@benthemiester Sorry to burst yer bubble but: ID is NOT a theory, it's not even a hypotheses, it is nothing but an unsubstantiated claim. It provides not one testable prediction, it is at best an arguement from ignorance.
@CesarPhilosophe "The scientific community has already determined that ID is not science"
ID is a theory, and is being published in science Journals. If it wasn't a scientific theory, no one would be talking about it anymore. Its Darwinism that is no longer a robust theory. I have posted video of Stewart Newman, an attendee of the Altenberg 16 summit who is one of a group of evo devo scientist that now openly admit the theory is insufficient and needs to be extended. Its happening now.
@CesarPhilosophe So far the only thing you have produced is an emotional straw man.
It is the scientific community that will determine whether ID is science. This sometime takes decades. The fact that it is gaining acceptance & getting published, is remarkable for such a new theory. The Dissent list is growing every day. All scientist, and all saying the same thing.
Even the Altenberg 16 attendees are now openly questioning the limitations of the theory & proposing a new extended synthesis.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, "Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004)
W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series
@CesarPhilosophe Stephen Meyer, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117 (2004): 213-239.
Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119.
Jonathan Wells, "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.
Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003),
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, Vol. 39
>>>>> ever since Behe published his book ID proponents have been using the same tired and refuted arguments over and over and over and over again. The only thing NEW that has come out of it all, but unfortunate for the ID movement, is Facilitated Variation which renders ID useless.
@CesarPhilosophe "Relativity does have practical application" How would you use it? I said they are publishing their papers in science journals. You understand what peer review process means, dont you? Prestigious Science journals only publish science papers.
Evolution works great on small scales. We can breed dogs, cows, birds in all different shapes but there still dogs, cows etc. Micro evolution is a science. Macro evolution is a fable for grown ups. U didn't comment on citation sent.
@CesarPhilosophe "The same could be said of Einstein and his theory of relativity. ID is not science, it has no practical applications"
Science is not based on its practical application. Astrobiologist have no ET's to study. There isn't much practical apps for relativity, & yet it is a scientific theory. Tell me, if ID is not a science, then why are ID theorist now getting their work published in science journals? and if Darwinism is so sound, then why is an extended synthesis being proposed?
@CesarPhilosophe There are also members of the Academy and also foreign Academies who have signed THE DISSENT FROM DARWIN LIST. There are different schools of thought. You said that my threads were my personel opinion but I told u, I can back up everything I said. What is it that I said, that you think isn't true?
ID is a science, and ID theorist are now being published in peer review Science Journals.
Your alive, so singing happy birthday is reasonable. Talking to dead people is necromancy.
@CesarPhilosophe I have corresponded with Francisco Ayala who is a member of the Academy. Russel Doolittle, Michael Behe, John Sanford, & several others. Il tell the Academy the same thing I told Ayala when he made a claim he couldn't back up. I am more interested in empirical science than titles. Did your tio tell you the Academy sang happy birthday to Darwin, & gave a testimonial to what he meant in their lives.They even thanked him, as if he was in the room with them. Thats a religion man.
@CesarPhilosophe "The term is currently, however, an outdated concept, being used mainly in popular science and in a colloquial way in scientific publications, and may have slowed research into the biological functions of noncoding DNA" Orgel LE, Crick FH (April 1980). "Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite". Nature 284 (5757):
I can back up everything I said about Junk DNA, Mendel, Pangenesis, & B. McClintock. If u like I can PM u with peer reviewed articles. All you have to do is asked.
@CesarPhilosophe I am more than willing to consider any citation that you have. I would have to read it myself. I dont have a lot of confidence in the way you paraphrase things. It is a historical fact that Karl Marx, Stalins ideological leader, adhered to Darwinism. Engles and Lenin did also. It is also documented in a book that was written long before this whole controversy. You can research it for yourself. I challenge you to read Wiki article on Lysenko and to find any reference to Darwin.
@CesarPhilosophe As for Stalin, I have cited from first hand sources in a 1940s book. No offense, but your credibility is a little shaky. Your trying to compare Lysenkoism with ID. Let me give u an example of pseudoscience. Pangenesis, Darwins failed law of heredity. Darwinist ignore Mendel for 50 years.......
@CesarPhilosophe cont....Another example is Junk DNA. Evolutionist set us back another 30 years by ignoring people like Barbara McClintock who found function in transposens. Many ERV's are also now found to be not only useful, but critical. Even evolution friendly Wikipedia says this junk DNA paradigm set us back.
@CesarPhilosophe cont... Whats even sadder, is that many Darwinist are still repeating the junk DNA mantra, when Major Journals have called for the demise of this failed paradigm. We have overwhelming evidence from multiple studies that much of this so called evolutionary non coding junk, is responsible for gene regulation and the way genes are expresses, and can code for RNA. These evolutionary constructs are what have set us back.
"ID proponent Paul Nelson admitted that it has no theory to explain the mechanism that ID used" That was your first statment.
I asked if you were paraphrasing, and you assured me that what you claimed was word for word, and that ID was not a science. He never said ID wasn't a theory. He said there is no theory for biological design. We don't know who the designer is. We don't know how this designer did it.
@CesarPhilosophe cont....There are many evolutionist who now claim that the Darwinian synthesis doesn't even have a theory for the evolution of complex biological structure. James Shapiro has said the same, and he is an evolutionist. Darwinism does not have a theory for biogenesis but yet we know it happened because it can be observed. What you did was lie about it being word per word, even after I specifically asked if you were paraphrasing.
@CesarPhilosophe cont....This is called quote mining, where you take something out of context and add your own content to what was said. In the same article Shermer accused Stalin of being an anti Darwinist and cited Lysenkosim, but Stalin was not anti Darwin. He was anti Mendel. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin were all evolutionist who embraced Stalin, as referenced in the book E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin,.
@CesarPhilosophe cont.....There is an article in wikipedia about Lysenkoism and it mentions Mendel, and says nothing of Darwin. Shermer sells snake oil. The Altenberg 16 group have also admitted the limitations of the Darwinism synthesis and are proposing a new synthesis and asking for a relaxing of the assumptions of the current one. I tried to give you an opportunity to research before you spoke, and now it turns out you were paraphrasing. You cant say I didn't try.
@CesarPhilosophe "I'll quote it word for word exactly as Nelson wrote it tomorrow"
So now your saying Nelson wrote the piece? I thought it was an interview but I may be wrong. Ill wait for you to quote it in context, word per word, like you said, or I could provide you with what he really said word per word, but I'm interested to hear your take.
Can you please give original source citation for Nelsons comments? The way the phrase is presented is a little ambiguous. I don't yet know what "it" is. I agree with a lot of what Nelson says. I would like to see what context it is in.
@CesarPhilosophe Scientific theories are determined through a peer review process, and that sometimes takes years or even decades. They are not determined by institutions arbitrarily. They tried with Mendel, (the father of modern genetics) and he was ignored for 50 years. They also did the same to Barbara McClintock when her studies indicated that there was regulatory function in the non protein coding regions of our genome once referred to as junk. Another 40 years wasted by Darwinist.
@CesarPhilosophe No Cesar, I am not trying to pull a fast one on you, News paper titles are a little different from science titles. The list I gave you is also mirrored at "Talks Origin" where even the folks over there reluctantly admit it.
Of course they're trying to down play the significants of this new published and journaled work, but their arguments are very weak.
Those were just a partial list not including books from university press.
@CesarPhilosophe If atheist kill ten million religious people because they are religious and not atheist like the people doing the killing, then they get a pass because atheism is not a negative. OK buddy sure. lol
@CesarPhilosophe CONT...W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1998)
Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series,
• D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766–775.
Denton, M. J. and J. C. Marshall. 2001. The laws of form revisited. Nature 410: 417
M.J. Denton & J.C. Marshall, “The Laws of Form Revisited,” Nature, 410 (22 March 2001): 417; M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325–342
@CesarPhilosophe CONT....Axe, D. D., 2000. Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors. Journal of Molecular Biology 301: 585-595. • Lönnig, W.-E. 2004. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity. In: V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo and F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds. Dynamical Genetics, 101-119. Research Signpost.
@CesarPhilosophe CONT.....Lönnig, W.-E. and H. Saedler. 2002. Chromosome rearrangements and transposable elements. Annual Review of Genetics 36: 389-410. • Meyer, Stephen. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117: 213-239. • Wells, Jonathan. 2005. Do centrioles generate a polar ejection force? Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98: 37-62.
@CesarPhilosophe"Unlike religious folks who actually kill like muslims and christian terrorist who kill abortion doctors"
Like mass murderer Ted" Kaczynski, Pekka-Eric Auvinen child killer,Bhagat Singh who killed with bombs, James von Brunn, all atheist who killed in the name of there beliefs and that is just a small fraction. Lets not forget 10's of millions of religious slaughtered by Stalin, Mao, Khmer Rouge, in Russia, China, Albania,Mongolia Cambodia. Per capita atheist have killed more.
@CesarPhilosophe"He may hate religion but never goes further than calling religious folks delusional"
He calls them wicked and stupid. Evil is a religious concept. He says that anyone who indoctrinates children into the world view of their parents is stupid and wicked & that kids should have their own choice. Of course he never says this about his own parents who raised him Anglican, and being the hypocrite he is, he supports camp quest which does just that. It indoctrinates kids into atheism.
@CesarPhilosophe Richard Dawkins has a public agenda, and that is well known hatred for region and spirituality yet no one in evolutionary science is speaking out about his science being tainted.
@CesarPhilosophe They advocate against scientific materialism & the notion that morality doesn't exist objectively. Their agenda has always been to promote ID & if your going to use that as a disqualifier then you also have to use "The Clergy Letter project" brain child of Eugenie Scott who tries to use religion to promote scientific materialism. She is also the director of the NCSE & a cosigner of the 3rd Humanist Manifesto which seeks to destroy religion in society through public education.
@CesarPhilosophe I cant comment if you offer no details or specific examples. Guilt by association is not my MO and I have nothing against anyone who is skeptical or critical of any theory. If a theory cannot stand up to criticism then it is not worth its salt. I think two intelligent people can hear the same evidence and come to two different conclusions. I am not going to consider myself more intelligent or the others less intelligent if they disagree. This is what I mean by arrogance.
@benthemiester ID theorist are also starting to get their work published in scientific journals. Behe has just finished his latest in the Quarterly review. ID is now starting to be recognized as a competing theory & the dissent list is growing annually. Before he died Anthony Flew a long time atheist became a deist because of the evidence. Many on the list are agnostic & atheist. In fact recently another well known atheist did an interview with Casey Luskin agreeing ID was a valid theory.
1 an eccentric person, esp. one who is obsessed by a particular subject or theory.
Many great scientist have been cranks. Self deprecation is not always such a bad thing. It is more appealing to me than arrogance. " intelligentsia"? No thanks, Ill stick with a person who shows a little humility.
There are plenty of cheerleaders. Skepticism is something we need more of regarding the Modern synthesis.
Neutrino mass was an odd choice. Why not use, say, the proton's mass for his example? Simple, non-controversial, and allows him to make the exact same point. I might be wrong, but I suspect it's because Berlinski doesn't know what he stepped in. He's a pompous SOB who I've caught before using impressive sounding ideas (about math, no less - his "field") w/o understanding them.
(Note: Berlinski made a bunch of observations that ended up exactly nowhere regarding evidence and God.)
Neutrino mass is an open subject of research. It's a predicted consequence of neutrino oscillations from one type to another (electron-muon-tau), but it's contrary to the insanely successful Standard Model. Since these oscillations have experimental support, I assume that physicists accept that neutrinos have mass - but tenuously in a way different from, say, neutrons. The manner in which they have mass would be unique among the fundamental particles (i.e. not from the Higgs field).
Very interesting. Berlinski is senior at the Discovery Institute. So he's an "agnostic" is he? Berlinski hasn't measured, demonstrated or proven any intelligent design although he's been very profitable.
As to our pretensions, we can measure radiation decay and observe spectral distortion as a result of neutrinos. Pasteur proved germs existed.
In a geocentric universe how do plants grow three days before the sun is created? Is Genesis or photosynthesis right?
B. In another book, Berlinski critiques ID, so I don't think proving it is really his intention.
True, but that's still along the lines of you inferring as to the best explanation, not as a result of you seeing them directly.
I'm not sure what Genesis has to do with the subject, but I'm sure you already know I'm not a YEC i.e. I don't believe the days are literal 24 hour days.
A. Nice kung-fu. I wouldn't call it science at all.
B. It's a way to appear so.
Neutrino oscillation experiments have proven neutrinos have masses via observation and you can see germs with a microscope.
It's an explanation for life and origins. God has nothing to do with science as you've stated but science has everything to do with what is and how it could be. 24 hrs or not, how would life and universe equal what is known and works if Genesis was literal or figurative?
Mephistophilus - oh, I just wanted to see how consistent you were. You know, ID is not science but String theory is. Most people think string theory to be a bunch of bunk. You cant really test the theory. But I'm in to math and find it fascinating.
We have Quantum Computers. Continental drift was met with resistance and Alfred didn't organize a posse to "teach the controversy" or claim "heresy". Wegener proved his theory. Same with Hubble, Copernicus, etc. I'm not entirely sure that it's not bunk especially when presented by new age mystics or creationists but QM was productive. When the LHC is completely operational we'll know much more. I like learning so I find it fascinating.
Yet and it's been that way before. Ie: Buckland, Lyell, Agassiz and Sedgewick were on your side of the fence and were persecuted for treason against god and state where they not?
Mephistophilus = I understand QM very well, thank you. If you going to be consistent, string theory is really not science (its a theory that can not be tested). Now, before you go on about QM again, I am fully aware of the efforts with LHC and LISA. I'm into string and M but they are at the core, new theory's to support the materialist world view. The numbers don't add up for the soup and origins of life, materialist need to open it up to new dimensions and multiple universes. It has merit
@TodaysThought I never said you didn't. The topic: "Group A presumes too much about science written by someone who knows very little about science." You asked about string-theory and I claim no authority over it but you did. What does Berlinski know about science? Not much. Is he an authority? No. The Discovery Institute, lol. Does he admit he's a crank? Yes.
Interesting. Sounds like "the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview" and "science consonant with Xian and theistic convictions"
Science proves itself, god does not. Can god reattach a severed finger? No, but science can. Can god make you fly? No, but science can. Can god put a man on the moon? No, but science can. Also not only is there no evidence for god, there is evidence against god, the holy books that claim god's existence can and have been disproved many times over. So not only are you believing in that for which there is no evidence like flying pigs, you are believing in that which has contradicting evidence.
Are you okay? You seem quite unwell.
TempleOfSin 3 weeks ago
@benthemiester Sorry to burst yer bubble but: ID is NOT a theory, it's not even a hypotheses, it is nothing but an unsubstantiated claim. It provides not one testable prediction, it is at best an arguement from ignorance.
jimbocidman 1 month ago
5 atheists did not like this
KingDcome11 3 months ago
@CesarPhilosophe "The scientific community has already determined that ID is not science"
ID is a theory, and is being published in science Journals. If it wasn't a scientific theory, no one would be talking about it anymore. Its Darwinism that is no longer a robust theory. I have posted video of Stewart Newman, an attendee of the Altenberg 16 summit who is one of a group of evo devo scientist that now openly admit the theory is insufficient and needs to be extended. Its happening now.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe So far the only thing you have produced is an emotional straw man.
It is the scientific community that will determine whether ID is science. This sometime takes decades. The fact that it is gaining acceptance & getting published, is remarkable for such a new theory. The Dissent list is growing every day. All scientist, and all saying the same thing.
Even the Altenberg 16 attendees are now openly questioning the limitations of the theory & proposing a new extended synthesis.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, "Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004)
W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe Stephen Meyer, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117 (2004): 213-239.
Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119.
Jonathan Wells, "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe
The Coherence Of An Engineered World
Authors: D. HALSMER, J. ASPER, N. ROMAN & T. TODD
WIT Press Journals
Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003),
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, Vol. 39
benthemiester 1 year ago
>>>>> ever since Behe published his book ID proponents have been using the same tired and refuted arguments over and over and over and over again. The only thing NEW that has come out of it all, but unfortunate for the ID movement, is Facilitated Variation which renders ID useless.
CesarPhilosophe 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe "Relativity does have practical application" How would you use it? I said they are publishing their papers in science journals. You understand what peer review process means, dont you? Prestigious Science journals only publish science papers.
Evolution works great on small scales. We can breed dogs, cows, birds in all different shapes but there still dogs, cows etc. Micro evolution is a science. Macro evolution is a fable for grown ups. U didn't comment on citation sent.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe "The same could be said of Einstein and his theory of relativity. ID is not science, it has no practical applications"
Science is not based on its practical application. Astrobiologist have no ET's to study. There isn't much practical apps for relativity, & yet it is a scientific theory. Tell me, if ID is not a science, then why are ID theorist now getting their work published in science journals? and if Darwinism is so sound, then why is an extended synthesis being proposed?
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe There are also members of the Academy and also foreign Academies who have signed THE DISSENT FROM DARWIN LIST. There are different schools of thought. You said that my threads were my personel opinion but I told u, I can back up everything I said. What is it that I said, that you think isn't true?
ID is a science, and ID theorist are now being published in peer review Science Journals.
Your alive, so singing happy birthday is reasonable. Talking to dead people is necromancy.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe I have corresponded with Francisco Ayala who is a member of the Academy. Russel Doolittle, Michael Behe, John Sanford, & several others. Il tell the Academy the same thing I told Ayala when he made a claim he couldn't back up. I am more interested in empirical science than titles. Did your tio tell you the Academy sang happy birthday to Darwin, & gave a testimonial to what he meant in their lives.They even thanked him, as if he was in the room with them. Thats a religion man.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe "The term is currently, however, an outdated concept, being used mainly in popular science and in a colloquial way in scientific publications, and may have slowed research into the biological functions of noncoding DNA" Orgel LE, Crick FH (April 1980). "Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite". Nature 284 (5757):
I can back up everything I said about Junk DNA, Mendel, Pangenesis, & B. McClintock. If u like I can PM u with peer reviewed articles. All you have to do is asked.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe I am more than willing to consider any citation that you have. I would have to read it myself. I dont have a lot of confidence in the way you paraphrase things. It is a historical fact that Karl Marx, Stalins ideological leader, adhered to Darwinism. Engles and Lenin did also. It is also documented in a book that was written long before this whole controversy. You can research it for yourself. I challenge you to read Wiki article on Lysenko and to find any reference to Darwin.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe As for Stalin, I have cited from first hand sources in a 1940s book. No offense, but your credibility is a little shaky. Your trying to compare Lysenkoism with ID. Let me give u an example of pseudoscience. Pangenesis, Darwins failed law of heredity. Darwinist ignore Mendel for 50 years.......
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe cont....Another example is Junk DNA. Evolutionist set us back another 30 years by ignoring people like Barbara McClintock who found function in transposens. Many ERV's are also now found to be not only useful, but critical. Even evolution friendly Wikipedia says this junk DNA paradigm set us back.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe cont... Whats even sadder, is that many Darwinist are still repeating the junk DNA mantra, when Major Journals have called for the demise of this failed paradigm. We have overwhelming evidence from multiple studies that much of this so called evolutionary non coding junk, is responsible for gene regulation and the way genes are expresses, and can code for RNA. These evolutionary constructs are what have set us back.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe
"ID proponent Paul Nelson admitted that it has no theory to explain the mechanism that ID used" That was your first statment.
I asked if you were paraphrasing, and you assured me that what you claimed was word for word, and that ID was not a science. He never said ID wasn't a theory. He said there is no theory for biological design. We don't know who the designer is. We don't know how this designer did it.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe cont....There are many evolutionist who now claim that the Darwinian synthesis doesn't even have a theory for the evolution of complex biological structure. James Shapiro has said the same, and he is an evolutionist. Darwinism does not have a theory for biogenesis but yet we know it happened because it can be observed. What you did was lie about it being word per word, even after I specifically asked if you were paraphrasing.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe cont....This is called quote mining, where you take something out of context and add your own content to what was said. In the same article Shermer accused Stalin of being an anti Darwinist and cited Lysenkosim, but Stalin was not anti Darwin. He was anti Mendel. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin were all evolutionist who embraced Stalin, as referenced in the book E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin,.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester
correction...... He was anti Mendel. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin were all evolutionist who embraced Darwin.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe cont.....There is an article in wikipedia about Lysenkoism and it mentions Mendel, and says nothing of Darwin. Shermer sells snake oil. The Altenberg 16 group have also admitted the limitations of the Darwinism synthesis and are proposing a new synthesis and asking for a relaxing of the assumptions of the current one. I tried to give you an opportunity to research before you spoke, and now it turns out you were paraphrasing. You cant say I didn't try.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe "I'll quote it word for word exactly as Nelson wrote it tomorrow"
So now your saying Nelson wrote the piece? I thought it was an interview but I may be wrong. Ill wait for you to quote it in context, word per word, like you said, or I could provide you with what he really said word per word, but I'm interested to hear your take.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe "Paul Nelson admitted that it has no theory to explain the mechanism that ID used"
Those words of Nelson also got published in the LA Times word for word.
So now your saying Touchstone was the original source word per word? Are you sure about that, or are you paraphrasing?
benthemiester 1 year ago
Can you please give original source citation for Nelsons comments? The way the phrase is presented is a little ambiguous. I don't yet know what "it" is. I agree with a lot of what Nelson says. I would like to see what context it is in.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe Scientific theories are determined through a peer review process, and that sometimes takes years or even decades. They are not determined by institutions arbitrarily. They tried with Mendel, (the father of modern genetics) and he was ignored for 50 years. They also did the same to Barbara McClintock when her studies indicated that there was regulatory function in the non protein coding regions of our genome once referred to as junk. Another 40 years wasted by Darwinist.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe No Cesar, I am not trying to pull a fast one on you, News paper titles are a little different from science titles. The list I gave you is also mirrored at "Talks Origin" where even the folks over there reluctantly admit it.
Of course they're trying to down play the significants of this new published and journaled work, but their arguments are very weak.
Those were just a partial list not including books from university press.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe - Perhaps but what I meant to say (if I did not) is that is is not scientifically testable.
TodaysThought 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CesarPhilosophe"Now your resorting to hypotheticals"
Tell that to the millions killed in Stalin's Russia and the killing fields of South East Asia.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe If atheist kill ten million religious people because they are religious and not atheist like the people doing the killing, then they get a pass because atheism is not a negative. OK buddy sure. lol
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe "I'm going to go through every single post regarding the journals so give me time."
Take all the time you need.
benthemiester 1 year ago
Comment removed
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe"Those political figures you mentioned commited crimes on behalf of a belief system"
Yes, the belief that atheism was the correct world view and anyone who was religious had to be exterminated.
Sorry but the same standards apply. Don't you believe your an atheist? If you chose to define yourself as something your not, then don't blame me.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe "And no, ID proponents have not published a single paper in a proper scientific journal"
THE QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY
Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and "The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution"
Michael J. Behe...........
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe CONT...W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1998)
Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series,
• D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766–775.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe•
CONT.....
Denton, M. J. and J. C. Marshall. 2001. The laws of form revisited. Nature 410: 417
M.J. Denton & J.C. Marshall, “The Laws of Form Revisited,” Nature, 410 (22 March 2001): 417; M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325–342
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe CONT....Axe, D. D., 2000. Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors. Journal of Molecular Biology 301: 585-595. • Lönnig, W.-E. 2004. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity. In: V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo and F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds. Dynamical Genetics, 101-119. Research Signpost.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe CONT.....Lönnig, W.-E. and H. Saedler. 2002. Chromosome rearrangements and transposable elements. Annual Review of Genetics 36: 389-410. • Meyer, Stephen. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117: 213-239. • Wells, Jonathan. 2005. Do centrioles generate a polar ejection force? Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98: 37-62.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Jesse Kilgore 22 committed suicide after reading The God Delusion.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe"Unlike religious folks who actually kill like muslims and christian terrorist who kill abortion doctors"
Like mass murderer Ted" Kaczynski, Pekka-Eric Auvinen child killer,Bhagat Singh who killed with bombs, James von Brunn, all atheist who killed in the name of there beliefs and that is just a small fraction. Lets not forget 10's of millions of religious slaughtered by Stalin, Mao, Khmer Rouge, in Russia, China, Albania,Mongolia Cambodia. Per capita atheist have killed more.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Atheist Mitchell Heisman Kills Self Leaves 1904 Page Suicide Note Extolling The Atheist World View"
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe"He may hate religion but never goes further than calling religious folks delusional"
He calls them wicked and stupid. Evil is a religious concept. He says that anyone who indoctrinates children into the world view of their parents is stupid and wicked & that kids should have their own choice. Of course he never says this about his own parents who raised him Anglican, and being the hypocrite he is, he supports camp quest which does just that. It indoctrinates kids into atheism.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe - yes i know, and?
TodaysThought 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe Richard Dawkins has a public agenda, and that is well known hatred for region and spirituality yet no one in evolutionary science is speaking out about his science being tainted.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe They advocate against scientific materialism & the notion that morality doesn't exist objectively. Their agenda has always been to promote ID & if your going to use that as a disqualifier then you also have to use "The Clergy Letter project" brain child of Eugenie Scott who tries to use religion to promote scientific materialism. She is also the director of the NCSE & a cosigner of the 3rd Humanist Manifesto which seeks to destroy religion in society through public education.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe I cant comment if you offer no details or specific examples. Guilt by association is not my MO and I have nothing against anyone who is skeptical or critical of any theory. If a theory cannot stand up to criticism then it is not worth its salt. I think two intelligent people can hear the same evidence and come to two different conclusions. I am not going to consider myself more intelligent or the others less intelligent if they disagree. This is what I mean by arrogance.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester ID theorist are also starting to get their work published in scientific journals. Behe has just finished his latest in the Quarterly review. ID is now starting to be recognized as a competing theory & the dissent list is growing annually. Before he died Anthony Flew a long time atheist became a deist because of the evidence. Many on the list are agnostic & atheist. In fact recently another well known atheist did an interview with Casey Luskin agreeing ID was a valid theory.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe
crank 2
noun
1 an eccentric person, esp. one who is obsessed by a particular subject or theory.
Many great scientist have been cranks. Self deprecation is not always such a bad thing. It is more appealing to me than arrogance. " intelligentsia"? No thanks, Ill stick with a person who shows a little humility.
There are plenty of cheerleaders. Skepticism is something we need more of regarding the Modern synthesis.
I think his questions and critiques are relevant.
benthemiester 1 year ago
Neutrino mass was an odd choice. Why not use, say, the proton's mass for his example? Simple, non-controversial, and allows him to make the exact same point. I might be wrong, but I suspect it's because Berlinski doesn't know what he stepped in. He's a pompous SOB who I've caught before using impressive sounding ideas (about math, no less - his "field") w/o understanding them.
(Note: Berlinski made a bunch of observations that ended up exactly nowhere regarding evidence and God.)
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
(cont)
Neutrino mass is an open subject of research. It's a predicted consequence of neutrino oscillations from one type to another (electron-muon-tau), but it's contrary to the insanely successful Standard Model. Since these oscillations have experimental support, I assume that physicists accept that neutrinos have mass - but tenuously in a way different from, say, neutrons. The manner in which they have mass would be unique among the fundamental particles (i.e. not from the Higgs field).
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
Berlinski rules! One bit of advise. Read it like you mean it! Speak up and don't forget to enunciate.
benthemiester 2 years ago 2
@benthemiester
Yes, I agree. Thanks. ;)
jcrebel18 2 years ago
Very interesting. Berlinski is senior at the Discovery Institute. So he's an "agnostic" is he? Berlinski hasn't measured, demonstrated or proven any intelligent design although he's been very profitable.
As to our pretensions, we can measure radiation decay and observe spectral distortion as a result of neutrinos. Pasteur proved germs existed.
In a geocentric universe how do plants grow three days before the sun is created? Is Genesis or photosynthesis right?
Mephistophilus 2 years ago
@Mephistophilus
A: ID is origins science, not operations science.
B. In another book, Berlinski critiques ID, so I don't think proving it is really his intention.
True, but that's still along the lines of you inferring as to the best explanation, not as a result of you seeing them directly.
I'm not sure what Genesis has to do with the subject, but I'm sure you already know I'm not a YEC i.e. I don't believe the days are literal 24 hour days.
jcrebel18 2 years ago
A. Nice kung-fu. I wouldn't call it science at all.
B. It's a way to appear so.
Neutrino oscillation experiments have proven neutrinos have masses via observation and you can see germs with a microscope.
It's an explanation for life and origins. God has nothing to do with science as you've stated but science has everything to do with what is and how it could be. 24 hrs or not, how would life and universe equal what is known and works if Genesis was literal or figurative?
Mephistophilus 2 years ago
Mephistophilus - do you see string theory as science?
TodaysThought 2 years ago
@TodaysThought I consider it a developing branch of Quantum Mechanics. Why?
Mephistophilus 2 years ago
Mephistophilus - oh, I just wanted to see how consistent you were. You know, ID is not science but String theory is. Most people think string theory to be a bunch of bunk. You cant really test the theory. But I'm in to math and find it fascinating.
TodaysThought 2 years ago
We have Quantum Computers. Continental drift was met with resistance and Alfred didn't organize a posse to "teach the controversy" or claim "heresy". Wegener proved his theory. Same with Hubble, Copernicus, etc. I'm not entirely sure that it's not bunk especially when presented by new age mystics or creationists but QM was productive. When the LHC is completely operational we'll know much more. I like learning so I find it fascinating.
Mephistophilus 2 years ago
@Mephistophilus
I'm not sure if you were replying to TodaysThought or me, but I kind of already knew this already.
Although, like I said before, you can't "prove" anything in origins science, at least not decisively.
jcrebel18 2 years ago
@ JCR
I was replying 2 TT. Yeah, I figured you did.
Yet and it's been that way before. Ie: Buckland, Lyell, Agassiz and Sedgewick were on your side of the fence and were persecuted for treason against god and state where they not?
Mephistophilus 2 years ago
Mephistophilus = I understand QM very well, thank you. If you going to be consistent, string theory is really not science (its a theory that can not be tested). Now, before you go on about QM again, I am fully aware of the efforts with LHC and LISA. I'm into string and M but they are at the core, new theory's to support the materialist world view. The numbers don't add up for the soup and origins of life, materialist need to open it up to new dimensions and multiple universes. It has merit
TodaysThought 2 years ago
@TodaysThought I never said you didn't. The topic: "Group A presumes too much about science written by someone who knows very little about science." You asked about string-theory and I claim no authority over it but you did. What does Berlinski know about science? Not much. Is he an authority? No. The Discovery Institute, lol. Does he admit he's a crank? Yes.
Interesting. Sounds like "the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview" and "science consonant with Xian and theistic convictions"
Mephistophilus 2 years ago
@TodaysThought
"ID is not science..."
That's actually more a philosophical argument than a scientific one, but that's debateable.
jcrebel18 2 years ago
Science proves itself, god does not. Can god reattach a severed finger? No, but science can. Can god make you fly? No, but science can. Can god put a man on the moon? No, but science can. Also not only is there no evidence for god, there is evidence against god, the holy books that claim god's existence can and have been disproved many times over. So not only are you believing in that for which there is no evidence like flying pigs, you are believing in that which has contradicting evidence.
FlyingFree333 2 years ago
@FlyingFree333
" the holy books that claim god's existence can and have been disproved many times over "
Which ones and when? Careful with vague statements.
Livelyanv 2 years ago