Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[Septic]

Faith is a belief in things not seen. You have never personally seen evolution take place. So you employ faith to believe it has happened. Just like the big bang theory. You did not personally witness it happen. So you have faith in what science tells you is correct.

Pretty simple.

I can't see gravity, but I don't need to rely on faith to know if I shove you off a bridge you'd fall.

 

[rjd970]

Sorry, but there are examples in the engineering sciences where this is done all the time. It's called reverse engineering.
Medusa Reimagined: Caltech-led Team Reverse Engineers a Jellyfish with the Ability to Swim - ScienceNewsline


Your question is equivocating the use of the term evolved. Further, I already provided a quote and source that addresses that very question.

Here is what I see you and others saying. ID, which is not taught, has a higher burden of proof than that which is taught? That is a tough one. As I've said before, we have a lot of skeptics who are not consistent in applying their skepticism. There is no one here that I've seen that is genuinely concerned about science. what we have are people arguing that their postmodern philosophy is right because of evolution, and therefore our worldview is wrong.

Reverse engineering is testing for function and design?

Of course I am equating the word evolved. If ID can only be falsified by showing natural causes to biological structures, then it seems there should be a set of discriminators where this can be tested. Shoot me that link again of peer reviewed material showing this criteria. I would love to see the responses of those that peer reviewed it.

 

[rjd970]

SETI researchers look for design in radio signals without knowing the potential broadcaster's intent.

They are looking for patterns in the noise, which are testable. There are various signal processing criteria that are established to test this. The intent to be tested is understood, to establish communication with another world, and the design of this message can be tested.

The actual function of the message is irrelevant to your example.

Where did this "function criteria" come from? Please define before we discuss. Do you mean that a potential design must pass some "grade" level before it can recognized as "designed"? Please defend this philosophical constraint. I'll give a couple of examples to dispute it.

Ford Pintos sucked. They were designed.

I missspelled this sentinse. It was still designed.

My watch stopped keeping time. It was designed.

Why? That is on the ID crowd. They are the ones claiming design, it is up to them to define the testable evidence for that claim. If something was designed for function, they need to clarify what they mean by function. They also need to define the criteria for "irreducibly complex". What makes something irreducibly complex? What criteria makes this so?

Are you saying just declaring something irreducibly complex is good enough? If not, lets hear how this is tested.

Evolution is making no claim of design, other than the mutations NS has selected. The function is explained by a series of falsifiable observations that formulated the theory in the first place.

 

[Orange_Crush]

They are looking for patterns in the noise, which are testable. There are various signal processing criteria that are established to test this. The intent to be tested is understood, to establish communication with another world, and the design of this message can be tested.

The actual function of the message is irrelevant to your example.



Why? That is on the ID crowd. They are the ones claiming design, it is up to them to define the testable evidence for that claim. If something was designed for function, they need to clarify what they mean by function. They also need to define the criteria for "irreducibly complex". What makes something irreducibly complex? What criteria makes this so?

Are you saying just declaring something irreducibly complex is good enough? If not, lets hear how this is tested.

Evolution is making no claim of design, other than the mutations NS has selected. The function is explained by a series of falsifiable observations that formulated the theory in the first place.

They have. I'll repeat; you don't even know the theory you're dumping on.

 

[rjd970]

They have. I'll repeat; you don't even know the theory you're dumping on.

Interesting, lets see the peer reviewed material establishing this testable criteria.

 

[Roustabout]

Why? That is on the ID crowd. They are the ones claiming design, it is up to them to define the testable evidence for that claim. If something was designed for function, they need to clarify what they mean by function. They also need to define the criteria for "irreducibly complex". What makes something irreducibly complex? What criteria makes this so?
.

I'm out of time tonight. I need to get back to pkt on another post and will hopefully have time tomorrow.
But I wanted to address briefly. It is obvious from this post that you have ranted for pages and pages against ID and you essentially admit here that you don't even know the basics of what is being argued.
Do we really have to hold your hand and explain what is meant by irreducible complexity? Sorry, but you have too many posts here launching attacks against ID and you don't even grasp the basis of the theory.

 

[rjd970]

I'm out of time tonight. I need to get back to pkt on another post and will hopefully have time tomorrow.
But I wanted to address briefly. It is obvious from this post that you have ranted for pages and pages against ID and you essentially admit here that you don't even know the basics of what is being argued.
Do we really have to hold your hand and explain what is meant by irreducible complexity? Sorry, but you have too many posts here launching attacks against ID and you don't even grasp the basis of the theory.

I'm simply asking for testable criteria, not an argument from claim.

You are claiming certain biological structures are designed. OK. Lets hear what criteria is being used. Even on a Pro-ID website, it is saying this:

Behe predicts that scientists will not uncover a continuously functional Darwinian pathway from a simple precursor to the bacterial flagellum and, moreover, any detailed evolutionary pathway that is articulated will presuppose other irreducibly complex systems. How does one test and discredit Behe's claims? Describe a realistic, continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor. The flagellum might still be designed, but Behe's means of detecting such design would have been falsified.

If that is all the ID crowd has, then it simply isn't science. Its an argument from claim.

Intelligent Design is Empirically Testable and Makes Predictions - Evolution News & Views

 

[rjd970]

I'm simply asking for testable criteria, not an argument from claim.

You are claiming certain biological structures are designed. OK. Lets hear what criteria is being used. Even on a Pro-ID website, it is saying this:



If that is all the ID crowd has, then it simply isn't science. Its an argument from claim.

Intelligent Design is Empirically Testable and Makes Predictions - Evolution News & Views

From the link above this is another good one:

Miller tried to sidestep this obvious point in his expert testimony at the Dover trial by conceding that Behe's argument was testable but insisting that it was a purely negative argument against Neo-Darwinism, not a positive case for intelligent design. This is mere wishful thinking on Miller's part. Behe's argument is also based on positive evidence for design. Behe points to strongly positive grounds for inferring design from the presence of irreducibly complex machines and circuits. This testable evidence is so powerful, so nearly ubiquitous, that it is often overlooked. Go out and find irreducibly complex machines, then find out, where possible, their causal history. Again and again one will find that the irreducibly complex machines (mousetraps, motors, etc.) were designed by intelligent agents. Indeed, every time we know the causal history of an irreducibly complex system, it always turns out to have been the product of an intelligent cause.

Lol...and even more, dude that wrote this has a PhD in.....wait for it.....English and Literary Theory.

 

[rjd970]

This is a good one too for you guys....this is a review of Dembski and Witt’s “Intelligent Design Uncensored”....

Thoughts on the first three chapters of Dembski and Witt’s “Intelligent Design Uncensored” / Jack Scanlan

Written by a graduate student in Biology.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

This guy...

I love how you like to just dismiss when people point out logical fallacies. The reason it upsets you is because you cannot present information in a correct and logical manner and someone is calling you out on it. It's quite understandable. It's obvious that the only real debating you have ever participated in are Internet forums.

 

[rjd970]

This is also a good read....its wikipedia, but still interesting...

Sternberg peer review controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a review of Meyer's article The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories, Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry claimed it contained poor scholarship, that it failed to cite and specifically rebut the actual data supporting evolution, and "constructed a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down straw men, and tendentious interpretations." Further examination of the article revealed that it was substantially similar to previously published articles co-authored by Meyer.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

I can't see gravity, but I don't need to rely on faith to know if I shove you off a bridge you'd fall.

Ok you do realize that gravity is a scientific law right? It is universally accepted and has withstood rigorous testing over centuries. Your argument is invalid when trying to compare these things.

You're just upset because the thing you have bashed believers for using, is actually used by the scientific community and yourself.

 

[Septic]

I love how you like to just dismiss when people point out logical fallacies. The reason it upsets you is because you cannot present information in a correct and logical manner and someone is calling you out on it. It's quite understandable. It's obvious that the only real debating you have ever participated in are Internet forums.

You haven't pointed anything out and should probably just stick to riding OC and Rousts coat tails.

I'd almost take the last bit as patronizing, but seeing how it's you - I can't help but think how adorable it is that you think your dropping knowledge like Volmav drops empty beer cans.

 

[Septic]

Ok you do realize that gravity is a scientific law right? It is universally accepted and has withstood rigorous testing over centuries. Your argument is invalid when trying to compare these things.

You're just upset because the thing you have bashed believers for using, is actually used by the scientific community and yourself.

Wasn't the point. That you missed it is not surprising.

 

[butchna]

I squished a gopher with my car hmy:
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

You haven't pointed anything out and should probably just stick to riding OC and Rousts coat tails.

I'd almost take the last bit as patronizing, but seeing how it's you - I can't help but think how adorable it is that you think your dropping knowledge like Volmav drops empty beer cans.

As I said upset. It's okay though.

 

[Danl]

Ok you do realize that gravity is a scientific law right? It is universally accepted and has withstood rigorous testing over centuries. Your argument is invalid when trying to compare these things.

You're just upset because the thing you have bashed believers for using, is actually used by the scientific community and yourself.

Maybe you could then explain HOW gravity works. No? Why is that? Could it be because no one yet knows for sure HOW gravity works.

Just for giggles, here's a recent article as an example of how scientists still don't understand HOW gravity works.

"Our Understanding of Gravity is Fundamentally Wrong" --Two Conflicting Theories of the Universe

I think we should stop indoctrinating our children with all this talk of the theory of gravity, shoving gravity down their throat like it was a fact! Especially with my tax money! Its just some damned Pro-Gravity Religion!!!! No one has ever, ever proved HOW gravity works! NOBODY!!!!

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Wasn't the point. That you missed it is not surprising.

Of course. Whenever you seem to be losing, you resort to stupidity. Kudos lol:

 

[govols/cc]

14.5 billion years ago something happened that created everything. Nobody knows for sure what happened (obviously) but that should be believed over any & everything else. A divine creator versus a random bang.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Maybe you could then explain HOW gravity works. No? Why is that? Could it be because no one yet knows for sure HOW gravity works.

Just for giggles, here's a recent article as an example of how scientists still don't understand HOW gravity works.

"Our Understanding of Gravity is Fundamentally Wrong" --Two Conflicting Theories of the Universe

I think we should stop indoctrinating our children with all this talk of the theory of gravity, shoving gravity down their throat like it was a fact! Especially with my tax money! Its just some damned Pro-Gravity Religion!!!! No one has ever, ever proved HOW gravity works! NOBODY!!!!

So because of this article we should just change the laws of physics right? We should teach that Newton was wrong ad the laws if gravitation do not exist. lol:

Wow. Hey you are bringing some more comedy to the conversation :good!:.

 

[Obsessed]

I squished a gopher with my car hmy:
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Racist

 

[VOLatile]

So because of this article we should just change the laws of physics right? We should teach that Newton was wrong ad the laws if gravitation do not exist. lol:

Wow. Hey you are bringing some more comedy to the conversation :good!:.

Newton's law of universal gravitation*states that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with aforce*that is*directly proportional*to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.*

There's no how it happens in the law. It's just that gravity is a constant.

We know how evolution works (gene mutation). We know why evolution works (natural selection).

The only reason evolution is not a law? We just don't declare laws anymore. Modern science doesn't deal in absolutes.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm simply asking for testable criteria, not an argument from claim.

You are claiming certain biological structures are designed. OK. Lets hear what criteria is being used. Even on a Pro-ID website, it is saying this:



If that is all the ID crowd has, then it simply isn't science. Its an argument from claim.

Intelligent Design is Empirically Testable and Makes Predictions - Evolution News & Views

From the link above this is another good one:



Lol...and even more, dude that wrote this has a PhD in.....wait for it.....English and Literary Theory.

This is a good one too for you guys....this is a review of Dembski and Witt’s “Intelligent Design Uncensored”....

Thoughts on the first three chapters of Dembski and Witt’s “Intelligent Design Uncensored” / Jack Scanlan

Written by a graduate student in Biology.

This is also a good read....its wikipedia, but still interesting...

Sternberg peer review controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll let Behe speak for himself, since he has.

Behe responds to Philosophical Objections to Intelligent Design

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Newton's law of universal gravitation*states that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with aforce*that is*directly proportional*to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.*

There's no how it happens in the law. It's just that gravity is a constant.

We know how evolution works (gene mutation). We know why evolution works (natural selection).

The only reason evolution is not a law? We just don't declare laws anymore. Modern science doesn't deal in absolutes.

So at one point in time there obviously were absolutes because there are scientific laws. But somehow now there are none? Basically scientific laws either are obsolete or no longer apply?

The reason evolution is not a law is because it cannot be thoroughly tested and proven as fact.

 

[Septic]

Newton's law of universal gravitation*states that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with aforce*that is*directly proportional*to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.*

There's no how it happens in the law. It's just that gravity is a constant.

We know how evolution works (gene mutation). We know why evolution works (natural selection).

The only reason evolution is not a law? We just don't declare laws anymore. Modern science doesn't deal in absolutes.

This.