Posted on 12/05/2005 4:06:56 AM PST by PatrickHenry
I'm mulling over the tinkering designer challenge, but work calls.
Cordially,
My own lack of expertise is clearly demonstrated in the previous post. UBX is a HOX gene.
Wow! Is there a school where ReMine learned to write scientific-seeming gobbledegook like that? Joyce would be proud.
Google the postmodernism generator.
This is very true; it's not random chance, it's governed by the laws of chemistry, and when you apply those, you find out the formation isn't just highly improbable, it's improbable to the point of being impossible. Behe goes into some of the chemistry in his book Darwin's Black Box.
Just like Sodium and Chlorine will always form ordered crystals when evaporated from solution, there are some chemical reactions that will NOT occur no matter how much time you give them. Graphite turning to diamond under STP, Helium-Oxide, Lithium permanganate, Oxygen Sulfate, etc.
I challenge ReMine to give a simple answer to this simple question in his Round 3 response: "Does Walter ReMine think humans and chimpanzees descended from a recent common ancestor?"
Devastating if it were true, but it isn't. Among other problems, you can't calculate the probability of a long series of events without knowing the steps in the series. Behe has just extended the god of the gaps argument to a currently unsolved problem.
Asserting that a problem cannot be solved because it has not yet been solved is the single greatest evil possible in the world, because it denies reason and imagination.
The most evil thing in the world is hyperbole.
The most evil thing in the world is being a smartass.
You can't read contextually, can you. This was for HIGHER VERTEBRATES. Remember that? Guess not.
This misbegotten effort by you to obfuscate your chalatan ways....is manifest. Your side is doing the hocus-pocus and to label Remine the "charlatan" is dishonesty on steroid. You are shown up when you misquote him this way. SO, wake up and smell the coffee.
And medved was the one always thumped on the Haldane Dilemma, not vice versa. Seems to me he did the same as you, misquoting.
So you are busted: All smoke, mirrors, bafflegab, distraction, and evasion.
Yup, that's you.
The School is called the ToE.
Sorry, it is true. Unlike biological evolution, you've trod on the ground of Physics and Chemistry, true, experimental sciences. Chemists and Physicists don't do archaeological digs and declare they've found a missing link. Chemists and Physicists look at actual, existing chemicals and perform experiments with empirical analysis.
These chemicals have been analyzed. We have re-created some in the laboratory and know the steps involved. Others we've analyzed in the cell as they are being manufactured. The only probabilities involved are the ones that determine chemical reactions: electron affinity, orbitals, activation energies, etc.
We have observed empirically, using the known laws of physics and chemistry, that the intermediate compounds in the steps of formation are chemically unstable and will spontaneously break down outside the specialized environment of the living cell.
Asserting that a problem cannot be solved because it has not yet been solved is the single greatest evil possible in the world, because it denies reason and imagination.
I never said the problem of the origins of life cannot be solved. I said that spontaneous generation is categorically ruled out by the laws of physics. This is a step toward a solution because we have now found one explanation that will not work and we can quit wasting time pursuing it.
However, your comment of devastating shows that you are an idealogue on this issue. The idea of finding out that spontaneous generation, or other purely naturalistic explanation is devastating shows that you are NOT interested in going wherever the evidence leads, but that you will accept one and only one destination.
Sorry, none of the arguments have been refuted either and many of the quotes imply all argument have been refuted. Keep digging.
Imagin my surprise that you would say this.
Many forms of mathamatics, theoretical chemistry, and theoretical physics (to name a few).
Try these links:
National Center for Theoretical Sciences
"Partly I believe this can be chalked up to the ID proponents not having clue one on how to test for design. Their whole thesis revolves around, "this looks like it was designed, so therefore it must have been -- and besides, Darwin sucks." "
I would tend to agree with you about testing and the scientific method if it should be written into text books as fact. I believe intelligent design happened, but perhaps advocates of teaching such should be compared with written accounts of creation and scientifically tested in a lab.
Einstein believed in intelligent design. He prayed to God that he would uncover the secret of light. The bible says that God is light. Einstein set-up scientific process that explains light and transformation to matter. Could you quantify God is light? It sure explains a lot about E=MC2, the big bang and the process of creation. It also explains how God is an etheral being, not constrained by time. In fact, at the speed of light time ceases to exist, it stops. Science quantifies much of the creation story and perhaps that statement alone should be written in text books. But demanding it be written into text books as the scientific process is, well that is a bit premature.
Science is not limited to the material realm. Remember, thoughts are not material yet science can study the thought process.
Uh oh.
Am I in trouble again?
;)
That is not the sense in which any literate person from Thomas Aquinus on has used it.
It has always meant "transcending the powers or ordinary course of nature"
But if your "what will eventually discovered to have a natural explanation" is to be used, how will that erxplanation ever be found if science declines to look for it. In other words
Perhaps you can tell us how science can abandon empiricism and still be science.
Yeah. Right.
For an avowed aristotalian
I never claimed to be an "aristotalian"
Science concerns itself with things that can be detected.
Tell that to Theoretical Physicists
Science concerns itself with things that can be detected. Science does not claim that the things it can detect are the only things that exist.
So you are claiming non-material things exist - but science can't concern itself with them yet science is not materialistic. Yeah. Right.
Philosophical materialists claim that only what you can detect, exists. Ergo, scientists are not philosophical materialists.
Yeah. Right. You claim science can only concern itself with material things yet science is not materialistic. Right. Fancy bit of tapdancng you are doing here. The text of YOUR definition of science is the definition of Materialism. In your definitions - in regards to science, only the material exists. Then you go on to try and claim science knows there are non-material things but somehow science is unable to study them.
HINT: All thought is based on some sort of philosophy. All thinking is based on a priori assumptions. Your definition of science claims science has an a priori assumption of materialism. That was may point all along. Materialism is the dogma (the a priori assumption) of many that claim to be men of science. Materialism is not a requirement of science any more than Christianity was a true requirement of science is medieval europe.
Ergo, scientists are not philosophical materialists. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Sorry dude - nearly nonsensical rambling does not constitute proof.
You claim science can only deal with the material yet science is not materialist - like your earlier statements, that statement is completely contradictory and is certainly not proof.
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.