Unintelligent Design?

[Papias]

Topic #1:
1. SW has not yet agreed that there are thousands of papers by evolution supporters, and few if any by creationists.

SW wrote:

And the same answer, ad nausium, is two fold:

We don't know who is and who isn't a creationist from THEIR point of view,
nor enough details to define who is and who isn't from YOUR definition.

You simply repeated that from before. As before, your first point is solved by the fact that I've posted data showing that 95+ percent of scientists aren't creationists - your word games not withstanding.

Secondly, a defining feature of such papers would include the conclusion pointing to a supernatural influence.
This is not allowed in scientific literature. SO such papers can be found in non scientific literature sources such
as that at ICR and AIG. This is where they belong.

And as before, your second point was answered by the fact that creationists bend over backwards to claim that their points are indeed based on evidence, and hence should be in scientific journals, as seen by the whole "intelligent design" movement. You've so far ignored this several times - you don't have to take my word for it, you can get it right from the horse's mouth: Explaining the Science of Intelligent Design

​

2. The vast majority of scientists support the idea of humans and all living creatures having evolved from earlier, different forms.

A. Very few such scientists actually work in areas where they could check any data on their own. Maybe 1%. Most scientists, go with the flow on such topics outside their chosen specialty.

Wrong. Many areas of science are affected by and can test parts of evolution, including genetics, physiology, medicine, molecular biology, anthropology, ethnology, psychology, environmental science, geology, palenontology, and obvious ones like biology, herpetology, pathology, and so on. That's a lot more than 1%.

B. No matter what one may personally believe, people will work with the information given them. As most scientists are trained with information from a specific point of view, they will stick to that view for much of their life or career. This explains why many Creationists are retired professionals. Dr. Colins explains this pressure to conform well.

False for (at least) two reasons. First, you act as if people are robots, which is false. SEcondly, remember that the ideas of evolution and an old earth, among many others, had to grow from a time when no one held them. If scientists simply repeated what they were taught, no new ideas would start. Thirdly, retired professionals are a huge point against creationism - there are literally millions of retired scientists - if what you were saying were true, then there would be millions of vocal creationists among those retired scientists - and yet we hear nary a peep. Their lack of support for creationism speaks volumes.

C. Training in evolution starts in Kindergarten. I would be shocked if a majority was not influenced.
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&keyw...rgarten&page=1
Human Evolution - Kids Science Videos, Games and Lessons that Make Learning Fun and Easy

So did the training in a world created by God without evolution back in the early 1800's. Again you seem to be arguing that ideas can't change.

D. Is there a tendency for those who believe that all of nature has a natural explanation to study the Natural Sciences? Thus skewing the results of your "telling" statistics? I feel It would be hard for you to say "No".

If you'd like to post evidence of such a tendency, in a controlled study, then please do so. Plus, a "tendencey" may shift results a little, but isn't going to give an overwhelming majority, and certainly wont' be sufficient to explain why practically all scientists support evolution, including millions who are Christian. (fixed - thanks.)

I did not know he was a baby Christian. His story shows that his journey in faith is new and growing and evolving. There are no signs that he has studied the bible at all, so he has a rich journey ahead of him and I wish him well.
Galatians 4:3 So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world.

Oh, and SW plays the "Christianer than thou" card. Great. And we wonder why we get a bad name. I accept Dr. Collins as full brother in Christ. In fact, I accept SW as a full brother in Christ.

So, I have to ask again -

3. Did you really not know that Dr. Collins was a huge evolution supporter before you brought him up?

4. We agree that we don't know the function or lack of function of each part of the genome.
​

5. Your statement that you somehow know that all DNA is needed is unsupported and goes against clear evidence, such as the paramecia, which you refuse to discuss.
​

That's because everything serves a function.

SW again repeats his false statement without providing any support for it. Why am I not surprised?

I agree that we don't know what that function is. Even with your worm example.

Do you understand the paramecia example? If so, could you explain it so we can see that you at least understand it, even if you don't agree?

That's not what quote mining is. When one provides the source, quote mining is impossible.

False. Providing the source in no way makes your quotemining into anything other than quotemining.

Christians often use bible passages without reciting the entire book they come from. Perhaps you've done that. Perhaps not.

and sometimes they do that out of context, which is quote mining, and sometimes it fits the context, which is not quote mining.

Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

1. SW has not yet agreed that there are thousands of papers by evolution supporters, and few if any by creationists.You simply repeated that from before. As before, your first point is solved by the fact that I've posted data showing that 95+ percent of scientists aren't creationists

I didn't notice your data.

And as before, your second point was answered by the fact that creationists bend over backwards to claim that their points are indeed based on evidence, and hence should be in scientific journals, as seen by the whole "intelligent design" movement. You've so far ignored this several times - you don't have to take my word for it, you can get it right from the horse's mouth: Explaining the Science of Intelligent Design

I don't pay attention to Creationist organizations. I'm sure you're observations are valid.

Wrong. Many areas of science are affected by and can test parts of evolution, including genetics, physiology, medicine, molecular biology, anthropology, ethnology, psychology, environmental science, geology, palenontology, and obvious ones like biology, herpetology, pathology, and so on. That's a lot more than 1%.

I fully support reproducible data.

False for (at least) two reasons. First, you act as if people are robots, which is false. SEcondly, remember that the ideas of evolution and an old earth, among many others, had to grow from a time when no one held them. If scientists simply repeated what they were taught, no new ideas would start. Thirdly, retired professionals are a huge point against creationism - there are literally millions of retired scientists - if what you were saying were true, then there would be millions of vocal creationists among those retired scientists - and yet we hear nary a peep. Their lack of support for creationism speaks volumes.

As much as the lack of life off the Earth "speaks volumes."



S

o did the training in a world created by God without evolution back in the early 1800's. Again you seem to be arguing that ideas can't change.

People have the option to change if they embrace new paradigms. But ideas, not being intelligent, don't have the functionality to change.

If you'd like to post evidence of such a tendency, in a controlled study, then please do so. Plus, a "tendencey" may shift results a little, but isn't going to give an overwhelming majority, and certainly wont' be sufficient to explain why practically all scientists reject evolution, including millions who are Christian.

I'm sure you meant "Creationism". No need to edit. I get your drift.
People, of every background recognize changes in populations. Heck, my gran'kids have a different skin color than me. Changes happen in one generation. "Evolution" if you will. Am I to believe that because, in one (two) generation(s), the changes I've seen in the skin color of my gran'kids, means that all of society will become that color and they are better adapted to the current climate than past generations?

Also, not everyone has swallowed the idea that apes have evolved from sea creatures. And I really doubt that 99%, of those that have taken the bait, have the background to evaluate the data and make a fully informed, independent choice in the matter. If you have data to the contrary, I would like to see it.

Oh, and SW plays the "Christianer than thou" card. Great. And we wonder why we get a bad name. I accept Dr. Collins as full brother in Christ. In fact, I accept SW as a full brother in Christ.

My error. I only used the one article for reference. I apologize.

SW again repeats his false statement without providing any support for it. Why am I not surprised?

WHO are you preaching to? Please step away from the microphone. I can hear you fine.
A search on "Junk DNA" returns 300,000+ results.
"Junk DNA" is the IDEA that there is DNA that has no value.
The first 3 pages of results say that the idea has been discrediteded.
I understand that you likely have no background in Page Rank, linking, and traffic factors that determine how Google ranks it's results.

On page factors, off page factors, keyword density, internal links, external links, URL influences, page size, over-optimization penalties, cross linking, use of frames, and many more.

Suffice to say that the first 1-3 pages of any Google search you do will generally return "peer-reviewed" results that match the thinking of the general population.

And if they say that "Junk DNA" or DNA that has no function is a dead idea, then it true. Junk DNA is dead.

Your torch has been extinguished. Go home and weep. "Junk DNA" is Dead.

Do you understand the paramecia example? If so, could you explain it so we can see that you at least understand it, even if you don't agree?

Not interested in looking at even one worm. If you think it proves your case, by all means, explain it to everyone who will listen.

False. Providing the source in no way makes your quotemining into anything other than quotemining.

Then you don't know what quote-mining is.
Choose your citation format or live with my method. APA is what my B.A. degree program requires.
APA, MLA, Turabian, and Chicago Citation Styles

 

[lucaspa]

Anyone ever wonder why much of creation seems to be made by a very poor designer?

Take for instance the human body: why would God place a procreation/entertainment system (penis, vagina) with a sewage system (urinary tract)?

Ah, I see you've heard the joke about that!

Yes, there are stupid designs in living organisms. This is one reason Christians dumped Special Creation for evolution so readily. The opposition (like the Wilberforce-Huxley debate) was very short. Within 25 years of the publication of Origin of Species, all of Christianity had accepted evolution. Ironically, evolution would not gain as widespread acceptance within the scientific community until the 1940s.

Natural selection is an unintelligent method of getting design. Natural selection got God off the hook for all the stupid and sadistic designs in plants and animals. God no longer directly made the designs, natural selection did.

 

[lucaspa]

I Then you don't know what quote-mining is.
Choose your citation format or live with my method.

I'm afraid it is you who is demonstrating an ignorance of quote-mining. Quote-mining is massive quoting out of context. It means going through lots of articles/books and taking out quotes that are presented as supporting a position -- such as opposition to evolution -- when, in reality, in context the writer is saying nothing of the sort. It doesn't matter what format you present the mined quotes in -- APA or NIH -- it is still quote mining.
Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm afraid it is you who is demonstrating an ignorance of quote-mining. Quote-mining is massive quoting out of context. It means going through lots of articles/books and taking out quotes that are presented as supporting a position -- such as opposition to evolution -- when, in reality, in context the writer is saying nothing of the sort. It doesn't matter what format you present the mined quotes in -- APA or NIH -- it is still quote mining.
Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, it does matter. And your source says nothing about "massive". You seem to know nothing about citing of sources. Copywrite laws REQUIRE that the amount of text copied is minimal. So keeping quotes in context is not possible and requires links to the original work. If such links are provided, them quote-mining is impossible. Plain and simple.

Quote mining refers to the practice of quoting out of context and with no details as to the original source material.

Note your source:
"Quoting out of context" means taking somebody's words and imputing a meaning to them other than the meaning the author / speaker intended. It's a kind of misquotation. On the other hand, going through someone's published works looking for statements which contradict the author's main points is seen as (1) acceptable, even valuable by some"

Note the word "Valuable".

 

[SkyWriting]

What hubris it takes scientists to declare non-coding DNA "junk" only because they don't know its function.

The concept has been dismissed. One researcher noted that nobody actually said it was useless in the first place. At the time they used the phrase, they admitted it was simply DNA for which a function had not yet been found. My guess is that any changes in DNA have an effect that could be mapped like a tree of almost infinite size.

Right now we look for things like a missing hand or such.

Not really, but I use that hand comment to illustrate how just crude our current analysis is.

 

[SkyWriting]

Will there be aliens in heaven?

Undocumented immigrants will get the proper papers first.

 

[SkyWriting]

Ah, I see you've heard the joke about that!

Yes, there are stupid designs in living organisms.

You failed to document even one "stupid design" when we covered that topic.
An example would be a "corrective surgery" that all people should get.
A legitimate theory would have a LIST of such corrections that people
could get if they had unlimited funding. None exists.

The highest thing people aspire to is having plain average organs that remain healthy as designed.
There are no beneficial mutations for people to long for. There is no such thing. Never has been.

 

[Papias]

Back to our topics:

Topic #1:
1. SW has not yet agreed that there are thousands of papers by evolution supporters, and few if any by creationists.

SW, you simply repeated that from before. As before, your first point is solved by the fact that I've posted data showing that 95+ percent of scientists aren't creationists



SW wrote:

I didn't notice your data.

Post #134, page 14: Here is some data on what scientists understand about evolution:

from Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, the same poll shows that a good chunk of scientists believe in God, in agreement with you data.

2. The vast majority of scientists support the idea of humans and all living creatures having evolved from earlier, different forms.

SW wrote:

Papias wrote:

Many areas of science are affected by and can test parts of evolution, including genetics, physiology, medicine, molecular biology, anthropology, ethnology, psychology, environmental science, geology, palenontology, and obvious ones like biology, herpetology, pathology, and so on. That's a lot more than 1%.

I fully support reproducible data.
​

Obviously, you don't, because it is based on reproducible data that the experts in all of these fields, based on their expert analysis, consistently come to the conclusion in support of evolution (common descent).


SW wrote:

Papias wrote:

Thirdly, retired professionals are a huge point against creationism - there are literally millions of retired scientists - if what you were saying were true, then there would be millions of vocal creationists among those retired scientists - and yet we hear nary a peep. Their lack of support for creationism speaks volumes.

As much as the lack of life off the Earth "speaks volumes."

Non sequiter. You intitially stated that a "pressure to conform" keeps a supposed large number of creationist scientists from speaking up. I pointed out that "pressure to conform" doesn't apply to retired scientists, who have no career goals to lose, and you replied by citing the lack of life on other planets? What?

If you want to discuss that topic, you can start a thread on it. Otherwise, it's a red herring.

​

sw wrote:

And I really doubt that 99%, of those that have taken the bait, have the background to evaluate the data and make a fully informed, independent choice in the matter. If you have data to the contrary, I would like to see it.

Moving the goalposts. First you deny that practically all scientists support evolution, and now you instead want proof that they have evaluated data in their own feild? So before we go onto that, does your moving of the goalposts mean that you now agree that practically all scientists support evolution?

3. Did you really not know that Dr. Collins was a huge evolution supporter before you brought him up?

sw wrote:

My error. I only used the one article for reference. I apologize.

Thank you, no problem. Does that answer question #3?



4. We agree that we don't know the function or lack of function of each part of the genome.


sw wrote:

And if they say that "Junk DNA" or DNA that has no function is a dead idea, then it true. Junk DNA is dead.

Your torch has been extinguished. Go home and weep. "Junk DNA" is Dead.

As pointed out earlier, you are trying to change my stateent that the paramecia example shows that some DNA is not needed into a new statement of "all previously posited junk DNA is really junk", and then citing papers to prove your second, strawman, statement false. That's a classic strawman fallacy, and that may be why you refuse to discuss the paramecia example.

5. Your statement that you somehow know that all DNA is needed is unsupported and goes against clear evidence, such as the paramecia, which you refuse to discuss.

​

sw wrote:

Not interested in looking at even one worm. If you think it proves your case, by all means, explain it to everyone who will listen.

I did, back in post #75 of this thread, about 10 pages ago. You were part of that discussion then too. Yes, you've been refusing to look at evidence relevant to your argument for about 10 pages.


sw wrote:

Choose your citation format or live with my method. APA is what my B.A. degree program requires.

Sorry, the form of a citation is not relevant to whether or not someone quote mined. Now your quote mining has been pointed out by not just me, but another member as well. Even some of the most often quote mined lines, such as the Darwin eye quote, sometimes have the source cited.

SW, should we count the fallacies and deceptive tactics? Let's see, quote mining, unsupported statements, the refusal to look at evidence, Red herrings, moving the goalposts, and so on. You do serve as a great example of fallacy demonstration.

Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

Back to our topics:

Topic #1:
1. SW has not yet agreed that there are thousands of papers by evolution supporters, and few if any by creationists.

You admit that you don't know who is or who isn't a Creationist.
You can't get past that so, end of discussion.

 

[Papias]

SW wrote:

You admit that you don't know who is or who isn't a Creationist.
You can't get past that so, end of discussion.

No, I don't "admit" that. Instead, I've shown three separate lines of evidence, all of which agree with each other that practically all scientists support evolution. As usual, you response seems independent of the thread content.


SW, I see that you ignored the whole post. Since we are on a new page, for your convenience, I'll repost it below.

Plus, I can see adding a #6:

Does SW agree that quotemining is unacceptable, and that quotemining is independent of citation form?

And an addition to #5, which was:

5. Your statement that you somehow know that all DNA is needed is unsupported and goes against clear evidence, such as the paramecia, which you refuse to discuss.

Yet another piece of evidence that shows that SW's statement that "all DNA is needed" is simply false can be seen in the measured mutation rates. Mutation rates of animals (including humans) vary by many factors and usually come in at around dozens of mutations per birth, sometimes in the hundreds. Since harmful mutations are more likely than beneficial mutations (some being deadly), one would expect incredible problems with caused by literally dozens of harmful mutations with every birth, the accumulated harm doubling with each generation, if SW were correct.

Instead, we don't see that at all. That is consistent with the idea that much of the genome is not doing anything, so harmful mutations in the areas that are not needed are irrelevant. If the genome does contain significant unneeded DNA, then a few dozen mutations could easily happen among the hundreds of millions of unneeded base pairs, with no visible effect, just as we see in the real world. In fact, the whole advanced field of molecular DNA clocks is based on this.

Papias

P. S. Here is that post that SW ignored:

**************

Back to our topics:

Topic #1:
1. SW has not yet agreed that there are thousands of papers by evolution supporters, and few if any by creationists.

SW, you simply repeated that from before. As before, your first point is solved by the fact that I've posted data showing that 95+ percent of scientists aren't creationists



SW wrote:

I didn't notice your data.

Post #134, page 14: Here is some data on what scientists understand about evolution:

from Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, the same poll shows that a good chunk of scientists believe in God, in agreement with you data.

2. The vast majority of scientists support the idea of humans and all living creatures having evolved from earlier, different forms.

SW wrote:

Papias wrote:

Many areas of science are affected by and can test parts of evolution, including genetics, physiology, medicine, molecular biology, anthropology, ethnology, psychology, environmental science, geology, palenontology, and obvious ones like biology, herpetology, pathology, and so on. That's a lot more than 1%.

I fully support reproducible data.
​

Obviously, you don't, because it is based on reproducible data that the experts in all of these fields, based on their expert analysis, consistently come to the conclusion in support of evolution (common descent).


SW wrote:

Papias wrote:

Thirdly, retired professionals are a huge point against creationism - there are literally millions of retired scientists - if what you were saying were true, then there would be millions of vocal creationists among those retired scientists - and yet we hear nary a peep. Their lack of support for creationism speaks volumes.

As much as the lack of life off the Earth "speaks volumes."

Non sequiter. You intitially stated that a "pressure to conform" keeps a supposed large number of creationist scientists from speaking up. I pointed out that "pressure to conform" doesn't apply to retired scientists, who have no career goals to lose, and you replied by citing the lack of life on other planets? What?

If you want to discuss that topic, you can start a thread on it. Otherwise, it's a red herring.

​

sw wrote:

And I really doubt that 99%, of those that have taken the bait, have the background to evaluate the data and make a fully informed, independent choice in the matter. If you have data to the contrary, I would like to see it.

Moving the goalposts. First you deny that practically all scientists support evolution, and now you instead want proof that they have evaluated data in their own feild? So before we go onto that, does your moving of the goalposts mean that you now agree that practically all scientists support evolution?

3. Did you really not know that Dr. Collins was a huge evolution supporter before you brought him up?

sw wrote:

My error. I only used the one article for reference. I apologize.

Thank you, no problem. Does that answer question #3?



4. We agree that we don't know the function or lack of function of each part of the genome.


sw wrote:

And if they say that "Junk DNA" or DNA that has no function is a dead idea, then it true. Junk DNA is dead.

Your torch has been extinguished. Go home and weep. "Junk DNA" is Dead.

As pointed out earlier, you are trying to change my stateent that the paramecia example shows that some DNA is not needed into a new statement of "all previously posited junk DNA is really junk", and then citing papers to prove your second, strawman, statement false. That's a classic strawman fallacy, and that may be why you refuse to discuss the paramecia example.

5. Your statement that you somehow know that all DNA is needed is unsupported and goes against clear evidence, such as the paramecia, which you refuse to discuss.

​

sw wrote:

Not interested in looking at even one worm. If you think it proves your case, by all means, explain it to everyone who will listen.

I did, back in post #75 of this thread, about 10 pages ago. You were part of that discussion then too. Yes, you've been refusing to look at evidence relevant to your argument for about 10 pages.


sw wrote:

Choose your citation format or live with my method. APA is what my B.A. degree program requires.

Sorry, the form of a citation is not relevant to whether or not someone quote mined. Now your quote mining has been pointed out by not just me, but another member as well. Even some of the most often quote mined lines, such as the Darwin eye quote, sometimes have the source cited.

SW, should we count the fallacies and deceptive tactics? Let's see, quote mining, unsupported statements, the refusal to look at evidence, Red herrings, moving the goalposts, and so on. You do serve as a great example of fallacy demonstration.

Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

SW wrote:

No, I don't "admit" that.

Yes, you said you don't know who is and who isn't a Creationist.
So there is no way for either of us to confirm how many papers are published by either group. End of Discussion.
You seem to know nothing about research.

 

[Papias]

Yes, you said you don't know who is and who isn't a Creationist.
So there is no way for either of us to confirm how many papers are published by either group. End of Discussion.
You seem to know nothing about research.

OK, then please quote that, and we can discuss it. Perhaps it was misunderstood, and I need to clarify or retract? You still didn't answer the rest of the post. I can only conclude that you now see that you are wrong on all those points as well.

Papias

 

[paul becke]

Anyone ever wonder why much of creation seems to be made by a very poor designer?

Take for instance the human body: why would God place a procreation/entertainment system (penis, vagina) with a sewage system (urinary tract)? Why would God not give us different orifices to breath and eat/drink? Just imagine, there would never have been anyone to die of choking.

Ever heard of the Fall, Endbag?

Still, you have a nerve using such a broad brush.

Darwin's God: Genes Have Play, Stop and Pause Buttons

 

[SkyWriting]

OK, then please quote that, and we can discuss it. Perhaps it was misunderstood, and I need to clarify or retract? You still didn't answer the rest of the post. I can only conclude that you now see that you are wrong on all those points as well. - Papias

The question at hand is your ability to think logically and rationally.
Your final sentence above has cleared up that question.

 

[Papias]

SW wrote:

The question at hand is your ability to think logically and rationally.

No, that's off-topic. This thread is about the many stupid designs we see in the animal kingdom.

So, another post with insults and no relevant content. Hmmmm.

You still have 6 points to address.

Papias

 

[chris4243]

The question at hand is your ability to think logically and rationally.
Your final sentence above has cleared up that question.

The question is why you're insulting a member of Christian Forums, rather than quoting where he said what you're pretending he said. I mean, one of these would prove your point beyond any shadow of doubt, the other ....

 

[SkyWriting]

The question is why you're insulting a member of Christian Forums, rather than quoting where he said what you're pretending he said. I mean, one of these would prove your point beyond any shadow of doubt, the other ....

I said that this statement proves a lack of reasoning:

You still didn't answer the rest of the post. I can only conclude that you now see that you are wrong on all those points as well. - Papias

I am addressing a direct point made. This poster claims he is unable to draw more than one conclusion.
It's not a personal attack or an insult. It's a fact he provided.
He is unable to use logic and reason to draw more than one conclusion.
Based on silence.....a null set.

 

[SkyWriting]

Lolz, go cry somewhere else, and quit pretending I don't know things that I do know. Boo hoo, you can't find any creationist data so you pretend that people can't tell that the author of a paper accepts evolution either by asking them or by seeing that the theory is implicit in other things they wrote.

Then you must have figured out I accept population changes and most evolutionary theory as a fact. It has no negative effect on my faith.
Like any scientist, I challenge some ideas. I don't swallow it whole.

 

[SkyWriting]

Ever heard of the Fall, Endbag?

He's not here and has never returned. We are just chatting on his interesting topic.
I've challenged people to come up with one example of poor design and none
have turned up. Kind of dumb, because even evolution worshipers believe
there are no truly bad designs. Only temporary unfit ones.