Runboard.com
Слава Україні!
The Neutral Zone
Welcome To The Neutral Zone:
The place to discuss topics that may cause debates on other boards without getting yelled at or banned!

"It is not so much our friends' help that helps us, as the confidence of their help." - Epicurus


runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3 

 
Pastor Rick Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 07-2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1900
Karma: 29 (+42/-13)
Reply Quote
Re: Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design?


quote:

Lesigner Girl wrote:
quote:

Pastor Rick wrote:
Er... Lesa, the article I used as the source for this was Scientific American (March 28, 2007) (see the link?)...


Yes, I saw the link. But flaws can get into even scientific journals from time to time. Sometimes it's a flaw in the idea itself, other times it's a flaw with the way the article was written.


But if you saw that I was using a well known and highly respected scientific journal as my source why did you infer that I did otherwise by citing sources never mentioned?
quote:

Pastor RickAlso notice the premise and citation used in this textbook citation.

The original experiments are still being cited as accurate and conclusive even after decades of knowing the premise, construction and execution of the experiment were designed to provide the desired outcome and had nothing to do with reality based on the scientific knowledge known at the time!

quote:

Lesigner Girl wrote:
I'm sorry, but I don't see where that flash file says that.

They did not set up conditions to prove their point. They set up those conditions to test their hypothesis, which they derived at through calculations. There's a big difference.

The Miller-Urey experiment is still being cited because it proved that life can arise out of non-life. It was successful because it proved this, it was also successful because it ruled out one hypothesis of what the atmosphere might have been like so we could move on to other ideas, and it showed us that the earliest life forms were not as complex as they originally thought they might have been. Experiments are always successful if they are conducted correctly, regardless of the outcome. When a properly conducted experiment "fails" in some people's way of thinking, it's not really a case of the experiment failing; it's a case of ruling out a hypothesis.

Remember, there are no failures, as long as we learn from them. As long as we learn from an experiment, then it is a success.




No Lesa, at the very best the experiment only showed 2 amino acids with trace amounts of others. If you watched the flash presentation and came to the conclusion you just gave then the deception worked by promoting the idea that this was a simple thing to do. We have known with certainty for over 30 years that the atmosphere of early earth was not how it was presented in the flash but rather than provide updated flash videos of experiments adjusted for the correct conditions they still use this old outdated model. Why the deception Lesa? We don't use outdated sources or materials in any other field that I am aware of so what gives?

Biological Science 1 and 2 published by Cambridge University Press (ISBN-13: 9780521561785 | ISBN-10: 0521561787) is the most comprehensive A level biology text available that I am aware of at any rate. Look on page 888 and you find:

...in all cases [the data] is interpreted [in this book] in terms that assume evolution does occur. Circular arguments and exceptions to the evidence are common and alternative explanations can be found, but the broad concept of evolution is backed up by a wealth of scientific evidence.

To me this sounds like the approach is to always assume evolution is true. It doesn't make the claim that evolution is fact but that rather, evidence seems to support the theory so approach everything done as though it was fact. If I did that with any other theory you would jump on me for using such a circular argument so why is such a approach allowed in the case of evolution without argument?

---

Advertise Boards On TRDConceptsDE
9/6/2008, 3:14 pm Link to this post Send e-mail to   Send PM to Blog
 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 634
Karma: 13 (+15/-2)
Reply Quote
Re: Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design?


quote:

But if you saw that I was using a well known and highly respected scientific journal as my source why did you infer that I did otherwise by citing sources never mentioned?


I saw what you had linked to, and the only comment I meant was in response to your comment about it, "This smacks to me of dishonesty..." which I responded to with:
quote:

Well, whoever wrote that article doesn't seem to understand what he's writing anyway. First, he uses the word "evolution" in the heading instead of "abiogenesis," then he uses the phrase "scientists believe." It's not surprising that he didn't write the details as to how so-and-so came up with such-and-such a conclusion.


Translation: The article was not as informative as it might have been if someone else had written it. This does not mean it was dishonest, but that the article simply wasn't informative enough if it didn't explain how they arrived at a particular conclusion. Truth be told, I actually didn't read past the word "believe" in that article, because between that and the subject line, I didn't feel it was up to proper standards, which is what prompted my response in calling it incomplete.

After my above quote, I then went on to state how I know that the sites you get your information from are full of outright lies, because I know what the actual theories state, and I know that the sites you read are misrepresenting those theories. As such, if you had linked to Answers in Genesis, for example, I would have had much harsher things to say about it than "incomplete" or "doesn't seem to understand," because there is a big difference between missing a couple of details and blatantly lying about everything they claim to be refuting.

I hope you don't get the impression that my venom is directed at you, Rick, because it's not. What really gets me is the fact that they prey on good people's trust and faith to keep them ignorant, and they have very powerful means of getting their lies out into the general public.

As for the flash, I don't know what they're trying to say because when I click on animation, all it does is show a graphic that looks similar to Earth but it doesn't do anything, and the rest didn't really say much.

quote:

To me this sounds like the approach is to always assume evolution is true.


That was never the case until it was proven to be a fact. We now assume that our planet is spherical, because we know it's true. If you would only read about the actual evidence and theory, instead of relying on apologetics who don't even explain it correctly, you could also recognize it as fact.

quote:

Biological Science 1 and 2 published by Cambridge University Press (ISBN-13: 9780521561785 | ISBN-10: 0521561787) is the most comprehensive A level biology text available that I am aware of at any rate. Look on page 888 and you find:

...in all cases [the data] is interpreted [in this book] in terms that assume evolution does occur. Circular arguments and exceptions to the evidence are common and alternative explanations can be found, but the broad concept of evolution is backed up by a wealth of scientific evidence.


I'd like to see that quote in a little more context, please. Evolution theory is not backed by circular arguments, and I'd like to know what the author of that quote believes these supposed circular arguments are. Also, I would like to know if that quote really came from that book. Do you have the book yourself, or did you find that quote on an apologetics website?

Ah, what do you know? I searched a portion of that quote and there was only one result, which was here on this apologetics website. I also see the Miller-Urey experiment mentioned there. How interesting. Rick, please stop getting your information from apologetics websites and study the actual material.

I think I'm done with this topic. As I said before, instead of offering your own evidence for Intelligent Design, all you have done is promote anti-evolution propaganda. I'm sorry if you can't see the difference.

---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Runboard Support Forums
Find other message boards
9/6/2008, 3:56 pm Link to this post Send e-mail to   Send PM to Blog
 
Pastor Rick Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 07-2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1900
Karma: 29 (+42/-13)
Reply Quote
Re: Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design?


Yes the quoted passage comes from that site but Lesa, the rest is total coincidence. Will I check the source material? Sure, I have no problem with that but this is twice now you accuse me of using Christian apologetic websites and in both cases you have been wrong! ID is not Creationism and Creationism is not ID. ID does nothing on the apologetic's field. Creationism is rife with error as currently constructed and I avoid those sites.

My question is why do you keep accusing me of using sources I do not use instead of replying to the concepts and ideas I am finding?

If the concept is wrong fine, if the ideas are wrong then once again fine by me. But to sidestep and accuse without cause is totally wrong. Maybe I am reading your post wrong but that really is how you are coming across at this end.

---

Advertise Boards On TRDConceptsDE
9/6/2008, 4:18 pm Link to this post Send e-mail to   Send PM to Blog
 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 634
Karma: 13 (+15/-2)
Reply Quote
Re: Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design?


The only thing I am accusing you of is being misinformed. As for the creationism/ID link, here is an article that directly addresses that issue:

Missing link: “cdesign proponentsists”


The topic here is "Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design?" You have not supplied any of evidence for it, so there is nothing to sidestep. If you can supply evidence for it, I will be happy to discuss it with you.

Last edited by Lesigner Girl, 9/6/2008, 4:46 pm


---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Runboard Support Forums
Find other message boards
9/6/2008, 4:45 pm Link to this post Send e-mail to   Send PM to Blog
 
Pastor Rick Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 07-2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1900
Karma: 29 (+42/-13)
Reply Quote
Re: Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design?


Couldn't find the book in the library catalogs so I went to Amazon.com and ordered it. That way I can scan the pages in so we can see context emoticon

---

Advertise Boards On TRDConceptsDE
9/6/2008, 5:05 pm Link to this post Send e-mail to   Send PM to Blog
 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 634
Karma: 13 (+15/-2)
Reply Quote
Re: Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design?


You didn't have to do that, Rick, but thank you. Now you can just scan the pages themselves, upload, and we can all see that quote along with what comes before and after. emoticon

What were your thoughts on this link I gave you? I actually saw something on TV about that several months back, which prompted me to go looking for it yesterday.

Simply put, Intelligent Design is Creationism, simply for the fact that Intelligent Design claims that there was a Designer (aka Creator). It doesn't matter whether that Designer is claimed to be the Christian one or a different one, but the link above demonstrates that Intelligent Design did arise from Christian beliefs specifically.

---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Runboard Support Forums
Find other message boards
9/7/2008, 1:35 pm Link to this post Send e-mail to   Send PM to Blog
 
Pastor Rick Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 07-2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1900
Karma: 29 (+42/-13)
Reply Quote
Re: Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design?


I would have to be blind and crazy to say ID didn't have its beginnings in the creationist field just as the modern scientific psychiatry field had its beginnings with many who were out and out quacks. Matter of fact, most scientific disciplines go through some rather strange incantations as they start out so it shouldn't be strange or unusual to see the same with ID. Now I know many sites that claim ID has peer reviewed material that has been published but the only one that I have ever verified is Dr Meyers work. Yes I know it has been torn apart by those who know more than both of us put together but the one thing that can't be taken away from the paper is that it did go through a peer review process and that means it did follow scientific methodology to the satisfaction of those counted as peers in the scientific community. To me this is a serious start, not just for ID but also for the scientific community showing that if honest inquiry is allowed then we as a race of beings are one step closer to discovering truth, where ever it may be...

---

Advertise Boards On TRDConceptsDE
9/7/2008, 3:18 pm Link to this post Send e-mail to   Send PM to Blog
 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 634
Karma: 13 (+15/-2)
Reply Quote
Re: Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design?


Honest inquiry is allowed, which is why we have become as scientifically advanced as we are. In fact, we would be far more scientifically advanced than we are if it weren't for things such as the Inquisition. Speaking of not allowing honest inquiry, people were killed for making heretical statements such as the earth being spherical, or engaging in alchemy, a 'primitive' form of chemistry.

What is Dr Meyers' full name so I can research him, what did he get published, and in what journal?

---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Runboard Support Forums
Find other message boards
9/7/2008, 3:53 pm Link to this post Send e-mail to   Send PM to Blog
 
Pastor Rick Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 07-2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1900
Karma: 29 (+42/-13)
Reply Quote
Re: Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design?


I'll give the Wikipedia link here as it shows part of the controversy around the article (including it later removal). The question left unanswered is why the paper, if not properly reviewed by the journal, was never reviewed at all to correct the so called failing of the journal? That Dr Meyer's submitted the paper properly has never been questioned as far as I can find but since the Journal made a mistake they withdraw its peer reviewed status? Seems flaky to me...


---

Advertise Boards On TRDConceptsDE
9/7/2008, 4:32 pm Link to this post Send e-mail to   Send PM to Blog
 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 634
Karma: 13 (+15/-2)
Reply Quote
Re: Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design?


Thanks, Rick. That wiki article led me here:
quote:

Summary of the paper

Meyer’s paper predictably follows the same pattern that has characterized “intelligent design” since its inception: deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life’s history and diversity, then assert that an “intelligent designer” provides a better explanation. Although ID is discussed in the concluding section of the paper, there is no positive account of “intelligent design” presented, just as in all previous work on “intelligent design”. Just as a detective doesn’t have a case against someone without motive, means, and opportunity, ID doesn’t stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened, how, and why. Only a reasonably detailed model could provide explanatory hypotheses that can be empirically tested. “An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason” is not a model.

Meyer’s paper, therefore, is almost entirely based on negative argument. ...

[Read more here]


That explains why it should never have been published in a scientific journal, so it's understandable that they would retract it. What it doesn't explain is how they could have been careless enough to allow such an article into the paper in the first place, which I would like to look into.

I will also see if I can find a copy of Meyer's article itself. I'm quite familiar with the Discovery Institute and can pretty much guess what the article says, so if anything, getting it into the paper at all is what seems "flaky" to me. But, I would still like to see the actual paper, and make that determination for myself.

Thanks again for the link. emoticon


Edit:
quote:

Critics believe that Sternberg's personal and ideological connections to Meyer suggest at least the appearance of conflict of interest in allowing Meyer's paper to be published. As evidence they cite that Sternberg is a fellow of International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a group dedicated to promoting intelligent design, and presented a lecture on intelligent design at the Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.


I think I may have just found my answer, and would like to research this claim that Sternberg is a member of that organization, because it would explain how he "let" that article slip in. Obviously getting a paper into a scientific journal can give it the appearance of being scientific, so even once it's been retracted, it gives "ID" proponents something to cling to.

Last edited by Lesigner Girl, 9/7/2008, 5:27 pm


---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Runboard Support Forums
Find other message boards
9/7/2008, 5:22 pm Link to this post Send e-mail to   Send PM to Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 





You are not logged in (login)