When will people realize ya can't put an Infinite Spirit under a microscope to prove It exists? Lol (gospels, organization)

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by pneuma

LMAO you just proved my point

A tree fort is both complex and highly specific, yes? So it is not probable it evolved into a fort, yes? Good, we agree on that.

DNA anyone.

So your DNA is the same as that of Ray Comfort's banana?

You DO understand what the term highly specific means, do you not?

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

I wondered whether that was a missed link. That one (clearly quotemined for the purposes of the Creationist site) merely recognises that the Judge drew on the scientific material presented, rather than wrote it himself, which he couldn't do as he was not a scientist.

.

Whether it is a christian site or not it still show the plagiarism and what other scientists thought of the judge plagiarizing the ACLU findings.

The fact remains that his digging into the science showed that I/D was Not science (even if I/C was, but happened to be wrong) and that digging into the Evidence presented by Behe, it was clear that ID was Creationism dressed up as science.
I say again - if the Creationists side had agreed with you that Judge Jones' conclusions could be shown to be unsound, they would have appealed. Creationism may be short on a number of things but money isn't one of them

I don't believe he did for if he did as some of his rulings make no sense.

He said in his ruling that ID had no peer reviewed paper, yet they did.

So if he actually did the digging you say he did he should have been well aware of this.

I don't think the judge knew anything about the issues at stake, grabbed a hold of what the ACLU gave him, said that sounds good to me and then ruled accordingly.

Anyway since when does a judge get to say what is and is not science that should be the prerogative of the scientific community and many of the scientific community would disagree with the judges view of methodological naturalism.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by pneuma

LMAO you just proved my point

A tree fort is both complex and highly specific, yes? So it is not probable it evolved into a fort, yes? Good, we agree on that.

DNA anyone.

A Bee -hive is also very specific and complex. Intelligently designed or a product of evolved instinct? You tell me. A Snowflake is pretty specific and complex. Intelligently designed, or a product of nature? You tell me. A feather is very specific and highly complex. Intelligently designed or naturally evolved?

I'll tell you.

At the outset of the evolution -debate i may tell you that I was looking at both sides. I didn't find a problem with eye evolution at all - nature has examples of eyes in all evolutionary stages. But I was bothered by the feather. How could something so perfectly adapted for flying evolved before the critter knew that it needed to fly? That even aside that it couldn't think anyway.

The feathered dinosaurs gradually cleared up the problem. In fact it is a touchstone example of how I/C is false - the feather - originally NOT for flying, became gradually adapted to serve that purpose until some dinosaurs were so near true birds that Creationists now claim that they are True Birds and ignore the obvious reptilian features.

No, Pneuma, old mate. Specialisation and complexity is not by any means an indicator of design by an intelligent creator. We can recognise something artificial because we have previously seen something of the kind and we know how it is done. This - not mere Observation and jumping to commonsense guesswork conclusions - is what science is about.

And science tells us that DNA is evolved from RNA, which is evolved from Proteins which are evolved from Amino acids which are evolved from biochemicals which are present in the universe.

The complexity and specialisation of DNA is not in itself evidence of Intelligent Design.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

This has been explained to you. There is NO life - none life problem, there is just the problem of how this chemical process became internal.



MORE dishonesty. Does it NEVER end?

1), evolutionnews.org misrepresents all the time, so posting that link does you no credit.

2) it misrepresents Larry Moran, who in the comments admits he made a mistake by not looking at ALL the evidence. You can read it in the comments here - https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/1...ver-trial.html

3) you really need to start investigating things yourself instead of relying on creationist sites.

LMAO you should really read your own links

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by pneuma

Whether it is a christian site or not it still show the plagiarism and what other scientists thought of the judge plagiarizing the ACLU findings.

And here is Professor Moran admitting his mistake.

"Thanks for posting the link "coin." I found the "Proposed Finding of Fact."

Oh, silly me. I didn't read it when it was first posted and I didn't go back and compare it to Judge Jone's decision when it was published a month later.

You are right. I have no one to blame but myself for thinking that Jones had become an expert on the definition of science. Those who let me keep on thinking that are completely blameless."

https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/1...ver-trial.html

Originally Posted by pneuma

I don't think the judge knew anything about the issues at stake, grabbed a hold of what the ACLU gave him, said that sounds good to me and then ruled accordingly.

What you think is irrelevant. What the science shows is relevant.

Originally Posted by pneuma

Anyway since when does a judge get to say what is and is not science that should be the prerogative of the scientific community and many of the scientific community would disagree with the judges view of methodological naturalism.

Most would agree evolution is true, and it is on THEIR testimony that the judge made his ruling. That you have to pretend this is not the case is amusing, yet adds nothing to the conversation.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by pneuma

LMAO you should really read your own links

Shall I quote Professor Moran again?

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

A Bee -hive is also very specific and complex. Intelligently designed or a product of evolved instinct? You tell me. A Snowflake is pretty specific and complex. Intelligently designed, or a product of nature? You tell me. A feather is very specific and highly complex. Intelligently designed or naturally evolved?

I agree they are very specific and complex but why should I jump to the conclusion that evolution has the proper theory concerning them? methodological naturalism rules out ID so they just beg the question.

If another theory can explain specified information better it does not even get looked at because of the begging of the question to start with.

And by the way I am not against evolution (micro) but I disagree with marco.

Just because micro is and has been proven does not mean micro proves marco and yet I am told all the time that it does.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by pneuma

Whether it is a christian site or not it still show the plagiarism and what other scientists thought of the judge plagiarizing the ACLU findings.

You are missing the point. I showed that it was One scientist (if there had been others, I'm sure we would have had them quoted) who mentioned that the Judge used the scientific material presented, as he should. That it appeared to be misrepresented as arguing that the judgement was unsafe was explained by the site being Creationist. It doesn't alter that fact that it doesn't make the judgement unsafe, and they could have appealed if it wasn't. I wasn't making bias the basis of my rebuttal and you only show that you have no rebuttal of your own by predending that I am.

I don't believe he did for if he did as some of his rulings make no sense.

He said in his ruling that ID had no peer reviewed paper, yet they did.

So if he actually did the digging you say he did he should have been well aware of this.

I don't think the judge knew anything about the issues at stake, grabbed a hold of what the ACLU gave him, said that sounds good to me and then ruled accordingly.

Anyway since when does a judge get to say what is and is not science that should be the prerogative of the scientific community and many of the scientific community would disagree with the judges view of methodological naturalism.

So far as i am aware ID itself has no peer -reviewed paper. There are peer -reviewed papers that are by Creationists. If they are perfectly good science, they will pass peer review. That is not the same as papers showing intelligent design in what is taken as natural. The only one I can recall is the one on Polonium Haloes which was later held up as evidence for a Young Earth. If there had been anything peer -reviewed that validated ID, I am sure the Creationist sites would have told us by now.

By the way - short lived Creationist journal to 'peer -review' their own stuff doesn't count.

Originally Posted by pneuma

I agree they are very specific and complex but why should I jump to the conclusion that evolution has the proper theory concerning them? methodological naturalism rules out ID so they just beg the question.

If another theory can explain specified information better it does not even get looked at because of the begging of the question to start with.

And by the way I am not against evolution (micro) but I disagree with marco.

Just because micro is and has been proven does not mean micro proves marco and yet I am told all the time that it does.

I already gave 2 examples - the feathered dinosaur proves that evolution of specific and complex bio -featured are explainable through evolution and do not require an intelligent designer.

The cetan sequence proves 'macro ' evolution. I could explain in detail but it would go too far into 'evolution -theory' (if I haven't already done so).

This Answers the question - it does not 'beg' it.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Most would agree evolution is true, and it is on THEIR testimony that the judge made his ruling. That you have to pretend this is not the case is amusing, yet adds nothing to the conversation.

if the judge had of ruled without plagiarizing the ACLU I would have no issues with his ruling, other then disagreeing with it, but we all know when someone plagiarizes something the one plagiarizing is cheating.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

You are missing the point. I showed that it was One scientist (if there had been others, I'm sure we would have had them quoted) who mentioned that the Judge used the scientific material presented, as he should. That it appeared to be misrepresented as arguing that the judgement was unsafe was explained by the site being Creationist. It doesn't alter that fact that it doesn't make the judgement unsafe, and they could have appealed if it wasn't. I wasn't making bias the basis of my rebuttal and you only show that you have no rebuttal of your own by predending that I am.



So far as i am aware ID itself has no peer -reviewed paper. There are peer -reviewed papers that are by Creationists. If they are perfectly good science, they will pass peer review. That is not the same as papers showing intelligent design in what is taken as natural. The only one I can recall is the one on Polonium Haloes which was later held up as evidence for a Young Earth. If there had been anything peer -reviewed that validated ID, I am sure the Creationist sites would have told us by now.

By the way - short lived Creationist journal to 'peer -review' their own stuff doesn't count.

Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).
Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).
Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).
Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).
Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).
Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).
Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code,” Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013).
Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).
Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).
Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).
Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).
David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).
Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).
Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).
Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).
Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985).
A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).
Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).
Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).
William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).


and for a bunch more

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...nload&id=10141