|
4 months ago ::
Feb 15, 2012 - 12:04AM
#76
|
|
|
wohali: Your mistakes were the apostrophie and the lack of a hyphen between do and do............... It took me a second, but ROTFLMAO!
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 15, 2012 - 12:03AM
#75
|
|
|
57: You've been shown the science numerous times. For you to deny the fact that YEC's do do science just shows how ignorant and bigoted you are on the topic. You mean the science like Walt Brown or the RATE stuff or Robinson or Setterfield? That stuff isn't even good science fiction and yes, that has been shown many, many times on this board. YECs don't do science. YECs don't even have a scientific model to explain the evidence found in the real world; the YEC team admits that every time they slink away in silence whenever a thread asking for a positive defense of their model surfaces. And that's why there is no alternative to evolution to offer a science class --- YECism hasn't produced diddly.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 13, 2012 - 3:08PM
#74
|
|
|
57: "You've been shown the science numerous times. For you to deny the fact that YEC's do do science" Your mistakes were the apostrophie and the lack of a hyphen between do and do...............
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 13, 2012 - 11:16AM
#73
|
|
|
I am arguing for telenomic processes.
What are the criteria for distinguishing between telenomic processes and non-telenomic processes?
You are a scholar, just now researching the basic aspects of information science? I think not. Do you have any background in Turing and what it means - formally - "to run a program"? I think you do. from Wiki Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms that derive from their evolutionary history, adaptation for reproductive success, or generally, due to the operation of a program.
Another term for a "program" is an information object. A non-telenomic process is one; where no biological information processing is achieved by the programs or information objects that direct bio-functioning. I am sure that everyone is learning more by - going back and forth with 57 or Iama - than discussing something that is science based. ps: kwinters - the very best rebuttal against what I am pitching is the link offered by amcolph a couple of posts ago. You might enjoy it. This thread is about the lack of response to the article in the first post, coming from creationists As far as rsi's point in the first post -- I strongly agree that no one can deny that instructions (programming) from DNA can cause a change to traits exhibited by a species. Mutations (4) can add up - and do add up - in a particular micro-oragnism, studied in the lab. The argument that formal information, as to how a living thing will grow to maturity and be able to adapt, comes from storage in DNA molecules is without doubt. In a non-mechanical medium, bio-infomation signaling, transfers ecological advantadges via telenomic events. If this is a surprise to someone - due to ideas about a simple 6K year old history of living things - then its time to embrace science. The issue at hand for me - is that the adaption of this particular micro-organism is way too quick to be modeled by neo-Darwinian rational. The answer -- for me -- comes from Darwin where he teaches that learned behavior can become instinct. I think this true in terms of conscious AND unconscious levels. And is a Lamarkian-like concept, which was and is very firmly rejected by the "modern snythesis" and its made-up science of a true "Weismann Barrier". Yes - it is hard for information to reach the germ cell line. But it does -- and science is finally getting over it and moving on in researching how it does. Epigenetics is barrelling forward detailing how gene regulation is an enormous factor. I see the early results of this process as very pro-Darwin and very anti-Darwin's correctors (neo-Darwinism).
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 12, 2012 - 12:51AM
#72
|
|
|
The way things come true in creationism is to just SAY it's true. If you say it twice, it becomes twice as true. If people believe you, you now have a new cult. This cult will honor your claims until it dies out (if it does). But dying out doesn’t make your claim false, because nothing can do that. Only the Word survives. I think it’s important to realize that creationists cannot conceive of any other way. Creationists think scientific claims become true just because some scientist SAID SO. Empirical evidence just doesn't exist in their little world. They attack Darwin’s character, thinking they are necessarily attacking evolution, because it was Darwin who spoke the Word that made evolution True. And if they don’t like what science finds or it's understanding of evolution and the natural world, they have to SAY it’s something different, and then attack that. Just saying so MAKES it so. That’s how creationism works. I’m pretty well convinced that creationists never have an accurate understanding of a scientific concept or process because they simply cannot think it. It flat doesn’t fit anywhere in their mental model. And their mental model isn’t open to education or learning, it’s an edifice that needs to be burned, bulldozed, and sterilized. Not gonna happen. We have one clear example right here.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 12, 2012 - 12:32AM
#71
|
|
|
My post is still down there if you would to re-read it.
It still stands un-opposed.
Since your post contained no empirical evidence there was nothing to oppose. Your stories fall flat on their own because they contain no real science.
No need for any of us to point out you have no clothes. You should be able to see that yourself.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 11, 2012 - 5:56PM
#70
|
|
|
57 For you to deny the fact that YEC's do do science just shows how ignorant and bigoted you are on the topic. Not only do they do no science, they admit under oath that they do no science. Here's a sample from the Dover judgment, p. 88 (emphasis added) - On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe’s argument that certain complex molecular structures are “irreducibly complex.”17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)). After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, And of course you already know that despite having had fifty years to do so, Creationism hasn't managed to put even the tiniest scientific scratch on its sworn enemy the Theory of Evolution. Creationists know no science at all. They don't want to know. Like any cult, they cherish their ignorance. But they're starting to die out.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 11, 2012 - 5:55PM
#69
|
|
|
My post is still down there if you would to re-read it.
It still stands un-opposed.
lookit dis scrub
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 11, 2012 - 3:30PM
#68
|
|
|
My post is still down there if you would to re-read it. It still stands un-opposed.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 11, 2012 - 2:47PM
#67
|
|
|
57 Just let me remind you, it doesn't show mutations adding up. The article shows mutations adding up and producing novelty. All you need is to pop down to the Discovery Institute labs and you can repeat the experiment yourself - oops, my mistake, they don't have any labs because they don't do any science. I don't know if that last statement of your was asinine, ignorant or arrogant.
It could be revealed to be all of these if only you could prove that there is real science going on at the Discovery Institute. All they ever produce are speculative papers.
Got any science? Then show it.
You've been shown the science numerous times. For you to deny the fact that YEC's do do science just shows how ignorant and bigoted you are on the topic.
Excuse me? You've provided links to original research, with manipulation of variables? I don't recall any such research. Perhaps you can refresh my memory with ACTUAL EXAMPLES.
There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
|
|
|
