• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

chickenman

evil unamerican
May 8, 2002
1,376
7
43
Visit site
✟24,874.00
hahah, you obviously didn't read the whole thing npeterly, peter borger's falsification has been demolished. He hasn't been able to show that mutation is non-random, he hasn't been able to propose a mechanism for said non-random mutation, and he certainly hasn't falsified selection with any of his examples. Its all merely wishful thinking on his part, coupled with some ridiculous interpretations.
 
Upvote 0

Ben Reid

Well-Known Member
May 31, 2002
496
2
47
Sydney
Visit site
✟23,347.00

That's funny. I thought the exact opposite. I guess different people interpret things differently ...

Let me ask you the following questions:

1) What do you think P Borger's arguments against NDT are?

2) Why do you think these arguments are or are not a problem to NDT?

p.s. Scarlatti, Jerry, Brim et al, yes, I'm not reneging, I am going on a sabbatical, just got sucked into one more thread
 
Upvote 0

chickenman

evil unamerican
May 8, 2002
1,376
7
43
Visit site
✟24,874.00
his arguments are that because he has seen aproximately 50 bases of a strange gene in drosophila about which we actually know nothing - and because some of these bases appear to be mutational hotspots, and becuase he is assuming that there is no selection pressure on the sequence - that random mutation has been falsified, and that some mysterious protein mediated mechanism (unknown, never described, yet which he is certain must exist) is causing directed mutations. Naturally, the more educated members on that board reject the idea that his interpretation of a certain article falsifies anything, and have tried to explain to peter borger why hotspots do not falsify random mutation.

The other thread is his assumptions about a number of (alledgedly) redundant traits/genes, which he claims falsify natural selection - he completely ignores neutral theory, and makes a number of assumptions regarding the traits. Falsifications do not rest on assumptions

they aren't a problem for NDT because they do not falsify random mutation and selection, like borger claims they do.
 
Upvote 0

chickenman

evil unamerican
May 8, 2002
1,376
7
43
Visit site
✟24,874.00
borgers falsification of random mutation falsified;

 
Upvote 0

euphoric

He hates these cans!!
Jun 22, 2002
480
5
49
Visit site
✟23,271.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Call me when this "falsification" gets published in "Science" or "Nature".

Nick, have you sent this to the Nobel prize committee yet?

You have it all wrong.  Nick can't send his damning evidence for the falsification of evolutionary theory to scientific journals.  The God-Hating Scientist Conspiracy will find out about it and he'll have to be on the run for the rest of his life.  In fact they may be monitoring this forum.  I really can't say anymore...

-brett
 
Upvote 0

choccy

Active Member
Jun 27, 2002
126
1
Visit site
✟361.00
Faith
Atheist
What? You mean you can't falsify intelligent design by pointing to what you ASSUME is a pseudogene and ASSUMING an intelligent creator wouldn't create it?

Isn't that what we've been saying all along? ID is unfalsifyable and therefore not a scientific theory.

What we have been claiming though (if you're even remotely interested) is that evolution explains the evidence a lot better than ID.

Choccy
 
Upvote 0

I disagree with your conclusions, but let's let that pass for now. You're still ASSUMING that a creator wouldn't design it that way. And since falsifications cannot rest on assumptions, that's not science.
 
Upvote 0

chickenman

evil unamerican
May 8, 2002
1,376
7
43
Visit site
✟24,874.00
no npeterly, i'm assuming an intelligent creator wouldn't create it that way. The reason I feel that way is because in order for it to be designed it must have some function, it clearly doesn't function as urate oxidase - so if its intelligently designed, it must have a new function. Until a new function is discovered, it remains functionless (its inarguably the most logical position to take), and therefore - not designed.
 
Upvote 0