molecular bands. The spectral classes are further subdivided with a digit, so the Sun is a G2 star.

The second parameter that can be determined is the surface gravity of the star. The higher the surface gravity, the higher the pressure in the atmosphere, and high pressure leads to line broadening and also reduces the amount of ionization in the atmosphere. The surface gravity is denoted by the luminosity class denoted by a Roman numeral from I to V with I being the lowest gravity and V being the highest (except for class VI which is sometimes seen and for white dwarfs which are separately classified.) Stars with high surface gravity (class V) are called dwarfs while stars with medium gravity (class III) are called giants and stars with low gravity (class I) are called supergiants. The use of surface gravity to determine the luminosity of a star depends on three relations:

L = 4*pi*sigma*T4*R2

L = A*Mb Mass-luminosity law with b = 3-4

g = G*M/R2

Given the temperature from the spectral type, and the surface gravity from the luminosity class, these equations can be used to find the mass and luminosity. If the luminosity and flux are known the distance follows from the inverse square law.

One warning about this method: it only works for normal stars, and any given single object might not be normal. Main sequence fitting in a cluster is much more reliable since with a large number of stars it is easy to find the normal ones.

The following methods use the properties of pulsating stars:

N. RR Lyrae Distance

RR Lyrae stars are pulsating stars like Cepheids, but they are low mass stars with short periods (less than a day). They are seen in globular clusters, and appear to all have the same luminosity. Since the masses of RR Lyrae stars are determined by the masses of stars which are evolving off the main sequence, this constant luminosity may be caused by the age similarity in globular clusters.

O. Cepheid Distance

Cepheid variable stars are pulsating stars, named after the first known member of the class, Delta Cephei. These stars pulsate because the hydrogen and helium ionization zones are close to the surface of the star. This more or less fixes the temperature of the variable star, and produces an instability strip in the H-R diagram.

1.5 cycles of pulsation

The diagram above shows the star getting bigger and cooler, then smaller and hotter. Cepheids are brightest when they are hottest, close to the minimum size. Since all Cepheids are about the same temperature, the size of a Cepheid determines its luminosity. A large pulsating object naturally has a longer oscillation period than a small pulsating object of the same type. Thus there is a period-luminosity relationship for Cepheids. If we have two Cepheids with periods that differ by a factor of two, the longer period Cepheid is approximately 2.5 times more luminous than the short period one. Since it is easy to measure the period of a variable star, Cepheids are wonderful for determining distances to galaxies. Furthermore, Cepheids are quite bright, so they can be seen in galaxies as far away as the Virgo cluster, such as M100 The only problem with Cepheids is the calibration of the period-luminosity relation, which must be done indirectly using Cepheids in the Magellanic clouds and Cepheids in star clusters with distances determined by main sequence fitting. And one has to worry that the calibration could depend on the metal abundance in the Cepheids, which is much lower in the LMC than in luminous spirals like M100.

The following methods use the properties of objects in galaxies and must be calibrated:

P. Planetary Nebula Luminosity Function

Planetary nebulae are stars which have evolved through the red giant and asymptotic giant phases, and have ejected their remaining hydrogen envelope, which forms an ionized nebula surrounding a very hot and small central star. They emit large amounts of light in the 501 nm line of doubly ionized oxygen [O III] which makes them easy to find. The brightest planetary nebulae seem to have the same brightness in many external galaxies, so their fluxes can be used as a distance indicator. This method is correlated with the Surface Brightness Fluctuation method, which is sensitive to the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars before they eject their envelopes.

Q. Brightest Stars

When a galaxy is very nearby, individual stars can be resolved. The brightness of these stars can be used to estimate the distance to the galaxy. Often people assume that there is a fixed upper limit to the brightness of stars, but this appears to be a poor assumption. Nonetheless, if a large population of bright stars is studied, a reasonable distance estimate can be made.

R. Largest H II Region Diameters

Hot luminous stars ionize the hydrogen gas around them, producing an H II region like the Orion nebula. The diameter of the largest H II region in external galaxies has been taken as a "standard rod" that can be used to determine distances. But this appears to be a poor assumption.

S. Surface Brightness Fluctuations

When a galaxy is too distant to allow the detection of individual stars, one can still estimate the distance using the statistical fluctuation in the number of stars in a pixel. A nearby galaxy might have 100 stars projected into each pixel of an image, while a more distant galaxy would have a larger number like 1000. The nearby galaxy would have +/- 10% fluctuations in surface brightness (1/sqrt(N)), while the more distant galaxy would have 3% fluctuations. A figure [75 kB] to illustrate this shows a nearby dwarf galaxy, a nearby giant galaxy, and the giant galaxy at a distance such that its total flux is the same as that of the nearby dwarf. Note that the distant giant galaxy has a much smoother image than the nearby dwarf.

T. Type Ia Supernovae

Type Ia supernovae are the explosions of white dwarf stars in binary systems. Accretion from a companion raises the mass above the maximum mass for stable white dwarfs, the Chandrasekhar limit. The white dwarf then starts to collapse, but the compression ignites explosive carbon burning leading to the total disruption of the star. The light output comes primarily from energy produced by the decay of radioactive nickel and cobalt produced in the explosion. The peak luminosity is correlated with the rate of decay in the light curve: less luminous supernovae decay quickly while more luminous supernovae decay slowly. When this correction is applied, the relative luminosity of a Type Ia SN can be determined to within 20%. A few SNe Ia have been in galaxies close enough to us to allow the Hubble Space Telescope to determine absolute distances and luminosities using Cepheid variables, leading to one of the best determinations of the Hubble constant. Type Ia supernovae can be seen to such great distances that one can measure the acceleration or curvature of the Universe using observations of faint supernovae. The following methods use the global properties of galaxies and must be calibrated:

U. Tully-Fisher Relation

The rotational velocity of a spiral galaxy is an indicator of its luminosity. The relation is approximately

L = Const * V(rot)4

Since the rotational velocity of a spiral galaxy can be measured using an optical spectrograph or radio telescopes, the luminosity can be determined. Combined with the measured flux, this luminosity gives the distance. The diagram below shows two galaxies: a giant spiral and a dwarf spiral, but the small galaxy is closer to the Earth so they both cover the same angle on the sky and have the same apparent brightness.

Two spiral galaxies

But the distant galaxy has a greater rotational velocity, so the difference between the redshifted and blueshifted sides of this distant giant galaxy will be larger. Thus the relative distances of the two galaxies can be determined.

V. Faber-Jackson Relation

The stellar velocity dispersion sigma(v) of stars in an elliptical galaxy is an indicator of its luminosity. The relation is approximately

L = Const * sigma(v)4

Since the velocity dispersion of an elliptical galaxy can be measured using an optical spectrograph, the luminosity can be determined. Combined with the measured flux, this luminosity gives the distance.

W. Brightest Cluster Galaxies

The brightest galaxy in a cluster of galaxies has been used as a standard candle. This assumption suffers from the same difficulties that plague the brightest star and largest H II region methods: rich clusters with many galaxies will probably have examples of the most luminous galaxies even though these galaxies are very rare, while less rich clusters will probably not have such luminous brightest members. The following methods require no calibration:

X. Gravitational Lens Time Delay

When a quasar is viewed through a gravitational lens, multiple images are seen, as shown in diagram below.

Lensing galaxy forming two images of a background quasar

The light paths from the quasar to us that form these images have different lengths that differ by approximately D*[cos(theta1)-cos(theta2)] where theta is the deflection angle and D is the distance to the quasar. Since quasars are time variable sources, we can measure the path length difference by looking for a time-shifted correlated variability in the multiple images. As of the end of 1996, this time delay has been measured in a few quasars: the original double QSO 0957+061, giving a result of Ho = [63 +/- 12] km/sec/Mpc; PG1115+080, giving a result of Ho = 42 km/sec/Mpc, but another analysis of the same data gives Ho = [60 +/- 17] km/sec/Mpc; B1600+434 giving Ho = [52+14-8] km/sec/Mpc; B1608+656 giving Ho = [63+/-15] km/sec/Mpc; and 0218+357 giving a result of Ho = [71+17-23] km/sec/Mpc.

Y. Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect

Hot gas in clusters of galaxies distorts the spectrum of the cosmic microwave background observed through the cluster. The diagram below shows a sketch of this process. The hot electrons in the cluster of galaxies scatter a small fraction of the cosmic microwave background photons and replace them with slightly higher energy photons.

Gas in clusters of galaxies scattering CMB photons

The difference between the CMB seen through the cluster and the unmodified CMB seen elsewhere on the sky can be measured. Actually only about 1% of the photons passing through the cluster are scattered by the electrons in the hot ionized gas in the cluster, and these photons have their energies increased by an average of about 2%. This leads to a shortage of low energy photons of about 0.01*0.02 = 0.0002 or 0.02% which gives a decrease in the brightness temperature of about 500 microK when looking at the cluster. At high frequencies (higher than about 218 GHz) the cluster appears brighter than the background. This effect is proportional to (1) the number density of electrons, (2) the thickness of the cluster along our line of sight, and (3) the electron temperature. The parameter that combines these factors is called the Kompaneets y parameter, with y = tau*(kT/mc2). Tau is the optical depth or the fraction of photons scattered, while (kT/mc2) is the electron temperature in units of the rest mass of the electron.

The X-ray emission, IX, from the hot gas in the cluster is proportional to (1) the square of the number density of electrons, (2) the thickness of the cluster along our line of sight, and (3) depends on the electron temperature and X-ray frequency. As a result, the ratio

y2/IX = CONST * (Thickness along LOS) * f(T)

If we assume that the thickness along the LOS is the same as the diameter of the cluster, we can use the observed angular diameter to find the distance.

This technique is very difficult, and years of hard work by pioneers like Mark Birkinshaw yielded only a few distances, and values of Ho that tended to be on the low side. Recent work with close packed radio interferometers operating at 30 GHz has given precise measurements of the radio brightness decrement for 18 clusters, but only a few of these have adequate X-ray data. A recent Sunyaev-Zeldovich determination of the Hubble constant gave 77 +/- 10 km/sec/Mpc from 38 clusters.

And finally:

Z. The Hubble Law

The Doppler shift gives the redshift of a distant object which is our best indicator of its distance, but we need to know the Hubble constant, Ho. Then

D = VR/Ho

But the measured value of the Hubble constant has changed by a factor of 8 since Hubble's work, as discussed in Huchra's Ho history.

But wait, there's MORE! Pulsar dispersion measures and interstellar extinction increase with distance along a given line of sight and can be used to determine distances. The peak luminosity of a classical nova can be estimated from its rate of decay, but the variation has the opposite sense to that of Type Ia SNe: more luminous novae decay more rapidly. The globular cluster luminosity function can be used to estimate the distance to a galaxy from the observed brightness of its globular clusters.

Full article here. (http://tinyurl.com/om79f)

Until you respond to all 6 points listed above by presenting proof, I feel no need to "argue" with you any more than I feel the need to argue with a 6 year old.

If you want to actually debate, instead of just argue, then for starters you need to prove what your repetitively saying is true.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I have found in the Bible very recently that has shaken my Christian faith to the core. I am having a very hard time wrapping my mind around it, and have written to several well-trusted Biblical scholars for answers. I will never cease believing that we were created, but...bah, I don't even know what I am saying, but if I say too much it will bite me in the ass later.

Please! Please share what it is that you have found in the Bible that shook your faith to the core! I'm not being sarcastic I'm super curious about what it could be!

I'm really glad you found something that has the ability to do that, this could possibly mean you aren't completely closed off but still seeking for a version of the truth which fits best.

I for one, and I think possibly some others of us might want to know what it is you discovered in the Bible that shook you and why? I don't know if you already mentioned the actual quotes yet?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Rust, tell me what you make of this argument:

[...]

Anyway, let me know what you think about these methods of falsification.



1. Inferring design from complexity is an argument from ignorance. That is not legitimate Science. It consists of saying, "Hey, I don't think there is an answer for this now, so it must have been designed!" That is a logically vacuous and intellectually lazy answer; it's not Science pure and simple.

Just because we may not have an answer today (which even then is wrong in most if not all cases, as it was showed in this thread with Behe's blood-clotting "example") doesn't mean that there is no possible answer other than design. Behe argued that the flagellum was an example of Irreducible complexity and it has then been shown how the flagellum could have been developed through a strictly natural process; Behe argued blood-clotting, and it was shown how his claimed had been refuted ages ago!

2. Just because some of the "evidence" ID tries to use may be falsifiable, does not mean that ID as a whole is.

That article ignores the central claim of 'Intelligent Design' which is the existence of the intelligent designer who intervenes in either some or all aspects of life; as the Discovery Institute itself admits, that is not falsifiable. That alone makes this argument meaningless, even if we were to take it as valid.

Not only is there no experiment that we can do to test the existence of an intelligent designer or his intervention in our world, but there is nothing stopping someone from claiming that an intelligent designer is making it seem as if there is no evidence of design! So even if we refute any and all possible examples of "irreducible complexity" and even if we show how there are unintelligent aspects to this alleged "design", someone can easily claim that the designer deliberately did it that way.

There is no way to falsify the core of ID, which means it is not a legitimate scientific theory.

---

Here's a really in-depth article covering how the "filter" being used is an utter disaster:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/11/icons_of_id_arg.html

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-12-2006).]

DS, I realize that your post was directed at Rust, but I would like to address it also.

quote:Originally posted by DigitalSavior:

A couple ways to test ID and therefore possibly falsify it for a biological structure:

1. Take a specifically complex system and test for an irreducibly complex core. If the core of the system is irreducibly complex, design is evident.

2. Find a natural process capable of producing SCI and irreducible complexity.

Your first scenario fails as a valid falsification test, due to the fact that the concept of irreducible complexity has been disproved. Parts of the bacterial flagellum ( Behe’s favorite example) , have been proved through empirical scientific testing, to function without the flagellum, as a Type III secretion system. The blood clotting cascade has also been shown to function with fewer proteins.

This does not falsify ID , as it is a negative argument. Proving irreducible complexity wrong does not prove that an organism was not designed. Therefore this is not a valid test of falsification.

Your second scenario also fails, as it is not a test of SCI or irreducible complexity. . This is an argument from a missing alternative. Any lack of a naturalistic explanation does not default to ID being correct. It simply means that there the answer has yet to be found.



Evolution explains SCI quite well. The existence of Irreducible complexity has been shown to be a false concept.

Miller on the bacterial flagellum (http://tinyurl.com/96zm)

Miller on blood clotting cascade (http://tinyurl.com/65zpa)

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Please! Please share what it is that you have found in the Bible that shook your faith to the core! I'm not being sarcastic I'm super curious about what it could be!

I'm really glad you found something that has the ability to do that, this could possibly mean you aren't completely closed off but still seeking for a version of the truth which fits best.

I for one, and I think possibly some others of us might want to know what it is you discovered in the Bible that shook you and why? I don't know if you already mentioned the actual quotes yet?

I would never give you the satisfcation. If I wanted to tell, I would have by now. Take your glee somewhere else.

I think that’s what’s going on with this thread. Intelligent Design has been proven not to be a scientific theory time and time again, but you cannot admit it because it’ll break your eggshell ego.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

I think that’s what’s going on with this thread. Intelligent Design has been proven not to be a scientific theory time and time again, but you cannot admit it because it’ll break your eggshell ego.

I can't imagine that the failure of ID being proved as a scientific theory could serve to shake her faith. ID being wrong cannot negate the bible, as you cannot disprove the supernatural.

ID failing as a scientific theory simply prevents it from being taught as science in a publicly funded high school.





[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 08-12-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I would never give you the satisfcation. If I wanted to tell, I would have by now. Take your glee somewhere else.

Digital_Savior, I would very much like to know what it was - not to glory in your uncertainty, but merely to know. I also have a deeply Christian friend; he's the best friend I've ever had, but we often get into arguments, and if there's something in the Bible that I have overlooked - something important - I would like to bring it to his attention.

Do you have MSN or AIM?

Edit: Heh, I just realized I sound like Abrahim. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif) I don't want to preach to you; believe me, I'm too lazy to really debate any more. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret II (edited 08-12-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret II:

Digital_Savior, I would very much like to know what it was - not to glory in your uncertainty, but merely to know. I also have a deeply Christian friend; he's the best friend I've ever had, but we often get into arguments, and if there's something in the Bible that I have overlooked - something important - I would like to bring it to his attention.

Do you have MSN or AIM?

Edit: Heh, I just realized I sound like Abrahim. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif) I don't want to preach to you; believe me, I'm too lazy to really debate any more. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)



Ferret can I add you to MSN?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I would never give you the satisfcation. If I wanted to tell, I would have by now. Take your glee somewhere else.

I find that it is wrong of you to withold information from us, how could anything in the Bible shake the foundations of your Christianity? I need to know what it could possibly be! It isn't about satisfaction it is about sharing knowledge!

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



1. Inferring design from complexity is an argument from ignorance. That is not legitimate Science. It consists of saying, "Hey, I don't think there is an answer for this now, so it must have been designed!" That is a logically vacuous and intellectually lazy answer; it's not Science pure and simple.

But isn't that the same logic evolution operates on? "Hey, I don't think there is an answer for this now, so it must have been spontaneously generated!"

quote:"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr Collin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland; as quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p. 89.

quote:"Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." Paul Ehrlich (Professor of Biology, Stanford University) and L. Charles Birch (Professor of Biology, University of Sydney), 'Evolutionary history and population biology'. Nature, vol. 214, 22 April 1967, p.352.

quote:"For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible." Charles Darwin, 1859, Introduction to Origin of Species, p. 2. Also quoted in 'John Lofton's Journal', The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.

quote:"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." Charles Darwin, On the imperfection of the geological record, Chapter X, The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, pp. 292-293.

quote:"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127.

It is obvious that even Darwin did not buy his own theory. He had no answers to his own questions. I would say that arguing spontaneous generation leading to complexity is equally "logically vacuous and intellectually lazy," as there is no evidence that this is how we came to exist. To assume that macroevolution has occurred, there would need to be SOME SHRED OF EVIDENCE. There isn't.

Just for fun...

quote:"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." Ronald R. West, Ph.D. (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), Paleoecology and uniformitarianism. Compass, vol. 45, May 1986, p. 216.

quote:Just because we may not have an answer today (which even then is wrong in most if not all cases, as it was showed in this thread with Behe's blood-clotting "example") doesn't mean that there is no possible answer other than design.

What does it mean that regardless of whether you have an answer today or someday in the future, no matter what the answer is, you will reject Intelligent Design ?

quote:Behe argued that the flagellum was an example of Irreducible complexity and it has then been shown how the flagellum could have been developed through a strictly natural process; Behe argued blood-clotting, and it was shown how his claimed had been refuted ages ago!

Here is what Behe says about Irreducible complexity:

quote:"Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed." 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press

The typical argument given, which can be found on Talk.Orgins, is:

quote:Talk.Origins:

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> deletion of parts

<LI> addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)

<LI> change of function

<LI> addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)

<LI> gradual modification of parts</UL>

quote:CreationWiki:

[quote]This confuses both (a) what Irreducible complexity says, and (b) what kind of evolutionary pathway such a thing must take. As for (a), it does not say it loses its function if any one part is removed, but that it includes irreducibly complex parts. Let's look at Behe's own definition instead:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."</UL>

As you can see, when he is talking about the removal of "any one of the parts" he is talking specifically about the well-matched, interacting ones that contribute to the basic function. If X is an IC process, adding Y to improve it does not make the result non-IC. It just means that Y is not part of the basic function.

Now, let's look at their claimed list of ways that an IC system can evolve. (1) is silly. If you delete parts from a system, the subsystem that remains must have been there from the start. Saying that "I destroyed X but now have only Y" does not say how you got Y to begin with. Remember that biochemically not only do all the enzymes have to be there, but they all have to function in just the proper manner. I do not get a car just by removing the right parts from a jet liner, even if the jet liner has enough parts to make a car. I would then, after removing the parts, assemble them to get them in the right order. Thus (1) will not produce an irreducibly complex system. (2) is irrelevant. Duplicating system X just gives you two system X's. It does not result in a new system. (3) is also irrelevant, because it still does not tell you how the whole system got into place. Same with (4). (5) is incorrect, because first of all, this is contrary to what irreducible complexity is saying, and second of all, irreducible systems, though the parts can change, cannot come about on their own by such a process.

quote:Talk.Origins:

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

quote:CreationWiki:

Because their premise is wrong, their conclusion is wrong. No one is claiming that deletions and duplications aren't common in the genome. But they are totally irrelevant.

quote:Talk.Origins:

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied; irreducibility is no obstacle to its formation (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996).

quote:CreationWiki:

Obviously Talk.Origins is completely ignorant of both Behe's work AND the paper they are citing. First of all, Behe lists the Krebs cycle as NOT being irreducibly complex. So this whole paragraph is useless anyway -- Behe agrees with T.O and said so in his book. In addition to that, the paper itself does NOT talk about whether or not the Krebs cycle is irreducibly complex. What it talks about is the Krebs process occurring a step at a time, not the evolutionary pathway to get to the Krebs process. It would really help Talk.Origins case if they actually bothered to read (a) what they are arguing against, and (b) what papers they are citing in support of their position.

quote:Talk.Origins:

Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

quote:CreationWiki:

Talk.Origins continually confuses an argument from incredulity with an argument from design. The argument from design is "we know what design looks like, does this match our knowledge of design?" The argument from incredulity is "we don't know how this could have happened, it must be design." Michael Behe uses the former, while Talk.Origins continually claims that he and other ID'ers use the latter. The argument from IC to design is twofold: (1) it doesn't match Darwinism, and (2) it does match design. Talk.Origins here is simply plugging their ears at the second claim.

quote:Talk.Origins:

Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

quote:CreationWiki:

Wow, Talk.Origins doesn't know what a part is. Usually parts are defined in terms of the designer and the tools available. When I design a program, I don't refer to the atoms of the computer individually, though it appears that Talk.Origins thinks that I should. The fact that biochemists consider them in their analysis is irrelevant, as computer designers also consider atoms in their analysis. It just happens to be completely irrelevant to the design that takes place on the computer. I think that Behe's use of gene products as parts is quite appropriate, since that is the level of detail that cellular functions usually operate at.

quote:Talk.Origins:

Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.</UL>

quote:CreationWiki:

This involved redesigning other parts to perform the same function. There is still a latch, it is now not a separate piece but part of the hammer and it is not at all obvious that the design is any simpler.

quote:Talk.Origins:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.</UL>

quote:CreationWiki:

The number of non-sequiturs in this is amazing. (1) being able to lose a part does not make something not IC. Refer to the definition above. (2) if losing parts changes its function, then it would still classify it as IC. (3) the existence of flagella that lack some of the proteins is irrelevant if they are not part of what is irreducibly complex. (4) the existence of flagella that lack some of the proteins that are part of what is considered irreducibly complex is irrelevant if those flagella operate with a different basic mechanism as the flagella described by Behe. A contradiction of Behe's argument would require that the flagella operate on the same principles as the one Behe describes as well as remove some of the proteins that Behe describes as part of what is irreducibly complex.

quote:Talk.Origins:

In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).

quote:CreationWiki:

This is irrelevant.

quote:Talk.Origins:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.</UL>

quote:CreationWiki:

As a test, I encourage the Talk.Origins member making this claim to hinder his own immune system in the way proposed http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) Source (http://tinyurl.com/khnep)

quote:2. Just because some of the "evidence" ID tries to use may be falsifiable, does not mean that ID as a whole is.

What is ID, outside of it's numerous parts ? What is evolution, outside of it's numerous parts ? If evolution as a whole cannot be falsified (which it cannot, as it claims spontaneous generation as an explanation for our existence), then it should be held to the same scrutiny. I am not saying ID as a whole is not falsifiable, I am simply asking that you attribute the same methods and requirements to evolution that you do to ID.

ID does NOT attempt to prove the Designer, only that design can be found in everything we observe.

Evolution does NOT attempt to disprove a Designer, only that design cannot be found in everything we observe.

quote:That article ignores the central claim of 'Intelligent Design' which is the existence of the intelligent designer who intervenes in either some or all aspects of life; as the Discovery Institute itself admits, that is not falsifiable. That alone makes this argument meaningless, even if we were to take it as valid.

The motives of the Discovery Institute cannot be used to discredit the theory of ID, because you will claim that the motives of historical proponents of evolution cannot be used to discredit the theory of evolution. The theory of ID stands on it's own merits, not on the merits of those who sought to use it as a means to reintroduce God into the public school system. Likewise, evolution should be allowed to stand on it's own merits, and not on the merit's of those who sought to use it as a means to keep God OUT of the public school system.

The theory of Intelligent Design doesn't, in fact, attempt to prove the existence of the Designer, only that we were designed. This fact is inherent in the theory, and proven by the very same argument that you have made, and which IDer's all agree with: the Designer cannot be proven.

quote:Not only is there no experiment that we can do to test the existence of an intelligent designer or his intervention in our world, but there is nothing stopping someone from claiming that an intelligent designer is making it seem as if there is no evidence of design!

Which is precisely why the theory of ID focuses solely on proving design in everything, instead of proving the Designer. This is where you confuse Creationism with Intelligent Design. Again.

quote:So even if we refute any and all possible examples of "irreducible complexity" and even if we show how there are unintelligent aspects to this alleged "design", someone can easily claim that the designer deliberately did it that way.

Not by using the theory of Intelligent Design. It is impossible to prove a Designer, and the theory of ID does not try. That is Creationism, which doesn't involve science when attempting to explain our existence, as you have already stated. As ID theory is strictly scientific, it does not attempt to attribute the unexplainable to the will of the Designer. The SOLE purpose of ID is to prove design through Irreducible complexity.

quote:There is no way to falsify the core of ID, which means it is not a legitimate scientific theory.

The core theory of ID is what ? You keep attributing the core of Creationism to the theory of ID.

quote:Here's a really in-depth article covering how the "filter" being used is an utter disaster:

http://www .pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/11/icons_of_id_arg.html (http: //www.pand asthumb.or g/archives /2004/11/i cons_of_id _arg.html)

That was interesting, but was addressed (thankfully with brevity) in the above CreationWiki article.

quote:Talk.Origins continually confuses an argument from incredulity with an argument from design. The argument from design is "we know what design looks like, does this match our knowledge of design?" The argument from incredulity is "we don't know how this could have happened, it must be design." Michael Behe uses the former, while Talk.Origins continually claims that he and other ID'ers use the latter. The argument from IC to design is twofold: (1) it doesn't match Darwinism, and (2) it does match design. Talk.Origins here is simply plugging their ears at the second claim.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 08-13-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

I find that it is wrong of you to withold information from us, how could anything in the Bible shake the foundations of your Christianity? I need to know what it could possibly be! It isn't about satisfaction it is about sharing knowledge!

Find whatever you want. I could care less.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret II:

Digital_Savior, I would very much like to know what it was - not to glory in your uncertainty, but merely to know. I also have a deeply Christian friend; he's the best friend I've ever had, but we often get into arguments, and if there's something in the Bible that I have overlooked - something important - I would like to bring it to his attention.

Do you have MSN or AIM?

Edit: Heh, I just realized I sound like Abrahim. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif) I don't want to preach to you; believe me, I'm too lazy to really debate any more. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

You can contact me, but until I find the answer to my question, I won't be discussing it. If I am merely wrong in my understanding of the verses I am having trouble with, then it would be wrong of me to cause others to doubt.

I need to know first. Sorry.

AIM: desired hush

MSN: desired.hush@hotmail.com

IRC: Digital (on SlashNET)

Holy copy and paste batman.

quote:What is evolution, outside of it's numerous parts ? If evolution as a whole cannot be falsified (which it cannot, as it claims spontaneous generation as an explanation for our existence)

If you think this then you have no clue what evolution says.

I find it sad you keep attacking something you don't even understand.

If you had actually read any of the evolution books you quote, you would know evolution can be falsified and your claims about it are wrong.

It's rather ironic, if you even understood the term "spontaneous generation" you would know that you just admitted creationism and ID are not science. Congrats.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 08-13-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

But isn't that the same logic evolution operates on? "Hey, I don't think there is an answer for this now, so it must have been spontaneously generated!"

Not at all. Not only does evolution have nothing to do with spontaneous generation, but the concept itself has been refuted by Science long ago. In fact, if species were to have spontaneously generated as opposed through a process of genetic change + natural selection, that would refute evolution as we know it.

quote:It is obvious that even Darwin did not buy his own theory. He had no answers to his own questions. I would say that arguing spontaneous generation leading to complexity is equally "logically vacuous and intellectually lazy," as there is no evidence that this is how we came to exist. To assume that macroevolution has occurred, there would need to be SOME SHRED OF EVIDENCE. There isn't.



1. Again, evolution does not rely on spontaneous generation; evolution doesn't even rely on abiogenesis. This has been explained to you before. And to be frank, I don't think you have the slightest clue what "spontaneous generation" even is.

Spontaneous generation doesn't just say that life came from non-life as the scientific theory of abiogenesis does, it said that life complex species that we see today did. That worms, as we seem them now, spontaneously appeared. If that were true, evolution as we know it today would be wrong!

So not only does evolution have absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis, but among the theories of abiogenesis, spontaneous generation would refute our understanding of evolution.

I suggest you read what spontaneous generation even is, before you claim that evolution supports or necessitates it...

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.html

2. There is a humongous amount of evidence for macroevolution. Again, this has been presented to you countless times before. You ignoring it is not going to change this.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/



quote:What does it mean that regardless of whether you have an answer today or someday in the future, no matter what the answer is, you will reject Intelligent Design ?

It means exactly what I said. That simply because you may not think there is an answer for something, does not mean that it will not exist in the future, or that a designer must have been involved.

Since you didn't bother replying to that, I'll be assuming that you have no reply until you do.

Also, please stop putting words in my mouth as I have never said that I would reject ID no matter what the answer is. If the answer given were actually valid, reasonable, logical, falsifiable and supported by evidence, I would definitely not reject it. Sadly, ID proponents fail to fulfill any one of those aspects, let alone all of them.



quote:This confuses both (a) what Irreducible complexity says, and (b) what kind of evolutionary pathway such a thing must take. As for (a), it does not say it loses its function if any one part is removed, but that it includes irreducibly complex parts. Let's look at Behe's own definition instead:



* "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

As you can see, when he is talking about the removal of "any one of the parts" he is talking specifically about the well-matched, interacting ones that contribute to the basic function. If X is an IC process, adding Y to improve it does not make the result non-IC. It just means that Y is not part of the basic function.

This is not a misunderstanding on TalkOrigin's part, but on CreationWiki's part.

What the article is saying is that with the deletion of parts, an "irreducibly complex" system can result from one that was not "irreducibly complex" to begin with.

That is, that the system evolved and then one or more of its parts were deleted, thus resulting in it becoming "irreducibly complex". Hence, an irreducibly complex system can evolved, which is exactly what the article was dealing with.

quote:Obviously Talk.Origins is completely ignorant of both Behe's work AND the paper they are citing. First of all, Behe lists the Krebs cycle as NOT being irreducibly complex. So this whole paragraph is useless anyway -- Behe agrees with T.O and said so in his book. In addition to that, the paper itself does NOT talk about whether or not the Krebs cycle is irreducibly complex. What it talks about is the Krebs process occurring a step at a time, not the evolutionary pathway to get to the Krebs process. It would really help Talk.Origins case if they actually bothered to read (a) what they are arguing against, and (b) what papers they are citing in support of their position.

TalkOrigins did not claim that Behe was saying the Krebs process was irreducibly complex. How ironic that they accuse them of not reading...

The article was pointing out that the evolution of irreducibly complex systems has been documented, and it was citing the Krebs cycle as an example of that.

As for the rests of the claims they make, I'm not going to deal with them. If anyone else wants to, be my guest. This is irrelevant to the debate because I was not arguing about TalkOrigins refutation of Behe's concept of Irreducible Complexity.



quote:What is ID, outside of it's numerous parts ? What is evolution, outside of it's numerous parts ? If evolution as a whole cannot be falsified (which it cannot, as it claims spontaneous generation as an explanation for our existence), then it should be held to the same scrutiny. I am not saying ID as a whole is not falsifiable, I am simply asking that you attribute the same methods and requirements to evolution that you do to ID.

ID does NOT attempt to prove the Designer, only that design can be found in everything we observe.

Evolution does NOT attempt to disprove a Designer, only that design cannot be found in everything we observe.

1. Again, evolution does not claim spontaneous generation as an explanation for our existence.

2. Evolution can most definitely be falsified. If you think that it cannot, the by all means, create a thread in Mad Scientists dealing with the issue.

Whether evolution can be falsified or not does not change the fact that ID cannot be falsified. So even if what you say is true, which it is not, it is moot point as it does not make ID any better. ID must stand on its on merits, not on the desperate and unknowledgeable attacks made against evolution.

quote:The motives of the Discovery Institute cannot be used to discredit the theory of ID, because you will claim that the motives of historical proponents of evolution cannot be used to discredit the theory of evolution. The theory of ID stands on it's own merits, not on the merits of those who sought to use it as a means to reintroduce God into the public school system. Likewise, evolution should be allowed to stand on it's own merits, and not on the merit's of those who sought to use it as a means to keep God OUT of the public school system.

The theory of Intelligent Design doesn't, in fact, attempt to prove the existence of the Designer, only that we were designed. This fact is inherent in the theory, and proven by the very same argument that you have made, and which IDer's all agree with: the Designer cannot be proven.

1. Nobody even mentioned the word "motive" let alone use motives to attack ID. I was pointing out that the biggest think-tank supporting ID believes that the idea of an intelligent designer is not falsifiable. That's not a motive, that's the biggest proponent of ID admitting that the central claim in ID is not falsifiable.

2. ID doesn't have to attempt to prove the existence of the designer, the fact is that it still makes the claim that it exists. That alones makes ID not falsifiable by any means, as the Discovery Institute admits.

3. The proble is the designer cannot be disproven either, thus rendering ID unfalsifiable.

quote:Which is precisely why the theory of ID focuses solely on proving design in everything, instead of proving the Designer. This is where you confuse Creationism with Intelligent Design. Again.

I'm not confusing anything. I know the difference between the two quite well.

No matter how much you'd like to ignore it, the fact is that ID does claim that an intelligent designer exists, and that claim is central to the conjecture that is Intelligent Design.

quote:Not by using the theory of Intelligent Design. It is impossible to prove a Designer, and the theory of ID does not try. That is Creationism, which doesn't involve science when attempting to explain our existence, as you have already stated. As ID theory is strictly scientific, it does not attempt to attribute the unexplainable to the will of the Designer. The SOLE purpose of ID is to prove design through Irreducible complexity.

What you're doing is ignoring that ID still makes the claim that the designer exists. Whether they don't make strides to prove its existence is ultimately irrelevant, the fact is that they not only claim it exists but that it has meddled with life as we know it (partially or entirely). That's a claim that is central to ID, and one that cannot be falsified.

quote:The core theory of ID is what ? You keep attributing the core of Creationism to the theory of ID.

Absolutely not. Intelligent Design claims that an intelligent designer exists, and that he has intervened in either all or some aspects of life. That's not creationism, that's intelligent design.

quote:That was interesting, but was addressed (thankfully with brevity) in the above CreationWiki article.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Obviously you didn't read it because if you had, you would have noticed the article deals with more than just irreducible complexity, and has nothing to do with TalkOrigins analysis, which is what CreationWiki was whining about...



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-13-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Holy copy and paste batman.

I know ! LOL

But I do give my own arguments, as well.

quote:If you think this then you have no clue what evolution says.

I find it sad you keep attacking something you don't even understand.

I understand it just fine. In fact, I understand it the way it was meant to be understood. I don't twist it around to suit my anti-God agenda. That is the only difference between you and me.

I know Darwin's theory is about natural selection and speciation, specifically. That is not lost on me.

However, some of you have mistakenly accused me of muddling evolution and abiogenesis together wrongfully, which is simply not the case.

Abiogenesis (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abiogenesis)

The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

Spontaneous generation accurately describes what the theory of evolution has adopted by asdociation (since it inherently rejects creation): what Christians call creatio ex nihilo, or creation from nothing. Not non-living matter (abiogenesis), but NOTHING AT ALL. *POOF* ! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) Either this creation from nothing was inentional or it wasn't.

quote:If you had actually read any of the evolution books you quote, you would know evolution can be falsified and your claims about it are wrong.

Prove it.

quote:It's rather ironic, if you even understood the term "spontaneous generation" you would know that you just admitted creationism and ID are not science. Congrats.

No, I don't see how you connected those dots. Expound, please. Stop insulting me. Just debate the topic.

P.S. I read this over a couple of times, and hopefully it is coherent. I had to take something for my allergies, and I'm a bit loopy. I'm going to retire for the evening.

***HEADLINE NEWS****

AUGUST 12,2006

*THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE DENOUNCES DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION*

Sources say that the beaks of Darwin's finches were actually altered by cosmetic surgery...story on page 2b

[/END (obviously fictitious) news article]

Ok Digi. From this point on in this discussion, the Theory of evolution is no longer an issue. Referrences to it are pointless and add no weight to your case for Intelligent Design.

The only subject to be discussed is the scientific Theory of Intelligent Design. After all, this thread isn't about evolution, right? It's about ID being a scientific theory being taught in publicly funded high schools.

Without attacking or referring to the (ficticitiously)denounced ToE, please provide emperical evidence which proves ID to be a valid scientific theory.

Describe any experiment which could serve to falsify the intervention of a supernatural Designer. What experimental result would prove that a supernatural Designer intervened? What experimental result would prove that a supernatural Designer did not intervene?

DS:

quote:I understand it just fine. In fact, I understand it the way it was meant to be understood. I don't twist it around to suit my anti-God agenda. That is the only difference between you and me.

If you are going to ask me to "stop insulting me. Just debate the topic" perhaps you could do the same.

This is a blatant LIE, you will notice I have NOT ONCE had an anti-God agenda, and in fact I have supported the idea of theistic evolution as being a valid philosophy.

So please do not lie about me again.

quote:However, some of you have mistakenly accused me of muddling evolution and abiogenesis together wrongfully, which is simply not the case.

Yes it is the case. We have told you time and time again the dictionary is NOT THE PLACE TO GET SCIENTIFIC THEORIES (in caps even).

quote:Spontaneous generation accurately describes what the theory of evolution has adopted by asdociation (since it inherently rejects creation): what Christians call creatio ex nihilo, or creation from nothing. Not non-living matter (abiogenesis), but NOTHING AT ALL. *POOF* ! Either this creation from nothing was inentional or it wasn't.

Incorrect.

Ok, these are basic definitions but please remember them.

Modern abiogenesis: Creation of extremely basic self replicating chemicals, formed through chemical process.

spontaneous generation hypothesis: That complex organisms are generated from decaying organic matter.

quote:Prove it.

Out of curiousity did you read the paper I linked to about macro-evolution?

I agree with truck, this is about Intelligent design.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

DS:

I understand it just fine. In fact, I understand it the way it was meant to be understood. I don't twist it around to suit my anti-God agenda. That is the only difference between you and me.

If you are going to ask me to "stop insulting me. Just debate the topic" perhaps you could do the same.

This is a blatant LIE, you will notice I have NOT ONCE had an anti-God agenda, and in fact I have supported the idea of theistic evolution as being a valid philosophy.

So please do not lie about me again.

quote:However, some of you have mistakenly accused me of muddling evolution and abiogenesis together wrongfully, which is simply not the case.

Yes it is the case. We have told you time and time again the dictionary is NOT THE PLACE TO GET SCIENTIFIC THEORIES (in caps even).

quote:Spontaneous generation accurately describes what the theory of evolution has adopted by asdociation (since it inherently rejects creation): what Christians call creatio ex nihilo, or creation from nothing. Not non-living matter (abiogenesis), but NOTHING AT ALL. *POOF* ! Either this creation from nothing was inentional or it wasn't.

Incorrect.

Ok, these are basic definitions but please remember them.

Modern abiogenesis: Creation of extremely basic self replicating chemicals, formed through chemical process.

spontaneous generation hypothesis: That complex organisms are generated from decaying organic matter.

quote:Prove it.

Out of curiousity did you read the paper I linked to about macro-evolution?

I agree with truck, this is about Intelligent design.

He called you a Liar DS, he said you LIED.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

He called you a Liar DS, he said you LIED.

Questioning, and debating is one thing, but you sound like someone trying to start a drunken fight in a bar.

Anyways DS, simple question, are you a creationist, or a supporter of intelligent design? All the switching back and forth between the two shows inconsistency, so can you please clarify your position?

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 08-13-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Questioning, and debating is one thing, but you sound like someone trying to start a drunken fight in a bar.

Anyways DS, simple question, are you a creationist, or a supporter of intelligent design? All the switching back and forth between the two shows inconsistency, so can you please clarify your position?



The reason I mention the Lie thing is because DS made quite a big deal about me saying Christianity is a Lie and took it on herself as me calling her a liar behind her back. I still maintain it is outright blasphemy and a lie against the nature of God to claim that man is in the image of God and that someone is the begotten son of God.

Is it over? No evidence of ID or creationism being a scientific theory has been provided, all off topic arguments againt evolution have been refuted, and DS and Hyro seem to be repeating the same old BS. So, officially, is this over?

[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-14-2006).]

it's been over for a long time, friend.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

Is it over? No evidence of ID or creationism being a scientific theory has been provided, all off topic arguments againt evolution have been refuted, and DS and Hyro seem to be repeating the same old BS. So, officially, is this over?



I'd say it is over. They can't ever be anything that disproves God's part in Creation or Design so there is no Falsifiable FACTOR they can provide, nothing can prove them wrong so it can't be accepted as a scientific theory. Evolution on the other hand DOES have Falsifiable Factors and thus can be proven wrong if those factors are discovered.

Creationists and Intelligent Design promoters can not perform any experiments in a controlled environment that prove or disprove God or God's ultimate control and thus it can not be a Scientific Theory.

They are Philosophical and Theological Theories, not Scientific Theories.

I'm sorry guys...I have a final this week. Studying.

Also, I start a new job next Monday, so I will not be as available as I have been.

I will do my best to catch up, when time permits.

P.S. Abrahim, no one else here is pretending to be my friend, while talking about me behind my back (that would be YOU). The difference between you and them is that you are a two-faced hypocrite, and they openly ridicule me to my face. Oddly, I respect that about them.

I don't give any credence to a word you say, and I suspect there are others here who share my sentiments. Kindly take your jibber jabber elsewhere...it's not impressive. You've added absolutely nothing to this debate.

I did participate towards the end of this debate, I wouldn't call you a liar to your face for the sake of your feelings, I didn't want to hurt them, but saying God has a son is a lie, that is in the LITERAL SENSE.

and a Lie is an Untruth.

Here is my primary post here in relation to this portion of the debate which you can find above also:

Hi buddy, you wrote alot, before you go could you respond to my post? It is sort of long but if you could make it your last response I'll really appreciate it...I will re copy paste it here since it may be hard to find:

A Scientific Theory, in order to be widely accepted needs evidence and experiments to back up its claims and a factor that would prove its claims false if found.

In the Theory of Evolution there have been tremendous amounts of experiments and evidence to back up the idea that creatures evolve and are not the same as they used to be long ago. A term which would prove Evolution False, according to many evolutionists, is finding completely modern creatures as extremely ancient fossils. This has not occured yet, but it is still required as a factor in which evolution would be proven wrong. All scientific theories in order to be widely accepted require evidence and terms which can prove it false. These terms do not need to prove it false, nor do they prove it right, they only need to be there. Please re read the above if you need to, it is basic.

In the Theory of Intelligent Design there have been no scientific experiments in a controlled environment which provide evidence to back up the claims that life has an intelligent designer, only philosophical arguments and showing the beauty and perfection of creation as proof of intelligent design, and Intelligent Design has no term which would prove it false.

Let me repeat this to make it even more clear:

Evolution has what it needs in order to be a Scientific Theory: Experimental Evidence and Terms which would prove it false.

ID does not have what it needs in order to be a Scientific Theory: No experiment in a controlled environment can prove the designer of life and creatures and there is absolutely no way or terms which would prove Intelligent Design false. This is why ID can never be a scientific theory.

ID is a Philosophical and Theological Theory, Philosophical and Theological arguments do not need terms which prove it false (often they can't be proven false), and do not require any evidence or experiments held in a controlled environment.

Please re read this as many times as you need in order to understand these extremely simple facts.

I will repeat it once more:

Evolution is a Scientific Theory because experiments can be performed to provide evidence which backs up the theory and there are terms which if met can prove the theory false.

ID is not a Scientific Theory because no experiments can be performed in a controlled environment to provide evidence which backs it up and there is no way and nothing that can EVER be found that will prove ID wrong. ID can never be a Scientific Theory, it will forever be a Philosophical and Theological Idea until an experiment or several experiments can be performed in a controlled environment to provide evidence to back up the theory and until there is a term or several terms which if met can prove the theory false.

The terms which prove Evolution false have not yet been met but the terms still need to exist in order for it to be accepted as a Scientific Theory.

There are no terms which can possibly prove ID false and no experiments that can possibly be performed in a controlled environment to provide evidence to back up the theory.

This does not mean Evolution is Right or ID is wrong, this only means ID can't be an accepted Scientific Theory.

Please Understand this. There is no argument. These are basic facts. Re read this simple post as many times as you need in order for these simple facts to sink in.

Now onto Lucifer (Please Read Both Links): http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2215 http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml

*shakes head*

As I said...absolutely nothing.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

*shakes head*

As I said...absolutely nothing.

lol should I copy paste it again?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

*shakes head*

As I said...absolutely nothing.

Hey here's an idea, respond in this discussion you ran away from....http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005790-2.html

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I'm sorry guys...I have a final this week. Studying.

Also, I start a new job next Monday, so I will not be as available as I have been.

I will do my best to catch up, when time permits.

P.S. Abrahim, no one else here is pretending to be my friend, while talking about me behind my back (that would be YOU). The difference between you and them is that you are a two-faced hypocrite, and they openly ridicule me to my face. Oddly, I respect that about them.

I don't give any credence to a word you say, and I suspect there are others here who share my sentiments. Kindly take your jibber jabber elsewhere...it's not impressive. You've added absolutely nothing to this debate.

This post is BULLSHIT (http://tinyurl.com/kyxcz). You have time to go in politics and study, but not My God and study? You think saving 'heathens' souls and proving intelligent design to be a falsifiable theory would be more important to you than the politics forum. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-18-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

lol should I copy paste it again?

Repeating a thing doesn't improve it. In your case, it can't get ANY worse, so it would be an act of futility.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Repeating a thing doesn't improve it.

Lol, yet you futilely repeat the same bullshit claims about ID and evolution, even though they are always refuted. You’ve presented nothing new for pages. You’re what I’d call a hypocrite, you may have started this thread, but you’ve added nothing new to it for a long time, just the same old lies and bending of truths.

Funny how you only run to this thread when I point out that you've been busy in politics.

[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-18-2006).]

Raw_Power, I took the final today. As if you really care where I spend my time. Desperately clinging to a shred of hope that I may give up on this debate is pathetic, especially considering that you haven't offered ANYTHING by way of an on-topic rebuttal or refutation.

I was studying. I'm no longer studying. I hadn't posted in a number of days, and I simply gave the reason why, before the inevitable slew of claims that I had given up or "lost" this debate began all over again. Posting in Politics requires little to no effort, and hardly any time at all. This particular debate does, however. I am also not obligated to post ONLY in here, and never anywhere else. That's just ludicrous.

Stop obsessing (to the point that you feel the need to follow me around totse). It's disgusting.

I don’t hope that you run away from this thread, in fact, it annoys me that you might be running away. I want you to do either one of two things: show proof that ID is a falsifiable scientific theory or admit that you are wrong.

And although I may not of added nothing, I’m not the one who started a thread claiming to have proof that would beyond a doubt show intelligent design to be a scientific theory worthy of being in schools, not shown anything, made lies about evolution, ran away when refuted, and then returned to make the same claims even though you know they’re wrong. You’re one of the most stubborn, ignorant, pathetic individuals I have met online.



edit - and your arrogance disusts me! I was not following you around totse, I was reading threads in politics for my own personal gain, as I do daily, and saw that you were posting there and thought 'you lying cow'.



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-18-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

Lol, yet you futilely repeat the same bullshit claims about ID and evolution, even though they are always refuted.

I see claims of refutation, yet no actual refutation. Especially none from YOU.

quote:You’ve presented nothing new for pages. You’re what I’d call a hypocrite, you may have started this thread, but you’ve added nothing new to it for a long time, just the same old lies and bending of truths.

You've added nothing to it besides irrelevant BS and personal attacks, so I guess we're even.

quote:Funny how you only run to this thread when I point out that you've been busy in politics.

Run ? I am online right now. As such, I checked Politics, and now I am doing my rounds in My God. Be sure to stalk me some more, and see if I post in other forums, as well. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

No signs of refutation, are you blind?! There’s plenty. For example, proof that the world is older than 6000 years, proof that your claims about the fossils records are corrupt lies, proof that there science is accurate in its reading of the age of stars. Proof that intelligent design is not a falsifiable, scientific theory which you have not been able to refute.





[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-18-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

I don’t hope that you run away from this thread, in fact, it annoys me that you might be running away. I want you to do either one of two things: show proof that ID is a falsifiable scientific theory or admit that you are wrong.

And you have yet to answer me: why do you LET me annoy you ? You're giving me power that you shouldn't, a sure sign of your lack of maturity.

quote:And although I may not of added nothing, I’m not the one who started a thread claiming to have proof that would beyond a doubt show intelligent design to be a scientific theory worthy of being in schools, not shown anything, made lies about evolution, ran away when refuted, and then returned to make the same claims even though you know they’re wrong. You’re one of the most stubborn, ignorant, pathetic individuals I have met online.

Claiming victory over people in debates you didn't participate in, at least not in a relevant fashion, eliminates your right to heckle. That's the point.

I haven't lied, run away, or anything else you have imagined in your fertile, easily-amused mind. Accusing me of things doesn't serve any purpose, other than to make you look like a kidiot.

If you dislike me so much, cease to interract with me. No one is making you talk to me. No one is making you read this thread. You're inflicting this "annoyance" upon yourself.

But you have lied. You have made claims and they have been shown to not be so, yet you continue preaching them as the truth. That is a lie. You may bullshit yourself into thinking you aren't lying, but you are.

And the only time you annoy me is when I read your posts, I don't even think about you when I'm not on TOTSE.

[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-18-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

No signs of refutation, are you blind?! There’s plenty. For example, proof that the world is older than 6000 years, proof that your claims about the fossils records are corrupt lies, proof that there science is accurate in its reading of the age of stars. Proof that intelligent design is not a falsifiable, scientific theory which you have not been able to refute.

I'm not blind, though you must be, as you have not noticed that I have not bothered to even address the issues you have cited, because I am still trying to work through the claim that ID is not a scientific theory. As I have already told you, in the most basic terms I could possibly find to ensure your complete comprehension, there is no sense in explaining the science of ID if we cannot even agree that it is a valid scientific theory.

There have been breaks in my arguments, because I have a life. Totse does not take precedence, and your only option is to wait for me to return. Making snide comments and attacking me personally serves no purpose.

I'll get back on topic this weekend, most likely.

ok, well I look forward to reading your attempts at proving it is a scientific theory. They're always good for a chuckle.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

But you have lied. You have made claims and they have been shown to not be so, yet you continue preaching them as the truth. That is a lie.

And the only time you annoy me is when I read your posts, I don't even think about you when I'm not on TOTSE.

LIE (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie)

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

The key words would be DELIBERATE and MEANT. Both indicate intent. I have not DELIBERATELY given any false statements, nor have I MEANT to. I review the science as it is presented, interpret it, and argue it. If I am wrong, so be it, but that's certainly not an act of dishonesty. I truly believe the things I post. You cannot prove otherwise. If you think you will offend me by making false claims about me or my character, you're wrong.

It would be logical for you to avoid the source of the annoyance, then. Again, no one is forcing you to interract with me, or even review what I have posted. You do that of your own volition. Therefore, you have only yourself to blame. Don't take your hostility out on me.

Yes, but you have proven to be wrong, yet you continue to make the same claims. It has been shown many times in this thread what evolution really is, yet you continue to claim otherwise. You're a liar, and you 'interpret' things to suit your beliefs. You're scum, digi, scum. And I'm done with you today, I'm off to work. Yes, I have a life out of totse too. *gasp, shock, horror*

[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-18-2006).]

As a result of your inevitable absence, attributed to working, I will be forced to claim you are a liar, have lost this debate, and are intellectually corrupt.

That is the only logical conclusion I can possibly come to, when considering why you won't be answering us for the next 8 hours. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Hey Digital, in case you forgot, there was a discussion going on in this thread and you've yet to respond..from....http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005790-2.html.....I'm thinking it's because you have no response.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

As a result of your inevitable absence, attributed to working, I will be forced to claim you are a liar, have lost this debate, and are intellectually corrupt.

That is the only logical conclusion I can possibly come to, when considering why you won't be answering us for the next 8 hours. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Fair enough, I understand your point and shall not accuse you of running; even though being absent for three months is suspicious. But I still hold that you are a liar.



[This message has been edited by Raw_Power (edited 08-18-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

Lol, yet you futilely repeat the same bullshit claims about ID and evolution, even though they are always refuted. You’ve presented nothing new for pages. You’re what I’d call a hypocrite, you may have started this thread, but you’ve added nothing new to it for a long time, just the same old lies and bending of truths.

Funny how you only run to this thread when I point out that you've been busy in politics.



I haven't been on totse for a while, but she still hasn't responded to my post on 8-12-06 outlining what proof would be needed to prove her position. In that post I stated she showed no evidence, and neither hyro or her have refuted the star light issue, and what would be needed to be proven incorrect to show she is correct.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Technically it's over when you stop presenting proof, so one could say a real debate never started since no proof was presented, and this thread has mostly been just an argument.

For one thing both you and hyro have failed in refuting the distance of stars light issue.

Also in order to prove intelligent design you have to prove an intelligent designer. If the intelligent designer is god that is impossible, because god cannot be proven true or untrue. If you think otherwise your not using the scientific method.

Besides DS arguing the longest doesn't prove your right, proof does, something you lack entirely.

If what your saying is true you have to:

1) Prove something capable of being an intelligent designer exists.

2)Without violating the laws of physics and using mathematics to back your claims, prove that intelligent "intervention" took place, and continues to take place.

3)Prove that these "interventions" could not happen naturally.

4)Prove all methods of measuring the distance of stars false.

5)Provide experimental proof of your claims

6)Provide VALID scientific sources for all your claims

All of these points have to be met before I even glance at ID. Why should I believe something without proof? I shouldn't, so I won't.

Also in reference to the star distance measuring techniques, I will list below, if your interested in proving ID correct.

The ABC's of Distances (http://tinyurl.com/om79f)

After that I posted near 30 ways of measuring the distance of stars, so she could see exactly the techniques being used, since she has failed to address them, and they don't contradict each other, I think we have a common agreement, or at least a silent admittance, that these techniques are accurate. Also what I said earlier still stands :

Until you respond to all 6 points listed above by presenting proof, I feel no need to "argue" with you any more than I feel the need to argue with a 6 year old.

If you want to actually debate, instead of just argue, then for starters you need to prove what your repetitively saying is true.

It has been a week, I wonder if it is going to drag out even longer, again.

I'd like to add I found a site on this subject refuting many of the creationist arguments, and showing you don't have to become atheist because of evolution.

Here it is (http://tinyurl.com/dpoue)

It may be a while before I return again, just to warn anyone who may care, but if, and only if, the points listed above get addressed, this will become a debate. I only want to participate in an intelligent debate, not a pointless argument.

I posted that article on how ID and Creationism are Philosophical Theological Theories and why, and you just said I posted nothing, I really don't like your tactics at all.

Bump, lest it be forgotten.

I think this should be rearchived unless DS is without a doubt, soon returning with cold hard evidence, and proof against the star distance measuring techniques, etc.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

I think this should be rearchived unless DS is without a doubt, soon returning with cold hard evidence, and proof against the star distance measuring techniques, etc.

I don't think it is appropriate to continue giving her time. Like my post above says (the one she totally denied), Creationism and Intelligent Design are Theological and Philosophical Theories, they can not be falsified because there is no way to disprove them. Further, there is no way to prove or Recreate it in a controlled environment to provide evidence. It can not be a scientific theory, she can't give us ANYTHING that disproves God, and she can't give us anything that disproves God's control over creation, and she can't give us any evidence of experiments that prove God's design because God's design is completely manifest, it can not be disproven in any case because God isn't some alien in space that we can find.

I feel that it is time that this thread was archived and put to rest. Anyone who has been around this forum for any length of time knows that if Digi believes she has any sliver of information which could serve to support her position, she can't post it quickly enough. It is evident that she has nothing to support her assertions in this thread.

She stated that this discussion would be over when she stopped arguing her point. That point in time passed long ago.

[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 08-29-2006).]

I'd really like to see her reply... seems to me that the atheists here have pretty much won. What reponse could she possibly have? http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 09-03-2006).]

Digital Saviour

S

T

F

U

!!!!!

Bump.

I think DS had said she isn't going to reply again, but I'm bumping this because I think it should be re-achieved before it is lost. The archive contains only pages 1 through 6 and that is just a small part of the thread.

Bump

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 11-06-2006).]

She said in another thread that got locked - her Saddam thread in Politics - that she chose not to post here anymore because it was "40 against 1 and unfair"... so don't hold your breath.

Well, I bumped it so that it doesn't get lost before it's re-achieved. I talked to LostCause and she's on it, but it may take a while.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Well, I bumped it so that it doesn't get lost before it's re-achieved. I talked to LostCause and she's on it, but it may take a while.

Thats good news.

Digital_Failure

quote:Originally posted by smallpox champion:

Digital_Failure

That isn't very nice.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

That isn't very nice.

Sorry.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

She said in another thread that got locked - her Saddam thread in Politics - that she chose not to post here anymore because it was "40 against 1 and unfair"... so don't hold your breath.

Especially when the one has no actual defenses. It's like one chick with a cardboard sword fighting a US Delta Force team.

Even I'd give up then.

I have received a request from a fellow mod to have this thread reopened.

Its early morning and I am still caffeine depleted but after a quick glance I can see no reason why not, as it wasn't closed by LC.

LC may disagree though, I don't speak for her and it is her call in the end.

I'm 'sticking' it just so I can better keep an eye on it for a bit.

It is good that this thread will never die.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

INB4 another 200 posts of

When is Digital coming back to this thread?

I would ask everyone that we refrain from personal attacks and that we stick to the original subject of this thread, whether ID is a valid scientific theory that should be taught in the public school science curriculum.

This thread is not about evolution, although evolution has been repeatedly brought into the discussion. The validity of the theory of evolution has no bearing on whether or not Intelligent Design is or is not a valid scientific theory ID must stand or fall on it's own merit. It does not win by default if evolution were to be falsified.

I ask simply for Digital_Savior to present the evidence she claimed to have (so long ago) that supports her assertion that ID is a valid scientific theory on equal footing with the ToE.

I would ask everyone that we refrain from personal attacks and that we stick to the original subject of this thread, whether ID is a valid scientific theory that should be taught in the public school science curriculum.

Just by semantics alone it cannot be called scientific theory. However, there is no logical reason to say that it should not be taught in public school. On the surface it seems like a really lazy explanation, but trying to bring it down to the details it becomes very thought provoking. Anything that would encourage critical thinking should be taught in public schools.

Just by semantics alone it cannot be called scientific theory. However, there is no logical reason to say that it should not be taught in public school. On the surface it seems like a really lazy explanation, but trying to bring it down to the details it becomes very thought provoking. Anything that would encourage critical thinking should be taught in public schools.

They do teach it - in theology classes under the title of "William Paley's Watchmaker Analogy". And I'm down with that, but not with it being taught as an acceptable scientific theory on par with evolution in science classes, because it doesn't belong there, would be a lie and would totally pervert scientific rigor.

Wow... why the hell is this thread so long then? If it is being taught in schools and it isn't being taught in science classes, I don't see a problem.

Wow... why the hell is this thread so long then? If it is being taught in schools and it isn't being taught in science classes, I don't see a problem.

Because creationists and intelligent designers have an agenda to have it taught specifically in science classrooms as a viable scientific alternative to evolution, even though it is not, for exceedingly evident reasons.

And might I add: That agenda is being pushed with vigor, to the point of some parents taking their children out of the PS's due to the lack of it being taught.

Fundies have the tenacity and dogged determination to keep on protesting it. And they will.

Just by semantics alone it cannot be called scientific theory.

If by "semantics" you mean "what Science defines a scientific theory to be", then yes. It cannot be called a scientific theory because it fails at achieving what a scientific theory is defined as by Science.

However, there is no logical reason to say that it should not be taught in public school. On the surface it seems like a really lazy explanation, but trying to bring it down to the details it becomes very thought provoking. Anything that would encourage critical thinking should be taught in public schools.1. The problem is not that it is/isn't being taught, it's where and how they want to teach it. They want to teach it in the Science classroom, and teach it as if it were on equal grounds as a scientific theory as evolution. That is the problem. Intelligent Design isn't a scientific theory. Arguably it doesn't even belong in the classroom, but at the very least, certainly not taught as if it were legitimate Science.

2. No logical reasons not to teach it? Here's one: Time and money are not in high supply for public schools. They might conclude that wasting time and money on teaching Intelligent Design is not a good course of action. They could easily conclude that there are other topics that they could spend time and money on that are better at "encouraging critical thinking" than the baseless theory of Intelligent Design.

To say that there is no logical reason not to teach it is pretty ridiculous. There are. There are also reason to teach it in some context outside the Science classroom, like you said it could encourage critical thought.

I have received a request from a fellow mod to have this thread reopened.

:rolleyes:

This thread was an ambush.

That is why I have abandoned it. Sticky it all you like, but that will not make me come back. When I created it, I had no idea the shitstorm it would produce, and it's quite simply too much for me to battle several dozen people at once. There isn't a single Christian or non-Christian on this board who knows ID like I do.

The task is too daunting. I have resigned myself to let these people gloat. There is nothing else I can do.

:rolleyes:

This thread was an ambush.

That is why I have abandoned it. Sticky it all you like, but that will not make me come back. When I created it, I had no idea the shitstorm it would produce, and it's quite simply too much for me to battle several dozen people at once. There isn't a single Christian or non-Christian on this board who knows ID like I do.

The task is too daunting. I have resigned myself to let these people gloat. There is nothing else I can do.

I disagree with you entirely here. It's not like you to let people gloat if you can easily refute them and the reason you abandoned it was not because it was an ambush, the evidence for this is that you were told you could just reply to the three members who were giving actual arguments and ignore the rest. No offence, but I also find the claim "There isn't a single Christian or non-Christian on this board who knows ID like I do" a bit presumptous, since it is impossible that you know every single person on this board.

The "several dozen people" where all arguing the same thing; just going about it different ways.

We told you though out the course of the discussion that you could choose to reply to the general arguments we were all expressing and not to each individual person if you wanted to.

Not to mention that we could have chosen a spoke person if you wanted to, to whom you would direct your replies. The issue of it being "dozens against one" could have easily been resolved. That excuse doesn't work.

I would ask everyone that we refrain from personal attacks and that we stick to the original subject of this thread, whether ID is a valid scientific theory that should be taught in the public school science curriculum.

If you were so concerned with my treatment, you would have interjected long ago.

This thread is not about evolution, although evolution has been repeatedly brought into the discussion. The validity of the theory of evolution has no bearing on whether or not Intelligent Design is or is not a valid scientific theory ID must stand or fall on it's own merit. It does not win by default if evolution were to be falsified.

The ID argument is always about evolution, because both sides claim to have supporting scientific evidence while the opposing side denies that they do.

IDer's find evolution ridiculous, as do evolutionist's of ID. Neither can be irrefutably proven, and both have some science to support them.

In the end, if evolution is full of holes and can be taught to ALL of our children in the PUBLIC schools that we ALL pay for, then so too should ID (which evolutionist's claim is full of holes) be taught to ALL children. They should be judged with the same scrutiny. As it stands, ID is judged far more harshly than evolution, and is required to meet standards that evolution itself does not meet. The double standard is perfectly relevant to this discussion.

I ask simply for Digital_Savior to present the evidence she claimed to have (so long ago) that supports her assertion that ID is a valid scientific theory on equal footing with the ToE.

I tried to provide you with the information you wanted, but it suited you better to attack institutions of higher learning, claiming them to be pseudo-scientific and thus undeserving of merit.

Even if your claim was true, that the school I reference had never been officially accredited by the state government (which it was), that does not make their research any less scientific. As long as you keep moving the bar around for those you don't agree with, they will never succeed in achieving success in your eyes. And that's the point.

I just had this conversation with Rust a few days ago. He made an appeal to authority (stating that without a degree in a specific field, a person is incapable of being an expert on the subject [in case he doesn't recall, it was about global warming]), as though a degree is all one needs to be learned in any given topic. I then made the charge that he is not an expert in ANY subject, since he is not degreed in any (yet, unless something has changed). Since he's not an authority/expert on any subject, his opinion is irrelevant and everyone should ignore him. I don't recall if he ever responded, but I will say it again: that is just ridiculous.

I posit that some of the world's most accomplished academics had not a degree to their names.

But I digress. The interest in attacking me personally, the institution from which most scientific studies supporting the theory of ID are executed, and Christians in general was greater than the interest in seriously considering another theory.

Stick a fork in it. It's done. I had intended to try and come back and finish what I started, but I simply can't. I am outnumbered.

(I find it completely reprehensible that Jack re-opened this, and the moderator who requested that it be has ulterior motives to which Jack SHOULD have been privy, prior to doing so. Just my two cents.)

The "several dozen people" where all arguing the same thing; just going about it different ways.

I suggest you go back and read the entire thread then, because this is false.

We told you though out the course of the discussion that you could choose to reply to the general arguments we were all expressing and not to each individual person if you wanted to.

Really ? I don't recall that. Please cite the specific reference.

Also, how I choose to execute my debates are up to me. I am not one to argue "generally". You know this.

Not to mention that we could have chosen a spoke person if you wanted to, to whom you would direct your replies. The issue of it being "dozens against one" could have easily been resolved. That excuse doesn't work.

That's all fine and good NOW, but I said I was outnumbered numerous times, and no offer of this type was made. Convenient that you do so now, when I have no interest in pursuing this argument.

You're just going to have to be satisfied with that.

I disagree with you entirely here. It's not like you to let people gloat if you can easily refute them and the reason you abandoned it was not because it was an ambush, the evidence for this is that you were told you could just reply to the three members who were giving actual arguments and ignore the rest. No offence, but I also find the claim "There isn't a single Christian or non-Christian on this board who knows ID like I do" a bit presumptous, since it is impossible that you know every single person on this board.

It is UNLIKELY for me to do so, yes. That doesn't mean it's impossible. Sometimes the boulder is too heavy for even me to push it all the way up the hill.

Now that you've called me a liar, I don't suppose niceties are in order any longer, hmmm, Raw_Power ? Let us go back through the vast archives of this thread and see what a little demon spawn you were, and how little you contributed to the actual debate.

Yeah, that's right. I don't think your opinion on the matter has any weight, but please...feel free to recruit someone who knows as much, or more, about ID than I do to assist me in this thread. Only then will I reconsider taking up the gauntlet.

No guarantees, though. I am moving in the next few weeks to another state. I will have too much to do.

Dood...what is up with vB ?! Am I the only one having issues ? Database errors and serious lag time...anyone ?

Now that you've called me a liar, I don't suppose niceties are in order any longer, hmmm, Raw_Power ?

Disagreeing with you equals not being nice to you? O.o

But anyways, I've admitted numerous times in SG and on IRC that I was Raw_Power. It's not exactly a shock secret and I hope you don't think I was being nice to you all this time because you knew I was Raw_Power.

Disagreeing with you equals not being nice to you? O.o

No, insinuating that I am a liar equals that.

But anyways, I've admitted numerous times in SG and on IRC that I was Raw_Power. It's not exactly a shock secret and I hope you don't think I was being nice to you all this time because you knew I was Raw_Power.

I dropped your name so that any innocent bystanders can feel free to search your posts in this thread. Having contributed nothing of worth for either side, you are least qualified to be giving your opinion on whether I continue or not, or whether or not my reasons for choosing not to are valid.

If you were so concerned with my treatment, you would have interjected long ago.



The ID argument is always about evolution, because both sides claim to have supporting scientific evidence while the opposing side denies that they do.

IDer's find evolution ridiculous, as do evolutionist's of ID. Neither can be irrefutably proven, and both have some science to support them.

In the end, if evolution is full of holes and can be taught to ALL of our children in the PUBLIC schools that we ALL pay for, then so too should ID (which evolutionist's claim is full of holes) be taught to ALL children. They should be judged with the same scrutiny. As it stands, ID is judged far more harshly than evolution, and is required to meet standards that evolution itself does not meet. The double standard is perfectly relevant to this discussion.



I tried to provide you with the information you wanted, but it suited you better to attack institutions of higher learning, claiming them to be pseudo-scientific and thus undeserving of merit.

Even if your claim was true, that the school I reference had never been officially accredited by the state government (which it was), that does not make their research any less scientific. As long as you keep moving the bar around for those you don't agree with, they will never succeed in achieving success in your eyes. And that's the point.

I just had this conversation with Rust a few days ago. He made an appeal to authority (stating that without a degree in a specific field, a person is incapable of being an expert on the subject [in case he doesn't recall, it was about global warming]), as though a degree is all one needs to be learned in any given topic. I then made the charge that he is not an expert in ANY subject, since he is not degreed in any (yet, unless something has changed). Since he's not an authority/expert on any subject, his opinion is irrelevant and everyone should ignore him. I don't recall if he ever responded, but I will say it again: that is just ridiculous.

I posit that some of the world's most accomplished academics had not a degree to their names.

But I digress. The interest in attacking me personally, the institution from which most scientific studies supporting the theory of ID are executed, and Christians in general was greater than the interest in seriously considering another theory.

Stick a fork in it. It's done. I had intended to try and come back and finish what I started, but I simply can't. I am outnumbered.

(I find it completely reprehensible that Jack re-opened this, and the moderator who requested that it be has ulterior motives to which Jack SHOULD have been privy, prior to doing so. Just my two cents.)

If you will recall, you yourself stated that this thread was about proving ID as a valid scientific theory, and not as a thread about evolution. You are the one who constantly keeps bringing the ToE into the discussion.

You have not, at any point in this thread, offered any scenario in which ID could possibly be falsifiable. We at no time in this thread asked you to falsify it, only to show that it there was a way , that if ID were were wrong, it could be falsified. You have not yet shown that ID qualifies as a scientific theory.

You have known for months that this was what we are asking for, as your earlier posts clearly show.

To be honest, I am the mod who made the request for Jack to reopen this thread. My only motive for doing so was to have you present the information you previously stated that you possessed which would show the validity of ID as a scientific theory (and that it should be taught as science in public schools). I have in no way blindsided Jack, or misrepresented my intentions.

No, insinuating that I am a liar equals that.

Actually, I was trying to insinuate that you were unconsciously ignoring information that disagreed with your outlook on life. I think you call it confirmation bias, a form of denial. I was just trying to put it in a nice manner because I like you.

I dropped your name so that any innocent bystanders can feel free to search your posts in this thread. Having contributed nothing of worth for either side, you are least qualified to be giving your opinion on whether I continue or not, or whether or not my reasons for choosing not to are valid.

I don't care if they look. I've grown up a lot since then, in an incredibly short space, and aren't as pissed off and ignorant as I used to be.

If you will recall, you yourself stated that this thread was about proving ID as a valid scientific theory, and not as a thread about evolution. You are the one who constantly keeps bringing the ToE into the discussion.

Then I was in err in thinking that the discussion could be had without the inclusion of ToE, because the inevitable "ToE is superior to ID" claim was made. I should have recognized that as a possibility from the beginning.

You have not, at any point in this thread, offered any scenario in which ID could possibly be falsifiable. We at no time in this thread asked you to falsify it, only to show that it there was a way , that if ID were were wrong, it could be falsified. You have not yet shown that ID qualifies as a scientific theory.And here I'd have to argue about the fact that I did...and I won't. As I have said clearly, this thread is done, as far as the topic is concerned.

To be honest, I am the mod who made the request for Jack to reopen this thread. My only motive for doing so was to have you present the information you previously stated that you possessed which would show the validity of ID as a scientific theory (and that it should be taught as science in public schools). I have in no way blindsided Jack, or misrepresented my intentions.If you were merely interested in the information, you would have emailed me or messaged me. This is gloating, and nothing more.

Congrats.

P.S. When did I say that you blindsided Jack ? :eek:

I suggest you go back and read the entire thread then, because this is false.



No, nothing close to false. We certainly did, and I'm not the only one who saw this. I appears it is you who have to go back and read the thread.

Even your own husband admitted this!

"I've answered the same questions several times because one another is saying the same things"


Really ? I don't recall that. Please cite the specific reference.

Also, how I choose to execute my debates are up to me. I am not one to argue "generally". You know this.


"Being outnumbered isn't really an issue. All that is asked of her is to respond to a select few questions. I'm sure that they seem greater in number than they actually are, as they have been repeated numerous times. "

-- truckfixr

"I don't think anyone cares if she responds to every little post and detail.

Personally, I would be satisfied if she did just two things.

First, I'd like her to show how evolution goes against the idea of God or a creator.

Secondly, I'd like her to show scientific and mathematical evidence that supports biblical creation.

No long list of responses to cover every detail, just respond to those two things. "

- Napoleon_Complex.

I'm certain I have told you the same thing in other threads where this issue has been carried over.

The fact of the matter is that it isn't up to us to make things easier for you just because you don't like that many people decided to take you up on your claims. If you thought you were being outnumbered then then intellectually honest thing to do would be to propose a remedy - not to abandon your thread altogether.

As for you choosing how to execute your debates, who said otherwise? I'm saying that it could have easily continued. That the issue of you being "outnumbered" could have been resolved. You made absolutely no offerings to do so, we at least tried to.



That's all fine and good NOW, but I said I was outnumbered numerous times, and no offer of this type was made. Convenient that you do so now, when I have no interest in pursuing this argument.

You're just going to have to be satisfied with that.

We were offering alternatives when the debate was being made then. This is not a case of us doing nothing and then now offering after the fact. You could have gone with the alternatives we did offer or discuss with us new alternatives to releave your problem. You didn't.

Even if we hadn't offered anything back then, you - the very person who created this thread and said would give the evidence - should have made efforts to resolve that problem. This doesn't fall on us.

:rolleyes:

This thread was an ambush.

That is why I have abandoned it. Sticky it all you like, but that will not make me come back. When I created it, I had no idea the shitstorm it would produce, and it's quite simply too much for me to battle several dozen people at once. There isn't a single Christian or non-Christian on this board who knows ID like I do.

The task is too daunting. I have resigned myself to let these people gloat. There is nothing else I can do.

When I read this my pointer drifted to the 'close thread' option but then i noticed you have continued to reply.

So now I am somewhat confused.

A normal state of affairs for me I admit.

If you want to continue debating then I'll leave it open, if not then i'll close it.

Is Intelligent Design Testable?


Eugenie Scott is a physical anthropologist who as director of the National Center for Science Education travels the United States warning audiences about the threat of creationism and unmasking its various guises. Intelligent design, according to her, is currently the most sinister of these guises. Scott has developed a standard shtick, which includes not only some well-worn arguments against creationism and some newer arguments against intelligent design (which she refers to as "neocreationism") but also some comedic elements, like the Monty Python wink-wink-nudge-nudge routine, which she uses when she wants to make clear to her audiences that the designer of intelligent design is really none other than the "Big G" of the Christian faith.


Recently (January 18, 2001) Scott presented a lecture at U.C. Berkeley sponsored by the department of integrative biology and titled "Icons of Creationism: The New Anti-Evolutionism and Science" (http://ib.berkeley.edu/seminars/index.html). The title alludes to Jonathan Wells's recent book _Icons of Evolution_, which critiques the various standard evidences used in textbooks to support Darwinian evolution. Scott presumably means to turn the tables and show that intelligent design is similarly open to criticism.


Scott's key criticism against intelligent design, both in her talk the other day and since the early nineties, has been that intelligent design is untestable. For instance, in an exchange with Stephen Meyer back in 1994 in _Insight_ magazine, Scott remarked that until design theorists develop a "theo-meter" (this neologism is hers) to test for design, they are treading water in a sea of retarded scientific aspirations. In her talk the other day at U.C. Berkeley she claimed that intelligent design does not propose any "testable model."


The testability objection to intelligent design can be interpreted in two ways. One is to claim that intelligent design is in principle untestable. This seems to have been Scott's line in the early nineties. Certainly it is a hallmark of science that any of its claims be subject to revision or refutation on the basis of new evidence or further theoretical insight. If this is what one means by testability, then design is certainly testable. Indeed, it was in this sense that Darwin tested William Paley's account of design and found it wanting. It simply won't wash to say that design isn't testable and then in the same breath say that Darwin tested design and refuted it.
The other way to interpret the testability objection is to claim that intelligent design may in principle be testable, but that no tests have been proposed to date. This seems to be Scott's line currently. Indeed, if the testability objection is to bear any weight, its force must reside in the absence of concrete proposals for testing intelligent design. Are such proposals indeed lacking? Rather than looking solely at the testability of intelligent design, I want also to consider the testability of Darwinism. By comparing the testability of the two theories, it will become evident that even the more charitable interpretation of Scott's testability objection does not hold up.


In relation to science testability is a very broad notion. It certainly includes Karl Popper's notion of falsifiability, but it is hardly coextensive with it and can apply even if falsifiability does not obtain. Testability as well covers confirmation, predicability, and explanatory power. At the heart of testability is the idea that our scientific theories must make contact with and be sensitive to what's happening in nature. What's happening in nature must be able to affect our scientific theories not only in form and content but also in the degree of credence we attach to or withhold from them. For a theory to be immune to evidence from nature is a sure sign that we're not dealing with a scientific theory.


What then are we to make of the testability of both intelligent design and Darwinism taken not in a generic abstract sense but concretely? What are the specific tests for intelligent design? What are the specific tests for Darwinism? And how do the two theories compare in terms of testability? To answer these questions, let's run through several aspects of testability, beginning with falsifiability.


To be continued...(sorry for the confusion, Jack)

P.S. A source link will be provided at the end of my posting.

Even if she doesn't want to debate anything, I think others might. If nobody does, then the thread will die on its own anyway.

FALSIFIABILITY: Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.


On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism seems effectively impossible. To do so one must show that no conceivable Darwinian pathway could have led to a given biological structure. What's more, Darwinists are apt to retreat into the murk of historical contingency to shore up their theory. For instance, Allen Orr in his critique of Behe's work shortly after _Darwin's Black Box_ appeared remarked, "We have no guarantee that we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway." What he conceded with one hand, however, he was quick to retract with the other. He added, "But even if we can't, its irreducible complexity cannot count against its gradual evolution."
The fact is that for complex systems like the bacterial flagellum no biologist has or is anywhere close to reconstructing its history in Darwinian terms. Is Darwinian theory therefore falsified? Hardly. I have yet to witness one committed Darwinist concede that any feature of nature might even in principle provide countervailing evidence to Darwinism. In place of such a concession one is instead always treated to an admission of ignorance. Thus it's not that Darwinism has been falsified or disconfirmed, but that we simply don't know enough about the biological system in question and its historical context to determine how the Darwinian mechanism might have produced it.


For instance, to neutralize the challenge that the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum raises against Darwinism, Ken Miller employs the following argument from ignorance. Like the rest of the biological community, Miller doesn't know how the bacterial flagellum originated. The biological community's ignorance about the flagellum, however, doesn't end with its origin but extends to its very functioning. For instance, according to David DeRosier, "The mechanism of the flagellar motor remains a mystery." Miller takes this admission of ignorance by DeRosier and uses it to advantage. In _Finding Darwin's God_ he writes: "Before [Darwinian] evolution is excoriated for failing to explain the evolution of the flagellum, I'd request that the scientific community at least be allowed to figure out how its various parts work." But in the article by DeRosier that Miller cites, Miller conveniently omits the following quote: "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human."


So apparently we know enough about the bacterial flagellum to know that it is designed or at least design-like. Indeed, we know what most of its individual parts do. Moreover, we know that the flagellum is irreducibly complex. Far from being a weakness of irreducible complexity as Miller suggests, it is a strength of the concept that one can determine whether a system is irreducibly complex without knowing the precise role that each part in the system plays (one need only knock out individual parts and see if function is preserved; knowing what exactly the individual parts do is not necessary). Miller's appeal to ignorance obscures just how much we know about the flagellum, how compelling the case is for its design, and how unfalsifiable Darwinism is when Darwinists proclaim that the Darwinian selection mechanism can account for it despite the absence of any identifiable biochemical pathway.


What the...five characters ? :eek:

CONFIRMATION: What about positive evidence for intelligent design and Darwinism? From the design theorist's perspective, the positive evidence for Darwinism is confined to small-scale evolutionary changes like insects developing insecticide resistance. This is not to deny large-scale evolutionary changes, but it is to deny that the Darwinian mechanism can account for them. Evidence like that for insecticide resistance confirms the Darwinian selection mechanism for small-scale changes, but hardly warrants the grand extrapolation that Darwinists want. It is a huge leap going from insects developing insecticide resistance via the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation to the very emergence of insects in the first place by that same mechanism.


Darwinists invariably try too minimize the extrapolation from small-scale to large-scale evolution, arguing that it is a failure of imagination on the part of critics to appreciate the wonder-working power of the Darwinian mechanism. From the design theorist's perspective, however, this is not a case of failed imagination but of the emperor's new clothes. Yes, there is positive evidence for Darwinism, but the strength and relevance of that evidence on behalf of large-scale evolution is very much under dispute, if not within the Darwinian community then certainly outside of it.
What about the positive evidence for intelligent design? It seems that here we may be getting to the heart of Eugenie Scott's concerns. I submit that there is indeed positive evidence for intelligent design. To see this, let's consider an example that I recycle endlessly in my writings (if only because its force seems continually lost on Darwinists). Consider the movie _Contact_ that appeared summer of 1997, based on the novel by Carl Sagan. In the movie radio astronomers determine that they have established contact with an extraterrestrial intelligence after they receive a long sequence of prime numbers, represented as a sequence of bits.


Although in the actual SETI program (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio astronomers look not for something as flamboyant as prime numbers but something much more plebeian, namely, a narrow bandwidth of transmissions (as occur with human radio transmissions), the point nonetheless remains that SETI researchers would legitimately count a sequence of prime numbers (and less flamboyantly though just as assuredly a narrow bandwidth transmission) as positive evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence. No such conclusive signal has yet been observed, but I can assure you that if it were to be observed, Eugenie Scott would not be complaining about SETI not having proposed any "testable models." Instead she would rejoice that the model had been tested and decisively confirmed.


Now what's significant about a sequence of prime numbers from outer space is that they exhibit specified complexity -- there has to be a long sequence (hence complexity) and it needs to display an independently given pattern (hence specificity). But what if specified complexity is also exhibited in actual biological systems? In fact it is -- notably in the bacterial flagellum. Internet mavens have been pestering me for actual calculations of complexity involved in such systems. I address this in my forthcoming book (_No Free Lunch_), but such calculations are out there in the literature (cf. the work of Hubert Yockey, Robert Sauer, Peter Rüst, Paul Erbrich, Siegfried Scherer, and most recently Douglas Axe -- I'm not enlisting these individuals as design advocates but merely pointing out that methods for determining specified complexity are already part of biology).


Even so, it appears that Eugenie Scott would not be entirely happy admitting that intelligent design is positively confirmed once some clear-cut instances of specified complexity are discovered in biological systems. Why not? As she put it in her U.C. Berkeley lecture, design theorists "never tell you what happened." Well, neither do SETI researchers. If a SETI researcher discovers a radio transmission of prime numbers from outer space, the inference to an extraterrestrial intelligence is clear, but the researcher doesn't know "what happened" in the sense of knowing any details about the radio transmitter or for that matter the extraterrestrial that transmitted the radio transmission.
Ah, but we have experience with radio transmitters. At least with extraterrestrial intelligences we can guess what might have happened. But we don't have any experience with unembodied designers, and that's clearly what we're dealing with when it comes to design in biology. Actually, if an unembodied designer is responsible for biological complexity, then we do have quite a bit of experience with such a designer through the designed objects (not least ourselves) that confront us all the time. On the other hand, it is true that we possess very little insight at this time into how such a designer acted to bring about the complex biological systems that have emerged over the course of natural history.


Darwinists take this present lack of insight into the workings of an unembodied designer not as remediable ignorance on our part and not as evidence that the designer's capacities far outstrip ours, but as proof that there is no unembodied designer (at least none relevant to biology). By the same token, if an extraterrestrial intelligence communicated via radio signals with earth and solved computational problems that exceeded anything an ordinary or quantum computer could ever solve, we would have to conclude that we weren't really dealing with an intelligence because we have no experience of super-mathematicians that can solve such problems. My own view is that with respect to biological design humans are in the same position as William James's dog studying James while James was reading a book in his library. Our incomprehension over biological design is the incomprehension of a dog trying to understand its master's actions. Interestingly, the biological community regularly sings the praises of natural selection and the wonders it has wrought while admitting that it has no comprehension of how those wonders were wrought. Natural selection, we are assured, is cleverer than we are or can ever hope to be. Darwinists have merely swapped one form of awe for another. They've not eliminated it.


It is no objection at all that we don't at this time know how an unembodied designer produced a biological system that exhibits specified complexity. We know that specified complexity is reliably correlated with the effects of intelligence. The only reason to insist on looking for non-telic explanations to explain the complex specified structures in biology is because of prior commitment to naturalism that perforce excludes unembodied designers. It is illegitimate, scientifically and rationally, to claim on a priori grounds that such entities do not exist, or if they do exist that they can have no conceivable relevance to what happens in the world. Do such entities exist? Can they have empirical consequences? Are they relevant to what happens in the world? Such questions cannot be prejudged except on metaphysical grounds. To prejudge these questions the way Eugenie Scott does is therefore to make certain metaphysical commitments about what there is and what has the capacity to influence events in the world. Such commitments are utterly gratuitous to the practice of science. Specified complexity confirms design regardless whether the designer responsible for it is embodied or unembodied.


My obligatory 5 characters here.

PREDICTABILITY: Another aspect of testability is predictability. A good scientific theory, we are told, is one that predicts things. If it predicts things that don't happen, then it is tested and found wanting. If it predicts things that do happen, then it is tested and regarded as successful. If it doesn't predict things, however, what then? Often with theories that try to account for features of natural history, prediction gets generalized to include retrodiction, in which a theory also specifies what the past should look like. Darwinism is said to apply retrodictively to the fossil record and predictively in experiments that place an organism under selection pressures and attempt to induce some adaptive change.


But in fact Darwinism does not retrodict the fossil record. Natural selection and random variation applied to single-celled organisms offers no insight at all into whether we can expect multi-celled organisms, much less whether evolution will produce the various body-plans of which natural history has left us a record. At best one can say that there is consilience, i.e., that the broad sweep of evolutionary history as displayed in the fossil record is consistent with Darwinian evolution. Design theorists strongly dispute this as well (pointing especially to the Cambrian explosion). But detailed retrodiction and detailed prediction are not virtues of Darwin's theory. Organisms placed under selection pressures either adapt or go extinct. Except in the simplest cases where there is, say, some point mutation that reliably confers antibiotic resistance on a bacterium, Darwin's theory has no way of predicting just what sorts of adaptive changes will occur. "Adapt or go extinct" is not a prediction of Darwin's theory but an axiom that can be reasoned out independently.


Challenging me in _American Outlook_ biologist Alex Duncan remarked: "A scientific theory makes predictions about the world around us, and enables us to ask and answer meaningful questions. For example, we might pose the question 'why do polar bears have fur, while penguins have feathers, given the similar nature of their environments
Evolution provides an answer to this question. The only answer creationism (or intelligent design) provides is 'because God made them that way.'" Actually, evolution, whether Darwinian or otherwise, makes no predictions about there being bears or birds at all or for that matter bears having fur and birds having feathers. Once bears or birds are on the scene, they need to adapt to their environment or die. Intelligent design can accommodate plenty of evolutionary change and allows for natural selection to act as a conservative force to keep organisms adapted to their environments. Contrary to Duncan's remark, intelligent design does not push off all explanation to the inscrutable will of God. On the other hand, intelligent design utterly rejects natural selection as a creative force capable of bringing about the specified complexity we see in organisms.


It's evident, then, that Darwin's theory has virtually no predictive power. Insofar as it offers predictions, they are either extremely general, concerning the broad sweep of natural history and in that respect quite questionable (Why else would Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge need to introduce punctuated equilibria if the fossil record were such an overwhelming vindication of Darwinism?); and when the predictions are not extremely general they are extremely specific and picayune, dealing with small-scale adaptive changes. Newton was able to predict the path that a planet traces out. Darwin's disciples can neither predict nor retrodict the pathways that organisms trace out in the course of natural history.


But what about the predictive power of intelligent design? To require prediction fundamentally misconstrues design. To require prediction of design is to put design in the same boat as natural laws, locating their explanatory power in an extrapolation from past experience. This is to commit a category mistake. To be sure, designers, like natural laws, can behave predictably (designers often institute policies that end up being rigidly obeyed). Yet unlike natural laws, which are universal and uniform, designers are also innovators. Innovation, the emergence to true novelty, eschews predictability. Designers are inventors. We cannot predict what an inventor would do short of becoming that inventor. Intelligent design offers a radically different problematic for science than a mechanistic science wedded solely to undirected natural causes. Yes, intelligent design concedes predictability. But this represents no concession to Darwinism, for which the minimal predictive power that it has can readily be assimilated to a design-theoretic framework.


Testing, 1...2...3...4...5

EXPLANATORY POWER: According to Darwin the great advantage of his theory over William Paley's theory of design was that Darwin's theory managed to account for a wide diversity of biological facts that Paley's theory could not. Darwin's theory was thus thought to have greater explanatory power than Paley's , and this relative advantage could be viewed as a test of the two theories. Underlying explanatory power is a view of explanation known as inference to the best explanation in which a "best explanation" always presupposes at least two competing explanations and attempts to determine which comes out on top. Design theorists see advances in the biological and information sciences as putting design back in the saddle and enabling it to outperform Darwinism, thus making design currently the best explanation biological complexity. Darwinists of course see the matter quite differently.


What I want to focus on here, however, is not the testing of Darwinism and design against the broad body of biological data, but the related question of which theory can accommodate the greater range of biological possibilities. Think of it this way: Are there things that might occur in biology for which a design-theoretic framework could give a better, more accurate account than a purely Darwinian and therefore non-teleological framework? The answer is yes.


First off, let's be clear that design can accommodate all the results of Darwinism. Intelligent design does not repudiate the Darwinian mechanism. It merely assigns it a lower status than Darwinism does. The Darwinian mechanism does operate in nature and insofar as it does, design can live with its deliverances. Even if the Darwinian mechanism could be shown to do all the design work for which design theorists want to invoke design (say for the bacterial flagellum), a design-theoretic framework would not destroy any valid findings of science. To be sure, design would then become superfluous, but it would not become contradictory or self-refuting.


The same cannot be said for Darwinism and the naturalism it embodies as a framework for science. Suppose I were a super-genius molecular biologist, and I invented some hitherto unknown molecular machine, far more complicated and marvelous than the bacterial flagellum. Suppose further I inserted this machine into a bacterium, set this genetically modified organism free, allowed it to reproduce in the wild, and destroyed all evidence of my having created the molecular machine. Suppose, for instance, the machine is a stinger that injects other bacteria and explodes them by rapidly pumping them up with some gas (I'm not familiar with any such molecular machine in the wild), thereby allowing the bacteria endowed with my invention to consume their unfortunate prey.


Now let's ask the question, If a Darwinist came upon this bacterium with the novel molecular machine in the wild, would that machine be attributed to design or to natural selection? When I presented this example to David Sloan Wilson at a conference at MIT two years ago, he shrugged it off and remarked that natural selection created us and so by extension also created my novel molecular machine. But of course this argument won't wash since the issue is whether natural selection could indeed create us. What's more, if Darwinists came upon my invention of a novel molecular machine inserted into a bacterium that allows it to feed on other bacteria, they wouldn't look to design but would reflexively turn to natural selection. But, if we go with the story, I designed the bacterial stinger and natural selection had nothing to do with it. Moreover, intelligent design would confirm the stinger's design whereas Darwinism never could. It follows that a design-theoretic framework could account for biological facts that would forever remain invisible within a Darwinian framework. It seems to me that this possibility constitutes a joint test of Darwinism and intelligent design that strongly supports intelligent design -- if not as the truth then certainly as a live possible theoretical option that must not be precluded for a priori philosophical reasons like naturalism.


I don't understand that feature, but meh.

In conclusion, there is no merit to Eugenie Scott's claim that intelligent design is untestable or hasn't put forward any "testable models." Intelligent design's claims about specified and irreducible complexity are in close contact with the data of biology and open to refutation as well as confirmation. What's more, as a framework for doing science intelligent design is more robust and sensitive to the possibilities that nature might actually throw our way than Darwinism, which must view everything through the lens of chance and necessity and take a reductive approach to all signs of teleology in nature.


But isn't intelligent design just a stone's throw from fundamentalist Christianity and rabid creationism? Even if a theory of intelligent design should ultimately prove successful and supersede Darwinism, it would not follow that the designer posited by this theory would have to be the Christian God or for that matter be real in some ontological sense. One can be an anti-realist about science and simply regard the designer as a regulative principle -- a conceptually useful device for making sense out of certain facts of biology -- without assigning the designer any weight in reality. Wittgenstein, for instance, regarded the theories of Copernicus and Darwin not as true but as "fertile new points of view."


Ultimately, the main question that confronts scientists working on a theory of intelligent design is whether design provides powerful new insights and fruitful avenues of research. The metaphysics underlying such a theory, and in particular the ontological status of the designer, can then be taken up by philosophy and theology. Indeed, one's metaphysics ought to be a matter of indifference to one's scientific theorizing about design. The fact that it is not for Eugenie Scott says more about her own biases than about the biases of design theorists, whose primary task is to explore the fruitfulness of design for science. Yes, we've got our work cut out for us. But instead of facilitating that work, Scott and her National Center for Science Education are far more interested in exiling that work to oblivion. Fortunately, design theorists have suffered exile for so long at the hands of Darwinists that we've learned to operate effectively even in oblivion.


William Dembski


Source (http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm)



More to come on why it can be argued that ToE is not falsifiable.

Even if she doesn't want to debate anything, I think others might. If nobody does, then the thread will die on its own anyway.

But it's my thread. I think that should have some bearing on the matter, don't you ?

Though, I didn't specifically ask that it be closed.

Falsifiability is the ability of a hypothesis (http://creationwiki.org/Hypothesis) to be tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation. It provides us with a spectrum of the reliability of knowledge:
Ideas that are falsifiable but not falsified are capable of being tested, have been tested, and have passed the test. They are the most reliable form of scientific knowledge;
Ideas that are unfalsifiable are ideas that are not capable of being tested. They may or may not be true, but since there is no way to test them, they are not a reliable form of knowledge;
Ideas that are false are ideas that are capable of being tested, have been tested, and have failed the test.Thus, the purpose of science is to devise experiments which bring ideas out of the ambiguous realm of the "Unfalsifiable," to be classified as either "falsifiable but not falsified" (to be tentatively accepted as true) or "false" (To be rejected).
The important thing to note here is that an idea's being unfalsifiable does not mean that it is false. It means it may be true or may be false, but it simply cannot yet be tested. Thus it is a non sequitur (http://creationwiki.org/Non_sequitur) and self-contradictory to argue that "Because an idea is unfalsifiable, it is false."

There are two more subtle alternative definitions of "Falsifiable," and much of the debate between creationists and evolutionists revolves around these definitions.
Ideas are falsifiable when there is some conceivable experiment to test them, but the test may or may not be possible today. This was the view of Karl Popper;
Ideas are falsifiable when there is some experiment which can be conducted under present scientific knowledge to test them. Falsifiability as requiring a conceivable experiment

This definition, while most widespread, is a conceptual failure. If we adopt the first definition, an idea is falsifiable if some conceivable experiment could test it, then we run into a major problem: Which experiments are conceivable?

First, if the history of science (http://creationwiki.org/History_of_science) has shown anything, it's that scientists are capable of devising new and ingenious experiments to test ideas. For thousands of years, the Greek and Pagan geocentric Ptolemaic system (http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Ptolemaic_system&action=edit) was adopted by the Church as truth, until Copernicus and Galileo found means to test it. An experiment may be inconceivable one day and conceivable the next. The only difference is the presence of a scientist to conceive of a new experiment to solve the problem.


Second, the ability to conceive is a very subjective and imaginative ability. One person may "conceive a possible experiment" while another may not. Thus our definition of which experiments are "conceivable" or not depends entirely on our imagination. It does not depend on objective facts at all. For example:
I can conceive of an experiment to test for creation vs. evolution. I can build a time machine, travel 6,000 years in the past, and see if there is a Garden east of Eden with two naked people in it (as predicted by creationism), or countless tribes of nomadic men and women settling into agriculture. This would certainly falsify creationism or evolutionism once and for all. But the experiment cannot be conducted, because I don't have a time machine. Consequently, although this experiment is conceivable, the ideas are still not falsifiable, because the experiment cannot be conducted.
Clearly, defining ideas as falsifiable when they could "conceivably" be falsified is not a useful definition, for two reasons:
First, scientists conceive of new experiments that were once inconceivable on a daily basis, thus making unfalsifiable ideas falsifiable. Unfalsifiable ideas are in fact the lifeblood of science, because they are the fuel that drives the experiments of tomorrow.
Second, the definition is not useful because it leaves the criteria for "science vs. non-science" entirely in the imagination of the scientist. For while many experiments may be conceived, they are not useful unless they can be conducted. Falsifiability as requiring a possible experiment

This leaves us with the second definition: "Ideas are falsifiable when they are capable of being tested under today's scientific knowledge." This leaves us with a much better defined list of ideas which are falsifiable and those which are unfalsifiable. Falsifiable ideas can be tested today, and unfalsifiable ideas cannot be tested today. There is no ambiguity. Nothing is left to our imagination. The experiment either can be conducted or cannot be conducted.


This leads us to a second point: Unfalsifiable ideas are not necessarily false. We simply can't test them. If we adopt the first definition of falsifiability, that we must be able to "conceive" of an experiment to test the idea, then unfalsifiable ideas are useless, because they can never be tested and thus never become science.
But if we adopt the second definition of falsifiability, that we must be able to perform the experiment to test the idea, then we acknowledge that things which are not testable today may become testable tomorrow, and the goal of science becomes to expand the range of human knowledge by finding ways to test what is not yet testable. Under this definition, unfalsifiable ideas become the lifeblood of science, because it is from them that new experiments are tested, new discoveries made, and new science developed.

Conclusion

So in review, when we define as falsifiable ideas which may "conceivably be tested," we call things unfalsifiable and unscientific when we cannot "conceive" of an experiment to test them, and call things falsifiable and scientific when we can conceive of such an experiment. But no actual experiments need be conducted. Therefore there is no objective test to determine whether or not an idea is scientific. The whole process takes place in our imagination, and is subject to the scope of our imagination. And if a person is incapable of imagining a test for an idea, then that idea becomes eternally unfalsifiable and unscientific, never to be tested. Ideas which may be true are tagged as unscientific simply because scientists cannot yet test them.


In the end, a superficial definition of falsifiability is used to exclude those ideas which, although possibly true, do not fit into the scientist's "paradigm."


But when we define as falsifiable those ideas which may "be tested today," we call things unfalsifiable when we cannot test them and falsifiable when we can test them. Consequently, there is an objective test to determine which are falsifiable and which are not; it does not depend on our imagination, it depends on objective science. Further, unfalsifiable ideas are not seen as a roadblock to science, but as the future of science, as scientists develop and improve their ability to experiment, and turn unfalsifiable ideas into falsifiable ones. SOURCE (http://creationwiki.org/Falsifiable)

2. No logical reasons not to teach it? Here's one: Time and money are not in high supply for public schools. They might conclude that wasting time and money on teaching Intelligent Design is not a good course of action. They could easily conclude that there are other topics that they could spend time and money on that are better at "encouraging critical thinking" than the baseless theory of Intelligent Design.

I have to admit that I have not heard a lot of creationist theories. If you can find an alternative to something as portable as Intelligent Design, I'd like to hear it. To me, it would seem that if any creationist theory were to be taught in school, Intelligent Design would be it. Greek Mythology, creation in 6 days, Native American mythology... Intelligent Design seems to trump them in terms of what would be less of a waste of time and money.

Talk.Origins claim: Evolution cannot be falsified.

Let's briefly take a look at the theory of evolution (http://creationwiki.org/Theory_of_evolution) and see why anyone would call it unfalsifiable or untestable.
The modern Darwinian theory covers a huge span of history, mostly without any human presence, humans only appearing in the last possible fraction of the theory. A lot of events happened that couldn't be observed or recorded. Nobody saw if there was any "common ancestor (http://creationwiki.org/Common_descent)" of all living creatures. Nobody saw the hypothetical creature reproduce so many times that it became a fish, or the time when a fish became a non-fish (an amphibian). Nobody saw if natural selection (http://creationwiki.org/Natural_selection) caused this grand-scale change by using the accumulated mutations (http://creationwiki.org/Mutations). Nobody saw the multitude of special events that is supposed to have happened in the theoretical time frame. But the theory stands on the premise that all these things happened. You cannot test the distant past because no eyewitnesses were there to make observations. All you can do is make predictions about what would have happened if such a theory were true.



"Investigators can test some sub-theory predictions of a general theory, but this does not automatically establish the general theory as a completely testable concept. This can be readily understood by considering the general historical theory that first life came to earth in a rocket ship. The sub-theory that a living organism could crawl out of a rocket ship can be tested, but this does not test whether or not a rocket ship actually brought life from outer space. Similarly, the evolution (http://creationwiki.org/Evolution) sub-theory that populations change slightly can be tested, but this does not prove that the general theory of common ancestry (http://creationwiki.org/Common_ancestry) evolution is true." (Darwin's Enigma (http://www.creationism.org/books/sunderland/DarwinsEnigma/DarwinsEnigma_02Darwinism.htm), chapter 2, Luther Sunderland, 1988)

So the theory just becomes a paradigm, a naturalistic worldview (http://creationwiki.org/Worldview) in which predictions can be performed. Because the theory itself cannot be tested, and thus is not science, it becomes more of a "metaphysical research program" as the evolutionist Karl Popper himself called it.

It's not only because the past is untestable that evolution is referred to as unfalsifiable and therefore not science. It is because when evolution does make predictions and those predictions, when tested, fail, the evolutionist (http://creationwiki.org/Evolutionist) doesn't consider his theory falsified but makes an excuse or gives an ad hoc hypothesis (explanations not dependant on scientific evidence, just a story to fill the gaps). This attitude shows the unfalsifiable nature of the theory, since the predictions can be tested here and there, but the main parts of the theory itself remains untouchable. There are numerous examples of this occurring.

Darwin himself, about 150 years ago in his book, predicted that if his theory were true, there should be innumerable fossil (http://creationwiki.org/Fossil) creatures in the ground showing the change from one form of organism to another.

"Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" (The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, first edition reprint (and in further editions) Avenel Books, p. 205)

To him, the fossil record (http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_record) should be full of smooth transitions and transitional forms (http://creationwiki.org/Transitional_forms). But even in his time no such smooth transitions were found. Instead, even up until now, the fossil record is known to show abrupt appearance of animals, which stay generally the same before disappearing the same way they appeared. That is known as stasis.

To be continued...

But it's my thread. I think that should have some bearing on the matter, don't you ?

Though, I didn't specifically ask that it be closed.

Who said you didn't have "bearing on the matter"?

"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt." (Robert G. Wesson, 'Beyond Natural Selection', 1991, p. 45) The problem of sudden appearance is the worst problem because according to the theory, there needs to be simpler ancestors. But right smack at the foundation of the hypothetical geologic column (http://creationwiki.org/Geologic_column), there are two layers. The lower one has no fossils, except for maybe a few signs of bacteria, algae, and pollen. But the one on top bursts with all the living phyla (body shapes), and no new ones are added further up in the hypothetical record. And these organisms show no sign of ancestry.
"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative." (Richard Dawkins, 'The Blind Watchmaker', W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230) It should be clear that the fossil record falsifies that prediction of Charles Darwin (http://creationwiki.org/Charles_Darwin), even in his own day. It is said that opposition for his theory didn't initially come from theologians and theists, but from paleontologists. But what was Charles Darwin's and many other evolutionists story to cover this? Darwin used the story that the fossil record is incomplete or imperfect. In his book, The Origin of Species (http://creationwiki.org/The_Origin_of_Species), Darwin has a whole chapter on the imperfection of the geological record (Chapter 10 in the 6th edition, but chapter 9 in the first). Evolutionists still use that, but it is difficult in the face of millions of fossils that have been found (and that isn't simply elephant hurling, but fact).


"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track." —Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), p. 9. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." —*David Raup, Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1979, pp. 22-29.

But this doesn't stop the evolutionist from believing. This doesn't falsify his theory, even though it falsifies the prediction it makes. And even if it appears to, there is an explanation just ready, whether faith in science's future discoveries, or excuses and ad hoc hypotheses. So to summarize:

Prediction: gradualism and change (Darwin), fossil record is supposed to show this as a family tree.
Actual/Observed: Abrupt appearance and stasis, gaps between kinds of creatures.
Ad hoc hypothesis/excuse: punctuated equilibrium (Gould, Eldridge), imperfect fossil record (Charles Darwin, ibid chapter 14), the claim that there are multitudes. A brief, but far from exhaustive, summary of some other attempts at falsification that get bounced away by ad hoc hypotheses and excuses:

Prediction: natural selection (http://creationwiki.org/Natural_selection) and mutation (http://creationwiki.org/Mutation) must be able to add new or novel genetic information enough to change one kind (family or genera) of organism into another.
Actual/Observed: natural selection is a conservative force that is more likely to keep animals the same (a possible reason for stasis in the fossil record, if it is taken as a record of time, and not a record of sudden catastrophe), and mutations, due to their random nature, cannot add new genetic information. The vast majority of mutations are harmful, some are neutral, and the rest, though beneficial, do not add new genetic information, but may even leave the animal weaker.
Ad hoc hypothesis/excuse: still claim that mutation and natural selection are sufficient for evolution, or doubt the power of either while still holding on the "fact" that evolution happened.
Prediction: every organ or organism can be shown to have evolutionary development (Charles Darwin, Chapter 6 The Origin of Species (http://creationwiki.org/The_Origin_of_Species))
Actual: evidence of specified and irreducible complexity (http://creationwiki.org/Irreducible_complexity) (Michael Behe (http://creationwiki.org/Michael_Behe))
Ad hoc hypothesis/excuse: imaginative drawings (from the mind of men, not any direct evidence) of how such irreducibly complex (http://creationwiki.org/Irreducibly_complex) organism may have evolved, "explanations of gene duplication and co-optation to build these complex structures."So there have been many attempts the falsify the theory, but it remains intact even in the face of the insufficiency of its predictions and promises. This just enforces the reason why creationists (http://creationwiki.org/Creationists) and others see the theory of evolution as unfalsifiable. SOURCE (http://creationwiki.org/CA211)

As for specific scientific research or experiments that have been performed in the name of ID, I have given a litany of examples in this thread alone, but anyone can utilize the internet and find more.

The above posts are precisely how I feel, the justification for my position, and the logic behind my support of the addition of ID to public school curriculum.

There is nothing left to be said by me on this subject. I apologize that I did not articulate it all with my own words, but it's not worth it. It will take too much time to say the exact same thing that these people have said with more eloquence than I could ever muster.

By the way, the original purpose of this thread was to pose a legal argument showing just how illogical the exclusion of ID is from public school curriculum.

As for specific scientific research or experiments that have been performed in the name of ID, I have given a litany of examples in this thread alone, but anyone can utilize the internet and find more.

Experiments that can falsify Intelligent Design? You have given absolutely none.

and both have some science to support them.


I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm pretty much guessing that this debate is going in circles because of comments like this.

No, nothing close to false. We certainly did, and I'm not the only one who saw this. I appears it is you

Even your own husband admitted this!

"I've answered the same questions several times because one another is saying the same things"

"Being outnumbered isn't really an issue. All that is asked of her is to respond to a select few questions. I'm sure that they seem greater in number than they actually are, as they have been repeated numerous times. "

-- truckfixr

"I don't think anyone cares if she responds to every little post and detail.

Personally, I would be satisfied if she did just two things.

First, I'd like her to show how evolution goes against the idea of God or a creator.

Secondly, I'd like her to show scientific and mathematical evidence that supports biblical creation.

No long list of responses to cover every detail, just respond to those two things. "

- Napoleon_Complex.

I'm certain I have told you the same thing in other threads where this issue has been carried over. who have to go back and read the thread.

The problem with this is that you're not the only people contributing to this thread. It's a bit arrogant of you to insist that I focus only on a select few of you.

Also, just because my husband is focusing on a few of you does not mean I am obligated to do the same.

The fact of the matter is that it isn't up to us to make things easier for you just because you don't like that many people decided to take you up on your claims. If you thought you were being outnumbered then then intellectually honest thing to do would be to propose a remedy - not to abandon your thread altogether.

I never asked you to make it easier on me. I simply left the thread. You're making a big deal out of that, as though my reasoning is not sufficient.

I actually did try and come up with a solution. I said I would just start posting the information in succession, without responding to anyone until I was done, and people *coughs* Napoleon_Complex *coughs* just couldn't respect that. The heckling posts, sarcastic remarks, plethora of questions for clarification...it just all became too much.

I did not feel like rewarding that kind of disrespect with more attention (from the people who were most seeking it !).

As for you choosing how to execute your debates, who said otherwise? I'm saying that it could have easily continued. That the issue of you being "outnumbered" could have been resolved. You made absolutely no offerings to do so, we at least tried to.

You said it today, by offering an alternative NOW, which is why I made the charge.

The issue cannot be resolved, because I cannot ignore the other people who want to participate. That's hardly fair.

Being exclusionary or elitist isn't very nice, now is it ?

We were offering alternatives when the debate was being made then. This is not a case of us doing nothing and then now offering after the fact. You could have gone with the alternatives we did offer or discuss with us new alternatives to releave your problem. You didn't.

As I said, I did provide a solution, to try and resolve the clutter and overall confusion. I was going back and forth between people and arguments at different stages. You weren't arguing with anyone else but me, so you have no idea what it was like.

As much as I hate to admit it, I DO have limitations on just how much I can handle at once.

My solution was not respected by the participants of the thread. As a result, I lost any and all desire to continue, though I had intended to for the sake of my integrity. In the end, I couldn't regain the desire and abandoned it. As I said, I have had to resign myself to allowing you all to gloat over this one.

Experiments that can falsify Intelligent Design? You have given absolutely none.

Oh, Jesus Christ. That is a bold faced lie. The lava, flagella, and C14 experiments are just THREE examples of what I have posted in this thread....I know very well that you recall them, since you tried to refute them with Talk.Origins links, thus proving that they are falsifiable.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm pretty much guessing that this debate is going in circles because of comments like this.

You're posts in this thread are worthless. No one appreciates a Peanut Gallery. :rolleyes:

The problem with this is that you're not the only people contributing to this thread. It's a bit arrogant of you to insist that I focus only on a select few of you.

There is no arrogance involved in wanting a substantial amount of people getting their points replied to instead of none at all.


Also, just because my husband is focusing on a few of you does not mean I am obligated to do the same.

Who said that? Either you're putting words in my mouth or are making comments that don't refer to anything I've said. I didn't say that you were "obligated to do the same". I quoted your husband because you said "I suggest you go back and read the entire thread then, because this is false." when I suggested that everyone was pretty much arguing similar things just in different ways. I was right, and your own husband agrees with me: we were saying similar things.



I never asked you to make it easier on me. I simply left the thread. You're making a big deal out of that, as though my reasoning is not sufficient.

It is precisely that you just left that is the problem. You could have resolved the issue of being "outnumbered" but instead decided not to and left. To now bring up the excuse that you were "outnumbered" is extremely dishonest. You could have resolved that. You didn't. That's your fault.


I actually did try and come up with a solution

That's hardly a solution. Quoting text after text without referring to anyones question/point isn't a "solution" to anything.



You said it today, by offering an alternative NOW, which is why I made the charge.

Wrong. I never once said that you didn't get to decide "how to execute your debates".


The issue cannot be resolved, because I cannot ignore the other people who want to participate. That's hardly fair.

Being exclusionary or elitist isn't very nice, now is it ?

And leaving their posts unanswered after they've made the effort to make them is "fair"? Please. It's a lot more fair to answer most of the points being made by choosing a representative or by answering the general points, than it is to leave like you've done.



As I said, I did provide a solution, to try and resolve the clutter and overall confusion.

That isn't a solution. You quoting a mountain of text without providing a thought of your own and without answering the questions being made by the users is not a "solution" to anything.

Here we go with the semantics, and the end of all legitimate discussion. As usual, you are more interested in arguing about the argument, and not the topic.

I don't need you to agree with me about the way I handled this thread. The information supporting my position is here for the reading, if anyone wishes to do so.

At this point, the thread can be closed as Jack sees fit.

Oh, Jesus Christ. That is a bold faced lie. The lava, flagella, and C14 experiments are just THREE examples of what I have posted in this thread....I know very well that you recall them, since you tried to refute them with Talk.Origins links, thus proving that they are falsifiable.

1.

LIE (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie)

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

The key words would be DELIBERATE and MEANT. Both indicate intent. I have not DELIBERATELY given any false statements, nor have I MEANT to. You cannot prove otherwise.

Do me a favor and spare me your idiotic accusations.

2.

:rolleyes:

"The flagella" isn't an experiment, it's an argument for irreducible complexity proposed by Behe, and it has been explained to you in this very thread why that doesn't falsify ID. So not only does that fail miserably as an example because I specifically said an experiment, but even if it was an experiment it doesn't falsify ID as we've explained to you.

As for the rest, you've made claims about the non-viability of C14 dating among other things, but these things are not experiments that could in fact prove ID false. Whether C14 can be used to date or nor does not prove or disprove ID.

You're posts in this thread are worthless. No one appreciates a Peanut Gallery. :rolleyes:

Suddenly, I feel like taking an interest into this thread and reading what you present as evidence to your claim. First, I will read the beginning of this thread to see what exactly your claim is. Second, I will see what kind of crap evidence you've Asked Jeeves for, like you did in the Bush Veto thread. Third, I will provide some real contribution to this God awful thread.

Added - Nevermind. Everyone has been all over your ass since day one of this thread. It seems to me that this debate has already came to a conclusion long ago. You guys aren't even debating what this thread originally was about anymore. If there were a double thumbs down icon, this post would have it.

Here we go with the semantics, and the end of all legitimate discussion. As usual, you are more interested in arguing about the argument, and not the topic.

Here we go again with your accusations of "semantics" as a last-ditch effort to attack me and to not answer the problem at hand. I'm not arguing any "semantics", and if anything has ended the legitimate discussion is you accusing me of lying and of "arguing semantics" when I've done nothing close to that.


The fact remains that:
1. The participants of this thread where arguing similar things. To say, as you did, that this is false and that I have to read the thread, is ridiculous. It isn't false. Your husband, as well as many other participants agree: our points where similar.

2. The "outnumbered" excuse doesn't work. You created this thread and if you found a problem in many people taking you up on the claims you've made then you have to solve it. We don't have to rectify your problem for you. You had every chance to make things work, and you chose not to. You could have easily continued the discussion by answering in a claim by claim basis and not to each individual person - as was already suggested by several of the people participating in the discussion. You chose not to. You chose to abandon the thread and to not answer the questions/points made the the regulars of this board.

3. To say that it would be better to not answer anybody than to answer at least some (if not most) of the regulars by responding to specific claims and not specific users is ridiculous. 'Some answers' is better than 'no answers at all'.

Oh, Jesus Christ. That is a bold faced lie. The lava, flagella, and C14 experiments are just THREE examples of what I have posted in this thread....I know very well that you recall them, since you tried to refute them with Talk.Origins links, thus proving that they are falsifiable.

Those individual experiments may be falsifiable, but you can't make the leap from them being falsifiable to ID being falsifiable.

None of those experiments have anything to do with a creator/designer.

Edit:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Can everyone just stop getting off topic. This thread has real potential to be a great discussion thread. I'll ask that both Rust and Digital(and anyone else that made any extraneous posts) delete all posts not relevant to the initial topic that they've made since this thread started up again. I'll also ask that unless you've been in the debate from the beginning, please don't bombard D_S. Even though I disagree with her a lot, she isn't lying when she says too many people were involved.

So can everyone agree to use our time better and just discuss Intelligent Design/Evolution? I know most everyone in this thread is an adult, so think we can handle it.

... For instance, to neutralize the challenge that the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum raises against Darwinism, Ken Miller employs the following argument from ignorance. Like the rest of the biological community, Miller doesn't know how the bacterial flagellum originated. The biological community's ignorance about the flagellum, however, doesn't end with its origin but extends to its very functioning. For instance, according to David DeRosier, "The mechanism of the flagellar motor remains a mystery." Miller takes this admission of ignorance by DeRosier and uses it to advantage. In _Finding Darwin's God_ he writes: "Before [Darwinian] evolution is excoriated for failing to explain the evolution of the flagellum, I'd request that the scientific community at least be allowed to figure out how its various parts work." But in the article by DeRosier that Miller cites, Miller conveniently omits the following quote: "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human."

Miller's request is the logical thing to do. That's what science is all about. Researching to disciver the truth as to how and why things are the way they are. Assuming that something was "designed" effectively stops science.


So apparently we know enough about the bacterial flagellum to know that it is designed or at least design-like. Indeed, we know what most of its individual parts do. Moreover, we know that the flagellum is irreducibly complex. Far from being a weakness of irreducible complexity as Miller suggests, it is a strength of the concept that one can determine whether a system is irreducibly complex without knowing the precise role that each part in the system plays (one need only knock out individual parts and see if function is preserved; knowing what exactly the individual parts do is not necessary). Miller's appeal to ignorance obscures just how much we know about the flagellum, how compelling the case is for its design, and how unfalsifiable Darwinism is when Darwinists proclaim that the Darwinian selection mechanism can account for it despite the absence of any identifiable biochemical pathway...

The irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum has been proven false.

Watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4) to see a presentation of the proof.

Proving irreducible complexity wrong cannot falsify Intelligent Design. To falsify ID you must show how it would be possible to determine whether or not a designer was actually involved in the process.

Falsifiability is the ability of a hypothesis (http://creationwiki.org/Hypothesis) to be tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation. It provides us with a spectrum of the reliability of knowledge...



... Consequently, there is an objective test to determine which are falsifiable and which are not; it does not depend on our imagination, it depends on objective science. Further, unfalsifiable ideas are not seen as a roadblock to science, but as the future of science, as scientists develop and improve their ability to experiment, and turn unfalsifiable ideas into falsifiable ones. SOURCE (http://creationwiki.org/Falsifiable)


You probably don't realize what you have posted here , but you have destroyed your own original argument (Whether or not ID should be taught as science in a public school).

If you will take the time to read this thread from the beginning you will discover that no one is claiming that Intelligent Design is wrong. We have constantly stated that it is not falsifiable, thus preventing it from being a valid scientific theory. As your source states:

"... unfalsifiable ideas are useless, because they can never be tested and thus never become science.
But if we adopt the second definition of falsifiability, that we must be able to perform the experiment to test the idea, then we acknowledge that things which are not testable today may become testable tomorrow, and the goal of science becomes to [I]expand the range of human knowledge by finding ways to test what is not yet testable..."

When and if science can conceive of and perform an experiment which can falsify ID, testing is performed, and ID withstands the testing, (thus rendering it a scientific theory) it should then be included in the science curriculum.

Until such a time, ID has no place in a publicly funded science classroom.

As for specific scientific research or experiments that have been performed in the name of ID, I have given a litany of examples in this thread alone, but anyone can utilize the internet and find more.

The above posts are precisely how I feel, the justification for my position, and the logic behind my support of the addition of ID to public school curriculum.

There is nothing left to be said by me on this subject. I apologize that I did not articulate it all with my own words, but it's not worth it. It will take too much time to say the exact same thing that these people have said with more eloquence than I could ever muster.

By the way, the original purpose of this thread was to pose a legal argument showing just how illogical the exclusion of ID is from public school curriculum.


Pretty much all of your copy/paste posts have been attacks on the ToE. How can you not understand that even if the ToE were falsified tomorrow, that ID would not win by default?

Intelligent Design must prove itself a valid scientific theory on it's own merit. Not by disproving other theories. Until ID can be subjected to falsification, it simply does deserve to be taught in a public school science class.

It would appear that you have failed in your effort.

You have not shown how it would be illogical to exclude ID from the public school curriculum.

You have not posed a valid legal argument .

Once again, intelligent design starts with a conclusion and discards contrary evidence. They use sideways assumptions to justify evidence. Homologous structures? Well it's god's style duh! Dinosaurs? Well we do have an ambiguous description of a large creature (As do the greeks, romans, egyptians, scandinavians, native americans. It is common mythology to invent a beast), that must be it. Proven and reliable radiometric dating? We'll call it unreliable. Vestigial organs? Well we'll use a straw man and say they do serve a purpose! Light from stars several millions ly away? Eh...well...old age appearance. All of these sideways assumptions and excuses make the theory more complicated. It makes it about as valid as the statement of an accused criminal who keeps modifying his story in light of new revealed evidence as opposed to the Evolution's consistent story that the new evidence reinforces more and more.

Talk.Origins claim: Evolution cannot be falsified.


As if we needed any more proof that Digital Savior has absolutely no clue what she's talking about, she gracefully provides this wonderful nugget!

"Evolution cannot be falsified" isn't a TalkOrigins claim. They do not claim that 'evolution cannot be falsified'. In fact, if you browse through their extensive list of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, they specifically list way it could be falsified! For each evidence listed they also provide a possible falsification (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html) - findings that would prove evolution wrong or at least put it in question.

If DS had even bothered reading the article she quoted, or the article what she quoted was responding to, she would be aware of this simple fact.

Creationwiki makes it quite clear that:

"This article is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive (http://creationwiki.org/Talk.Origins_Archive) under the title Index to Creationist Claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html)."

TalkOrigins didn't claim that evolution is not falsifiable, a creationist did! TalkOrigins is responding to that ridiculous claim made by the creationist, and Creationwiki is then responding to TalkOrigin's rebuttal.

Whether it be done maliciously, or ignorantly, to say "Talk.Origins claim: Evolution cannot be falsified." is to misrepresent what TalkOrigins actually says.


Now to the article itself...


The modern Darwinian theory covers a huge span of history, mostly without any human presence, humans only appearing in the last possible fraction of the theory. A lot of events happened that couldn't be observed or recorded. Nobody saw if there was any "common ancestor" of all living creatures. Nobody saw the hypothetical creature reproduce so many times that it became a fish, or the time when a fish became a non-fish (an amphibian). Nobody saw if natural selection caused this grand-scale change by using the accumulated mutations. Nobody saw the multitude of special events that is supposed to have happened in the theoretical time frame. But the theory stands on the premise that all these things happened. You cannot test the distant past because no eyewitnesses were there to make observations. All you can do is make predictions about what would have happened if such a theory were true.

So what? A human observer is not a requirement for something to be explained. When things happen, they leave clues and evidence behind; clues and evidence that are not just limited to visual effects.

If a bomb goes off in a desolate place, does that mean we cannot know this? Of course not. We can see that there is residue from the explosive material, that there is an indentation in the ground/surface, that there is debris, that there are burn marks... Human observation isn't necessary for us to know the past.

Organisms leave clues. They leave bones, fossils, droppings, indentations; things we can observe now and reach conclusions with.



It's not only because the past is untestable that evolution is referred to as unfalsifiable and therefore not science. It is because when evolution does make predictions and those predictions, when tested, fail, the evolutionist doesn't consider his theory falsified but makes an excuse or gives an ad hoc hypothesis (explanations not dependant on scientific evidence, just a story to fill the gaps). This attitude shows the unfalsifiable nature of the theory, since the predictions can be tested here and there, but the main parts of the theory itself remains untouchable. There are numerous examples of this occurring.What the author calls "ad hoc hypothesis to fill the gaps" or an "excuse" is actually Science correcting its mistakes or inconsistencies by proposing new explanations for the experiment/evidence which has falsified the hypothesis in question.

How ironic that they were just quoting Karl Popper a moment ago, yet quickly forget what he says. Proposing a new hypothesis when another has been proven false is precisely what Popper saw as proper Science! That's the whole idea behind falsification! According to Popper we are to test a hypothesis, if it falsified then we discard it in favor of a new hypothesis, if it is not falsified we keep it until it is falsified or a better hypothesis comes along.

But this doesn't stop the evolutionist from believing. This doesn't falsify his theory, even though it falsifies the prediction it makes. And even if it appears to, there is an explanation just ready, whether faith in science's future discoveries, or excuses and ad hoc hypotheses. So to summarize:
Prediction: gradualism and change (Darwin), fossil record is supposed to show this as a family tree.
Actual/Observed: Abrupt appearance and stasis, gaps between kinds of creatures.
Ad hoc hypothesis/excuse: punctuated equilibrium (Gould, Eldridge), imperfect fossil record (Charles Darwin, ibid chapter 14), the claim that there are multitudes.

1. This wouldn't falsify evolution out of necessity. It would put in question our expectations of the geological column. That does not mean that evolution did not occur.

2. Again, these so-called "excuses" are exactly what Science is supposed to do. Unlike creationists which take the bible as true and manipulate the evidence to fit their preconceived notions, Science admits when it's wrong and proposes new explanations that fit the evidence; explanations which in turn also have to be tested. In a sense, Science itself is a process of elimination where the "strongest hypothesis survives".



[...]

Actual/Observed: natural selection is a conservative force that is more likely to keep animals the same (a possible reason for stasis in the fossil record, if it is taken as a record of time, and not a record of sudden catastrophe), and mutations, due to their random nature, cannot add new genetic information. The vast majority of mutations are harmful, some are neutral, and the rest, though beneficial, do not add new genetic information, but may even leave the animal weaker.

That is quite simply wrong. Mutations can and do add new information. There are many different cases of this.

TalkOrigins does a great job of refuting that inane claim. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html)



Prediction: every organ or organism can be shown to have evolutionary development (Charles Darwin, Chapter 6 The Origin of Species)
Actual: evidence of specified and irreducible complexity (Michael Behe)
Ad hoc hypothesis/excuse: imaginative drawings (from the mind of men, not any direct evidence) of how such irreducibly complex organism may have evolved, "explanations of gene duplication and co-optation to build these complex structures." Wrong again. We've shown how the examples Behe uses as "irreducibly complex" are actually not irreducibly complex in this very thread.

The whole concept of "irreducible complexity" is that organisms (or some of their parts) could not have come about through evolutionary development. It has been shown that they can. truckfixr linked to a demonstration showing exactly what evolutionary steps would lead to a flagella evolving (one of Behe's most famous "examples").

The moment someone blurts out "mutations don't add new information" you can easily tell that they forgot to get a clue. If they'd know how evolution works they'd know how inane that statement is. Most difference in species is caused not by new genes but the MODIFICATION OF EXISTING genes. Existing information is modified, creating homologous proteins. Also it's about GENE EXPRESSION. Very little new information has to be added. Mutations can easily alter phenotypic gene expression (as you often see in cancer) which would create a huge impact on the phenotype of the organism. Yes, "new" information is rarely added, but the change of existing information is enough to create speciation