The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

J C · 31-10-2014 09:03PM

Vivisectus wrote: »

This is just classic bad probability math. What his math is modeling is a single dice throw of 115 dice with 20 sides each... but even your strawman model of a primordial soup is not represented by that model.

Its the probability of getting a specific functional amino acid chain ... and many hundreds of such specific chains must be assembled coherently for even the most basic of life forms.

Vivisectus wrote: »

The floor of my toilet i smade of stone tiles that have random patterns on them. One of them looks a little bit like a witch on a broomstick. The chances of that particular pattern happening, according to the math you propose, is infinitely smaller than any amino acid chain. It is also more limited in function: there is a higer ratio of functional combinations of amino acids than there are possible patterns that look like a little witch om a broomstick flying off to the top right corner of the tile, considering the resolution of the human eye and the average distance from which it is observed.

According to your friend, this is evidence of design!

Its not actually. Some kind of random design isn't evidence of intelligent design ... specificity and functionality are the key factors in determining the presence of intelligent design.
A pattern that looks like a witch on a broom stick on your tiles might be due to intelligent action or it could simply be due to random processes. The same is true about fractals and snowflakes ... they all exhibit complex design ... but they lack specificity ... and they don't contain functional information and thus aren't intelligently designed.

J C · 31-10-2014 09:04PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Surely discussing implies both sides are, you know, discussing the points.

Yes.

Squeedily Spooch · 31-10-2014 10:43PM

J C wrote: »

20^115 is 4.154x10^149 to be precise about it.

... and a 116 amino acid chain has a combinatorial space of 20^116 or 8.308x10^150 or ~10^150.

Dembski says its 20^150 because he asserts it to be so, nothing more. Its nonsense. You gonna reply to oldrnwiser's post? or ignore that too?

J C · 01-11-2014 12:24AM

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

Dembski says its 20^150 because he asserts it to be so, nothing more. Its nonsense. You gonna reply to oldrnwiser's post? or ignore that too?

Out on the town ... will answer oldrnwiser's very substantive post tomorrow.
Thanks oldrnwiser for your input.

Lucy8080 · 01-11-2014 06:08AM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

One correction, omnipotence is all powerful, not all knowing. That's omniscience. And the two properties are incompatible in the same being, as knowing the future constrains your power to act, because you have to follow the deterministic path laid out by your knowledge of the future.

The two properties are incompatible to a viewpoint that would encompass something other than itself.

If there is naught other than itself...past,present and future may have no relevance.

Knowledge of the future would be irrelevant if the future bore no impact on it's ongoing existance.

Clever argument,maybe...relevant,maybe not.

If the "god" concept points to something (maybe not even a "thing") that is self contained, and the only power and only presence there is...what/who would dispute it? Or, miss/overlook it it?

Brian Shanahan · 01-11-2014 11:25AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Good call! Forgot about the random blue as well

The blue isn't random. He quotes a certain iron age book of nonsense stories for gullible kids in blue. You know the one, the book which is totally inerrant in all words except when it is incinvenient for him to have it so (e.g. creation myth is all true, except the bits which say god created the tree of "knowing right from wrong" because it shows him to be the dickish tyrant that he would be if he weren't a fairy story to scare the kiddies).

J C · 01-11-2014 03:04PM

wrote:

Originally Posted by Brian Shanahan
One correction, omnipotence is all powerful, not all knowing. That's omniscience. And the two properties are incompatible in the same being, as knowing the future constrains your power to act, because you have to follow the deterministic path laid out by your knowledge of the future.

There is no incompatibility between omniscience and omnipotence ... in fact you can't have one without the other.
... somebody couldn't even be considered to be all-powerful ... without being all-knowing.
Please bear in mind the truism that knowledge is power ... and full knowledge is full power.:)
... and now, if there are no further challenges to God ... I'll address oldrnwiser's very substantive post on the temporal issue of the observed intelligent design of life.

J C · 01-11-2014 04:57PM

Because of the size and importance of oldrnwisr's post, I have split it in two (My answers in Blue below)

Quote:- oldrnwisr
Of course, we can show where this is wrong. The problem is that you keep posting as if we haven't already done so. You haven't ... but I'll look at the rest of this post to see if you have done so, now.

Dembski's concept of a UPB (Universal Probability Bound) and how the UPB is a problem for natural selection is fundamentally flawed in many ways. So let's have a look at them.

The first problem is that Dembski's basis for the UPB is flawed.

The first factor he uses in its calculation is the number of elementary particles in the observable universe which he claims is 1x10^80. However, regardless of his definition of an elementary particle, his figure is doubly wrong. Firstly, if we were to take hydrogen atoms to be the elementary particles and assume, for the moment, that he is right about the observable universe then he is off by a factor of 10.
You see, the critical density of the universe is 0.85×10−26 kg/m3 which equates to roughly 5 hydrogen atoms per m3. Since the universe has been expanding for 13.7 million years, the radius of the observable universe is 46.6 billion light years. Therefore, the volume of the observable universe (4/3 π r3) is 3.58×10^80 m3. Consequently, if hydrogen atoms were the elementary particles then there would be 1.8×10^81 of them.
This link indicates that there are approximately 10^80 fundamental particles in the Universe, with some estimates going as high a 10^85.
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/numbers.html

Your calculation is correct. Whether the figure is 10^80 or 10^85 as the link above states or your figure of 10^81 doesn't substantively affect the Universal Probability Bound (UPB)as there is a factor of a billion (10^9) extra built into the formula as follows:-
10^80 = the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
10^45 = the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
10^25 = a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.

Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.

However, Dembski's real mistake here is the use of the observable universe. It should be apparent, even to you JC, that the universe is larger than what we can directly observe. No cosmological model that has relied only on the observable universe has been able to reliably explain what we have observed in astronomical and cosmological experiments. We know from mathematical modelling that the actual universe is at least 250 times greater in size than what we can directly observe:

Applications of Bayesian model averaging to the curvature and size of the Universe

So the first factor is useless.

The factor isn't useless as there is already a factor of a billion extra built into the UPB
Using all of your figures the following would be the calculation:-
1.8×10^81 Hydrogen atoms in the Universe
10^45 = the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
4.354±0.012)×10^17 = age of the universe in seconds within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.
250 times larger Universe than observed.
The UPB on the above basis is = (1.8×10^81) (10^45) (4.35×10^17) (250) = 1.96x10^146.
The UPB therefore stands at 10^150 with several orders of magnitude to spare and errs seriously on the high side of what is actually possible.

Then, you have the age factor. While there is no real problem with the logic of this factor it is interesting to note that his figure is off by a factor of almost 50.
It is actually inflated by 9 orders of magnitude i.e. a billion to provide for any other variables (such as the ones pointed out by you). Please note that it is increased by 9 orders of magnitude (not decreased).

Having said all that, the funny thing is that the figure which Dembski ends up with is probably OK. When you do the real math:

Computational capacity of the universe

you find that 10^150 is probably a reasonable estimate. Its just interesting that Dembski gets there by pure dumb luck and not any actual science.
OK, so we agree on the Universal Probability Bound being at maximum 10^150.
... and Dr Dembski reached this figure, by calculation using the same scientific method and facts, as you did.

J C · 01-11-2014 04:57PM

Second part of oldrnwisr' post (My answers in Blue)

Quote:- oldrnwisr
Now, to the real mistake made by the Dembski, the relevance of a Universal Probability Bound to evolution at all. Before we get into details here two things should be highlighted.
1. The formation of proteins and other organic compounds is not determined by or affected by chance and so probability has no relevance to any discussion on protein formation.
You are correct that proteins aren't produced by chance ... because, amongst other things, the UPB prevents this. Proteins are produced in complex and highly specified amino acid sequences. The specification of these sequences was either done by an inordinate intelligence (a possible hypothesis) or via random processes like mutagenesis (something that we both appear to agree is impossible).
2. The formation of proteins in the early universe and their statistical probability is not relevant to a discussion on evolution. This is a matter for abiogenesis which is a wholly separate theory.
The Abiogenesis Hypothesis may be regarded as separate from the evolution hypothesis ... but when it comes to materialistic explanations for life, you can't have one without the other ... and as they both involve CFSI, the repeated breaching of the UPB by their component parts and irreducibly complex components; they both suffer from the same impossibility issues.

OK, on with the details.

1. Sequential macromolecular assembly

Let's assume for a second that creationists are right and that proteins were formed by chance. This still doesn't stop Dembski being wrong. One of the biggest mistakes he makes is in assuming the construction of a protein by the sequential addition of an amino acid.
For comparison let's look at tossing a coin. If you want to generate the following sequence HHHH (H being heads, T being tails) using four coins and you could toss all four coins in 1 minute then you could reasonably expect to generate the sequence above in 8 minutes. However, what if you get sixteen friends to help you, each simultaneously flipping a coin. Now you could generate the above sequence in just 1 minute.
The probability of forming a protein sequence is not just affected by its length but also by the number of trial opportunities. This is where the size of Earth comes into play.
It has been reasonably established that the size of the primordial ocean was in the region of 10^24 litres. Furthermore, if we take a rough average of the number of molecules per unit mass of amino acids (3x10^24 /kg) and a primordial soup amino acid concentration of 1 x 10^-6 M, then we should expect no less than about 1 x 1050 potential starting chains. This means that the number of efficient ligases that could be produced even in just 1 year is greater than 10^30. So Dembski's UPB is immediately blown out of the water.
How does something that is 10^30 (an infinitesimally smaller figure than the 10^150 UPB figure) invalidate the UPB. You have just agreed that Dr Dembski's UPB figure is correct (if every hydrogen atom in a universe 250 time greater than the observed size of the Universe were making a protein sequence 10^45 times a second since the Big Bang supposedly occurred 13.7 billion years ago).
... so your 10^30 figure pales into insignificance ... and when you compare it with the non-functional combinatorial space occupied by proteins it equates to a specific protein with a chain length of just 24 amino acids long.

Unlike Dembski's ramblings, these figures are supported not just mathematically but also by experimental results:
Less of the personal disrespect and more of the argument about the facts please

A synthetic peptide ligase.

Synthesis of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces

These are intelligently designed synthesis of very basic oligomers using the full ingenuity and competencies of mankind ... and still no sign of life from it ... and this is somehow 'proving' that life created itself?
Do you really believe that such intelligently designed synthesis prove anything other than the intelligence required to be applied to produce life is in a totally different league to Human Intelligence and our puny attempts at copying the original Master Designer of life?

2. On the search space
One of the other major problems in Dembski's idea of a UPB is the difference between the raw probability of the sequence and the match of the sequence to a given specification. Allow me to explain using one of Dembski's favourite examples, the Caputo case. This centres on a vote rigging allegation against Nicholas Caputo whose job it was to draw ballots to decide who got top billing on election papers. When 40 of the 41 draws turned out in favour of the Democrats, Caputo was tried and was judged to have rigged the ballot with the judge concluding: "confronted with these odds, few persons of reason will accept the explanation of blind chance." However, the Caputo case raises some interesting problems with Dembski's arguments. To see how let's go back to coin tosses. Take the following sequence:

HTHHHTTHTHTHHHHTHHTTTHTTHHHTHTHTHHTTTTHHH

This sequence looks like a fair drawing. When we calculate the probability of the sequence we get (1/2)^41 or 4.5x10^-13 or 1 in 2x10^12. Now let's look at a rigged sequence:

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

When we calculate the probability of a rigged sequence we get 4.5x10^-13. The exact same. So it is not the probability of the sequence itself which is relevant but only that which matches the specification. So in testing protein sequences it is not the base probability of creating a 100 unit protein at random that matters but rather how many of these sequences result in useful proteins.
As it turns out quite a lot actually. If we take a 100 unit protein sequence then the sample space is 10^130. However, when we match all the possible sequences against useful proteins we find that 3.8x10^61 alone result in cytochrome C. Therefore even using random assembly we end up with a probability of creating a useful protein of just 1 in 10^69, well within Dembski's bullsh1t UPB.

Again please stop the personal invective ... it doesn't become you, and it detracts from your argument. You are 'older and wiser' and such school-yard stuff should be beneath you.
Anyway, the protein sequences for a specific function are observed to be very tiny indeed ... even one change of amino acid along a critical sequence is observed to destroy its functionality completely - and what is required within living processes is specific functional proteins with specific functions tightly co-ordinated within the system concerned ... so the odds in favour are tiny, sometimes as low as one ... and the odds against are up at the UPB of 10^150 for protein chains of just 116 amino acids and beyond the UPB for biomolecules with chain lengths in excess of 116.

3. On abiogenesis and creationist chemistry

Another big problem Dembski has is that he's a mathematician and not a biochemist. This leads him to making a huge false assumption in the first place, namely that the early development of organic life involved the synthesis of proteins which we find today. To show graphically what I mean here's the difference between how Dembski thinks life evolved and how the research says it did.

The research that has been conducted in this area has shown the possibility and likelihood that the primordial soup was replete with small chain (~30 mer) peptides which could self-replicate. Again this blows Dembski's UPB out of the water, given that a 32-mer chain even by random assembly has a probability of just 10^40.
Probabilities with 10^40 against them are sufficiently large that when specifically combined (as we observe them to be) with other specific biomolecules, with equal probabilities against them, the UPB is rapidly reached.
... so, from a probability point of view it dosn't matter whether there was one step or many steps ... the probability is a multiple of the total chain length.
... and we still have to explain how large specified biomolecules were formed well in excess of 116 amino acids long, when the odds against each one of them is beyond the UPB.

The volume of research is so large in fact that it would probably blow your tiny little mind JC. This is a sample of some of the more important papers on the subject.

... again your insults do not become you ... as a practicing scientist, I'm quite capable of looking at these papers.

A self-replicating peptide

Oligonucleotide-directed peptide synthesis in a ribosome- and ribozyme-free system

A multisubunit ribozyme that is a catalyst of and template for complementary strand RNA synthesis

Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self-replication through a hypercyclic network

All of these involve the very best that mankind can do to replicate the work of a vastly more intelligent creator ... these papers just 'scratch at the surface' of the specified complexity that is the signature of intelligent creation that is found in life.
All in all, we can see that the UPB like the rest of Dembski's work is so profoundly flawed in so many ways that it is a wonder creationists still bother with it. It just goes to show what a joke creationism really is.
Dr Dembski's work is at the very cutting edge of molecular genetics ... and any joke is on those who fold their arms in gestures of defiance at this brand new approach to research within the life sciences.:)

J C · 01-11-2014 05:17PM

I would ask everybody to show respect for oldrnwisr and give him the time to provide his considered response to my two postings.
I'll stay off this thread until he responds.

Thank you.

Roger Hassenforder · 01-11-2014 05:39PM

in the interim, members might enjoy this bit from Dembski's wikipedia:

Dembski is unlikely to have "any of his pro-intelligent design articles published in the peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals. While intelligent design proponents often claim that such failure to get articles published is due to an alleged pro-evolution bias or conspiracy, Dembski himself has said that he prefers to disseminate his ideas in non-peer-reviewed media: "I've just gotten kind of blasé about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print. And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more."

J C · 01-11-2014 05:49PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

in the interim, members might enjoy this bit from Dembski's wikipedia:

Dembski is unlikely to have "any of his pro-intelligent design articles published in the peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals. While intelligent design proponents often claim that such failure to get articles published is due to an alleged pro-evolution bias or conspiracy, Dembski himself has said that he prefers to disseminate his ideas in non-peer-reviewed media: "I've just gotten kind of blasé about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print. And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more."

A very logical (and profitable) approach, I must say.:)

Please let us wait in respect for oldrnwisr, to give his considered response.

Roger Hassenforder · 01-11-2014 05:52PM

J C wrote: »

A very ... profitable approach, I must say.:)

we're agreed on that.
a skeptic might read more into it...;)

J C · 01-11-2014 07:02PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

we're agreed on that.
a skeptic might read more into it...;)

... indeed, they might read the bit where Dr Deembski was blasé about submitting papers for peer-review ...
... when in the Dover court-case, expert testimony revealed that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena - and ID was ruled to violate the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation ...
... so this self-imposed ban by conventional science, also bans the study of the intelligent causation of life (which seems to be equated to supernatural causation, by conventional science.):);)

It sounds like Dr Dembski would be wasting his time and everybody else's, in submitting papers on ID for peer-review, when such research and review is banned by the rules of science.

... a much better strategy is to do what he is doing ... by publishing his findings outside of conventional science ... when he finds the doors of conventional science closed in his face ... with 'no intelligence allowed', when it comes to investigating the origins of life.:)

... and who could blame him?

J C · 01-11-2014 07:11PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Alternatively you could respect oldrnwisr and actually refute something in his posts, instead of posting the same stuff over and over and over as if shouting it enough makes it true.

I have read everything in oldrnwisr's post and I have made substantive responses to every point he made.

I now respectfully await his response to mine ... and I would suggest that you should do the same.

J C · 01-11-2014 07:34PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yes, by repeating the same tired nonsense over and over again. And adding in links instead of refuting some of it yourself - something you don't accept in our arguments. Funny that.

I added one link of direct relevance to what I was saying in my two posted replies to oldrnwisr. The rest of the links were in oldrnwisr's original post ... and they too were of direct relevance to what he was saying and therefore totally acceptable in any debate.

Please give the man time to respond ... and stop the handwaving ... or people will think (unfairly) that oldrnwisr has no response to my points, based on your 'jumping the gun' with repeated attempts at 'muddying the waters' and adding only heat and no light to the debate, with one-liners and unfounded assertions ... instead of cold factual reasoning, like oldrnwisr usually provides.:)

I have made my points ... and if you have nothing of substance to say that helps oldrnwisr answer my points ... please don't hinder him ... and give him the time to respond.

I'm in no hurry and neither should you.:)

PopePalpatine · 01-11-2014 08:31PM

Oh look, J C has resorted to more "I know you are but what am I" bullshit.

EoghanIRL · 01-11-2014 08:37PM

J C wrote: »

I added one link of direct relevance to what I was saying in my two posted replies to oldrnwisr. The rest of the links were in oldrnwisr's original post ... and they too were of direct relevance to what he was saying and therefore totally acceptable in any debate.

Please give the man time to respond ... and stop the handwaving ... or people will think (unfairly) that oldrnwisr has no response to my points, based on your 'jumping the gun' with repeated attempts at 'muddying the waters' and adding only heat and no light to the debate, with one-liners and unfounded assertions ... instead of cold factual reasoning, like oldrnwisr usually provides.:)

I have made my points ... and if you have nothing of substance to say that helps oldrnwisr answer my points ... please don't hinder him ... and give him the time to respond.

I'm in no hurry and neither should you.:)

Have you tried this thread ?
http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056102387/565

Brian Shanahan · 01-11-2014 08:37PM

J C wrote: »

I would ask everybody to show respect for oldrnwisr and give him the time to provide his considered response to my two postings.
I'll stay off this thread until he responds.

Thank you.

Post was reporting for the trolling nonsense that it is. Have a nice day JC.

J C · 01-11-2014 08:39PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

If you'd actually apply any of that same logic to yourself this thread would have went a lot more smoothly.

I don't think anyone would think oldrnwisr isn't responding to your posts, given a look through the thread shows he responded to practically every bit of nonsense you came out with sooner or later. I've also tried responding to your posts in a reasonable manner, but you've shown time and time again you're unwilling or unable to have a reasonable debate on this issue.

Your response to his annihilation of the UPB or whatever the hell it's called is basically 'yeah but UPB' anyway. There isn't really anything further to discuss if you don't want to respond to evidence.

Are we on the same thread?
I have comprehensively responded to every question put to me.

Myself and oldrnwisr actually agreed on the UPB as being a maximum of 10^150.
Quote oldrnwisr :- "Having said all that, the funny thing is that the figure (10^150) which Dembski ends up with is probably OK."

This side-discussion isn't fair on oldrnwisr ... please give him the time and space to respond, guys

J C · 01-11-2014 08:41PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Post was reporting for the trolling nonsense that it is. Have a nice day JC.

.. so asking for consideration being given to other posters is now 'trolling' ... and what do you now call outrageous and sustained personal abuse or on-line bullying (which used be called 'trolling')?

There is a whole host of 'trainwreck' threads around on this topic ... due to derailment of items under discussion with all kinds of asides.

Here, after almost 10 years, we have got to a point where we have substantive points being made by oldrnwisr (and the thanks on his post indicates that all of you guys think this as well).
I have given substantive answers to his posting ... and I don't think it is too much to ask everybody to stand back and give oldrnwisr the floor ... to respond.

Roger Hassenforder · 01-11-2014 08:54PM

J C wrote: »

... indeed, they might read the bit where Dr Deembski was blasé about submitting papers for peer-review ...
... when in the Dover court-case, expert testimony revealed that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena - and ID was ruled to violate the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation ...
... so this self-imposed ban by conventional science, also bans the study of the intelligent causation of life (which seems to be equated to supernatural causation, by conventional science.):);)

It sounds like Dr Dembski would be wasting his time and everybody else's, in submitting papers on ID for peer-review, when such research and review is banned by the rules of science
.

ah here JC.
If ID has been found to have violated the "centuries old rules of science", it is because it nolens volens doesn't adhere to these same rules. They're very simple, the gist of them are:

observation
hypothesis-prediction
prediction - experiment
analyse objectively - conclusion
peer review of findings

Anything failing these criteria is outside of "science". ID is not banned by science, its just bullshit, and not science. Fairyology, mermaidology, theology; subjects similarly not regarded as science.

Thor, Omecihuatl, Ginnungagap, Tagaloa, Enki and all other creation hypothesis dont stand up either. Is the biblical account any more valid than the others?
If you cant play the game, don't go home whinging with your 8' square ball under your arm, claiming the lads wont let you play football.

I note in you're referenced Dover case, the court found:
On December 20, 2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ordered the Dover Area School Board to refrain from maintaining an Intelligent Design Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. The ID policy included a statement in the science curriculum that "students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design." Teachers were also required to announce to their biology classes that "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind".

In his 139-page ruling, Judge Jones wrote it was "abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause". Furthermore, Judge Jones ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community".

So there you go. ID isn't science. ID isn't "banned" by science, it just isn't science. Its something else. But clearly not science.

J C · 01-11-2014 08:55PM

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Have you tried this thread ?
http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056102387/565

When all else fails, I guess 'comedy central' and any other off-topic stuff ye can use ... is all that's left ... for evolution!!!

J C · 01-11-2014 10:06PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

ah here JC.
If ID has been found to have violated the "centuries old rules of science", it is because it nolens volens doesn't adhere to these same rules. They're very simple, the gist of them are:
observation

hypothesis-prediction

prediction - experiment

analyse objectively - conclusion

peer review of findings

... but ID does comply with all of these requirements.
... and the Dover finding didn't cite any of the above as an issue with ID (other than peer-review, which cannot be done under the rules of conventional science, in the first place) ... instead this is what the finding was :-

Quote:-
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;...
... Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena."

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Anything failing these criteria is outside of "science". ID is not banned by science, its just bullshit, and not science. Fairyology, mermaidology, theology; subjects similarly not regarded as science.

Thor, Omecihuatl, Ginnungagap, Tagaloa, Enki and all other creation hypothesis dont stand up either. Is the biblical account any more valid than the others?
If you cant play the game, don't go home whinging with your 8' square ball under your arm, claiming the lads wont let you play football.

Conventional Science has confined itself to natural causes for natural phenomena ... there is nothing wrong with this ... but Conventional science cannot then claim to have evaluated the evidence for ID, as a result.
... and they cannot start whinging and badmouthing conventional scientists who decide to investigate the God Hypothesis using scientific methods ... outside of Conventional science.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I note in you're referenced Dover case, the court found:
On December 20, 2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ordered the Dover Area School Board to refrain from maintaining an Intelligent Design Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. The ID policy included a statement in the science curriculum that "students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design." Teachers were also required to announce to their biology classes that "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind".

... so this means that the problems/gaps in Darwin's theory now cannot be taught in school nor will students be encouraged to keep an open mind on 'origins'.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

In his 139-page ruling, Judge Jones wrote it was "abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause". Furthermore, Judge Jones ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community".

... this is a Catch 22 ... because ID isn't allowed to be evaluated under the rules of science, in the first place ... it cannot be adjudged at all by science.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So there you go. ID isn't science. ID isn't "banned" by science, it just isn't science. Its something else. But clearly not science.

ID isn't 'science' under the self-imposed rules of conventional science ... which only allows materialistic explanations ... and materialistic explanations alone to be evaluated.
Next time somebody says that science says this or that about 'origins' ... people would do well to remember that the hypothesis that 'God did it' isn't allowed to be evaluated by conventional science ... so it isn't that the God Hypothesis has been evaluated and found to be invalid ... it has never been evaluated.

... and the deficiencies of evolution aren't even discussed.

J C · 01-11-2014 10:56PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It only allows natural explanations for natural phenomena because they're natural phenomena. Why on earth would you look for anything else?

Most of the time this is perfectly OK ... however, when it comes to the origins of life there is now a valid scientific hypothesis (based on the physical natural evidence) that an intelligence of inordinate power produced it ... and conventional science has excluded itself from evaluating it.

It would be unrealistic to think that such evidence wouldn't be evaluated by somebody ... if conventional science decides to not do it ... and Creation Science and ID researchers have done this.

I'll grant you this allright ... you would expect the Christian Churches to be the first to support this research ... but instead they have largely decided to back the atheist/materialist version of 'origins' science, thereby a priori cutting out God from any meaningful role in the 'origins' hypothesis.

Squeedily Spooch · 02-11-2014 03:57AM

J C wrote: »

... indeed, they might read the bit where Dr Deembski was blasé about submitting papers for peer-review ...
... when in the Dover court-case, expert testimony revealed that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena - and ID was ruled to violate the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation ...
... so this self-imposed ban by conventional science, also bans the study of the intelligent causation of life (which seems to be equated to supernatural causation, by conventional science.):);)

It sounds like Dr Dembski would be wasting his time and everybody else's, in submitting papers on ID for peer-review, when such research and review is banned by the rules of science.

... a much better strategy is to do what he is doing ... by publishing his findings outside of conventional science ... when he finds the doors of conventional science closed in his face ... with 'no intelligence allowed', when it comes to investigating the origins of life.:)

... and who could blame him?

If you're a scientist that tries to use supernatural explanations for science, you're a poor scientist.

Since you're not a scientist at all, being a poor one would actually be a step up

You're still banging on about the "atheist" aspect of science. It's either a fact or it's not, you try to fit bad science into a book of myth to make it work. That's not how things work in the scientific world. I know you think all the big bad atheist (and theist) science men are out to get your precious ID, or else you're just flat out wrong, which one is more likely?

Frank Bullitt · 02-11-2014 05:14AM

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

If you're a scientist that tries to use supernatural explanations for science, you're a poor scientist.

Since you're not a scientist at all, being a poor one would actually be a step up

You're still banging on about the "atheist" aspect of science. It's either a fact or it's not, you try to fit bad science into a book of myth to make it work. That's not how things work in the scientific world. I know you think all the big bad atheist (and theist) science men are out to get your precious ID, or else you're just flat out wrong, which one is more likely?

Pal, don't waste your time on that one. If he has a degree he found it in a packet of tayto salt and vinegar.

Fear123 · 02-11-2014 07:33AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It only allows natural explanations for natural phenomena because they're natural phenomena. Why on earth would you look for anything else?

jimbo doctor, there are many things in the world that can't be explained by natural phenomena, for example my grand mother, she told me once that she had seen evil spirit or some kind supernatural entity. How can science explain that events like ghost spirits, haunted mentions... It means there is something supernatural that is controlling this evolution. JC as scientist is right in my views

legspin · 02-11-2014 11:37AM

Fear123 wrote: »

jimbo doctor, there are many things in the world that can't be explained by natural phenomena, for example my grand mother, she told me once that she had seen evil spirit or some kind supernatural entity. How can science explain that events like ghost spirits, haunted mentions... It means there is something supernatural that is controlling this evolution. JC as scientist is right in my views

Just another re-hash of 'Science can't explain everything therefore God'. Petty, ignorant self-serving nonsense.

D-
must try harder

J C · 02-11-2014 12:10PM

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

If you're a scientist that tries to use supernatural explanations for science, you're a poor scientist.

Where natural explanations have been discovered and scientifically validated, that would be true.
However, natural explanations for the abiogenesis and evolution of life have proven woefully inadequate ... and we now have a valid scientific hypothesis (based on physical repeatably observable, i.e. scientific) evidence that an intelligence of inordinate capacity created life.
... and conventional science is refusing to scientifically evaluate the evidence for ID and is citing a rule introduced 300 years ago limiting science to only evaluating natural causes for not doing so ... even though the inordinate 'intelligence' might be a natural cause, for all we know.

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

Since you're not a scientist at all, being a poor one would actually be a step up

I am a scientist, but in a way it doesn't really matter. If I am not a scientist, is it not even more remarkable that I can present the scientific evidence for ID and defend it comprehensively against all comers, including hundreds of well-qualified scientists, on this and other threads on the Boards?

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

You're still banging on about the "atheist" aspect of science. It's either a fact or it's not, you try to fit bad science into a book of myth to make it work. That's not how things work in the scientific world. I know you think all the big bad atheist (and theist) science men are out to get your precious ID, or else you're just flat out wrong, which one is more likely?

I'm a Practical Atheist myself, when I do my own science work ... because natural causes have been established for the phenomena that I scientifically address ... so I have no problem with the general rule that science should seek natural (and not supernatural) causes for natural phenomena.

However, this rule becomes a problem for science when it extends the meaning of supernatural causation to include intelligent causation, which conventional science has done in relation to ID.
Indeed, this extension of meaning is also selective and special pleading as, in general, science does evaluate intelligent causation, in CSI evaluations, for example by forensic science ... and science therefore doesn't universally equate intelligent causation with supernatural causation ... they just do so with 'origins' investigations.
The fact that such causation points towards God is no reason not to investigate it ... unless you want to deny it in order to continue supporting the hypothesis that everything had a natural origin ... even if God actually did it.
Such an approach isn't going where the evidence leads ... but where people who don't believe in God or who want to deny the creation aspect of His existence, for whatever reason, would like it to lead.
... and as I have already said, it is also ignoring the possibility that the 'intelligence' may not have been God.

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Comments