Failing to concede the truth, as you've done, is hardly grounds for intellectual celebration.
Posted on 01/22/2005 7:38:12 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Failing to concede the truth, as you've done, is hardly grounds for intellectual celebration.
Maybe it's the "member since this afternoon" signup date, but I suspect you're right here.
No it does not. Design is an iterative process that includes natural selection. Even the most carefully designed objects are just guesses. Those that work survive and get incorporated into more complex objects. No one ever designed a jetliner from first principles. Designs evolve.
Let's get something straight about the concept of evolution. It does not care about the source or cause of change or modification. The change may or may not be caused by a conscious entity, but selection operates on the change regardless of its source.
Darwin never made a single specific claim about how modification occurred. He couldn't. He knew nothing about genetics. What he observed and recorded is the fact that changes are subject to selection, and selection shapes the direction of change.
You are a conservative. You believe that free markets are more efficient than planned economies. Why is that? Surely intelligently designed economies should be better. If not, why not? The answer again, as noted by Darwin and Adam Smith, is that the invisible hand of selection is the best and most efficient designer, even when the objects being selected by the invisible hand are the product of a conscious entity.
Talk about gilding the lily! Dumbing down a creationist mathematical probablity strawman! What'll they dumb down next?
In brief, it is mathematically impossible, given the 17 billion years in age of our universe, for unaided processes to precisely sequence data longer than a few scores.
In brief, you'd have to model every possible unaided process to make such a statement. Please show your work.
Big Bang has had its ups and downs. Hardly a decade goes by that it isn't falsified.
"No it does not. Design is an iterative process that includes natural selection. Even the most carefully designed objects are just guesses. Those that work survive and get incorporated into more complex objects. No one ever designed a jetliner from first principles. Designs evolve." -js1138
Nonsense. Intelligent Design explains how computer viri are programmed (e.g. by an intelligent human programmer, among other methods). That the design doesn't start out perfect is irrelevant.
What matters is whether the *software* itself is evolving without aid, or whether it is the designer of the software that intelligently improves said software design over time.
Ditto for self-replicating machines, artificially intelligent software, cloning, etc.
Let's get something straight about Intelligent Design; it does not require that Darwinism be disproven for Intelligent Design to be correct.
At the present time, that's merely a side-effect.
I misspoke. ID does explain biological processes, in that anything in biology can be shown to be the way the Designer intended it. Therefore, ID can't be falsified, and is therefore not science.
The math for sequencing with or without aid/bias was provided in my original post to this thread in a link.
Now, since I've shown my work, your next post must be to show *your* math to the contrary (you can't).
Intelligent Design *can* potentially be falsified in regards to abiogenesis (see Steen Rasmussen's current experiment at Los Alamos for more on that angle).
In the meantime, Intelligent Design *can't* be falsified for its explanation of how computer viri, cloning attempts, artificially intelligent software, and self-replicating machines are created...simply because ID *is* the correct explanation to all of the above...and falsification of the truth is simply not possible in any honest debate.
Good link but loses the light-hearted touch as it goes along. The author could have had more fun with the premise.
YMBAFI... you think the cavemen were survivors of Noah's Flood.
YMBAFI... you think 99.99 percent of the world's scientists are members of the "religious cult" of evolution but the authorities in science (the other 0.01 percent) have proven them wrong.
YMBAFI... the people who think a "yom" could mean 100 million years as easily as a real 24-hour day are going to burn in Hell forever alongside Hitler, Stalin, and Stephen Jay Gould.
And so forth.
The Ayatolla's demand their teachings and only their teachings. In that respect, they have a lot more in common with evolutionists.
ID proponents want people to have all the information and make up their own mind.
Is this hard to understand or just hard to read?
The math in the link that I provided is valid for all sequencing processes. No exceptions. It is comprehensive.
Thus, your request was answered long before you even demanded it, yet you haven't been able to figure that simple reality out. Methinks that you may therefore be in a debate that is a bit over your head.
As predicted, you still haven't shown your own math to the contrary even though I've shown my work.
Perhaps in your next post...
(Ah to to give credit where it isn't due, come on, we all know that you can't show math to the contrary)
Your head being impenetrable is not my problem.
You still haven't shown your math to the contrary of the math that I showed.
Perhaps in your *next* post...
If the background microwave radiation predicted by the theory could not be found -- that would definitely be a blow against the Big Bang theory.
Well...I suppose I'll just vanish into thin air then.
The federal government has no business in local school matters. The Department of Education should be abolished and all powers and responsibilities for education returned to the states.
Fine, I agree with you, but how does that make violating the first amendment any more legal?
ID has had its ups and downs. Hardly a decade goes by that it isn't tried to be falsified.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.