EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ ^

[valkyry1]

Wow, there is so much to go on there, mainly about ***, that I would have to make it in several separate posts/threads to do so.

But for now, your reply leads directly back to my interjection of

How about we don’t and look at yours on its own merits. When a person actually takes a look at it, it breaks down fairly fast.

[valkyry1]

I understand what you are saying, and I will try to come back to you on all of that.

My original statement? I am guessing that it is this

So many myths in evolution, one being the imperfectly self replicating molecule...

For now, I ask that you read back to yourself what you wrote to me, (forget about any cell) and really think about what you are saying as to any molecule, complex or simple.

[js1138]

How about we don’t and look at yours on its own merits. When a person actually takes a look at it, it breaks down fairly fast.

Evolution has been a theory in crisis since 1859. Not a year has passed that has not been its last. I'm sure it will still be on its last legs when you and I are worm food.

But in the meantime, why not amuse us by demonstrating how you are smarter than the tens of thousands of PhD scientists who have lived and worked in the past hundred and fifty years.

[cornelis]

And how would ID go about solving for x?

I won't speak for any IDer, but directly to you. This is not a mathematical problem. The term signifies something epistemological about ourselves. "solving for x" assumes x is some kind of problem. But what kind of problem? The fact that we don't know everything is problematic, but it may not ever be solved in the sense that we will know everything.

[js1138]

I thank you for clarifying that.

[b_sharp]

"I understand what you are saying, and I will try to come back to you on all of that.

"My original statement? I am guessing that it is this

"So many myths in evolution, one being the imperfectly self replicating molecule...

No, everything but that.

"For now, I ask that you read back to yourself what you wrote to me, (forget about any cell) and really think about what you are saying as to any molecule, complex or simple.

Are you referring to my comment about self replicating? If not, please be a little clearer.

[valkyry1]

You have thrown out a red herring or two there, and in doing so you have confirmed that you will strenuously avoid an independent objective critical look at your agent for biological design, evolution, based on its own merits.

[valkyry1]

I am trying to leave it as wide open as I can for you. I am trying to get you to see how many assumptions your ideas are based on, and I wonder how many of you fellows have ever really analyzed those assumptions.

You said: Abiogensis does not require that a modern cell spontaneously arise, what it does require is an imperfectly self replicating molecule subject to some time consistent selection, even remotely.

I said: So many myths in evolution, one being the imperfectly self replicating molecule... subject to some time consistent selection’ arising up out of the morass

You: What is hypothesized and is currently under research, is that a smaller less complex molecule, which in no way, other than possibly using amino acids, resembles a modern cell, through the processes of self replication and selection passed through many iterations, eventually developed into a modern cell.

Then I said: Okay.., here.., Take any molecule, H2O or any other molecule you might choose, or any imaginary or mythical molecule which may have existed now or in the past, and using your statement there, demonstrate the veracity of your assertion.

I don't know how many hints I have to give you, H2O is formed by H electro-chemically bonding with two O2 atoms, and then it is very stable under most conditions. Methane when it burns it is no longer methane, (reaching back into the memory) I would guess it is water, CO2 and maybe a few other by products.

There are no molecules internal or external to the cell, that are not brought about by other chemical processes. DNA RNA, etc., are created in the cell and used by the cell, but those chemicals too, are brought about by forces outside of them.

A molecule has neither the energy nor the volition to ‘self replicate’

Like I said: So many myths in evolution, one being the imperfectly self replicating molecule... subject to some time consistent selection’ arising up out of the morass

[Coyoteman]

You have thrown out a red herring or two there, and in doing so you have confirmed that you will strenuously avoid an independent objective critical look at your agent for biological design, evolution, based on its own merits.

And who is going to provide "an independent objective critical look" at evolution?

Fundamentalists? Creation "scientists?" The Dyscovery Institute?

Independent and objective, right! Tell us another one.

Talk about folks with an ax to grind, and folks without the scientific training or technical background required to competently evaluate the sciences.

All you have to do is look at the various creationist websites to see how "independent and objective" the really are. Here is a good example:

The Creation Research Society has the following on their website:

The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.

CRS Statement of Belief

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

Does this sound like science to you? Does this sound "independent and objective?"

Sorry, this is apologetics, not science. And folks like these are not qualified to provide "an independent objective critical look" at evolution. Not even close.

[CottShop]

all of Behe and Demskis arguments have failed? How so? You’ve doen nothign to show that macroevolution is even remotely possible, and htey’ve given some VERY serious probability limits that put the kaboshes to the idea totally- As well, the mathematical improbabilities calculated by the Wistar scientists make the idea of Macroevolution an impossiblity- Simply insinuating htat it isn’t entirely impossible, that a slight chance so miniscule as to be almost nill means the trillions of positive mutaitons needed for Macroevolution simply isn’t a rational feasbility.

[[The math is probably accurate depending on the size of the genes being calculated but it has nothing to do with reality or biology. It is based on irrelevant assumptions.]]

Irrelevent assumptions? please do explain. The fact is that these calculations are not just based on the necessity of one or several or even a few hundred positive mutations being produced, it’s based on the fact that the myriad of system changes that number in the trillions would neeed just as many positive and ever increasingly complex mutations in order for Macro to be aeven a slgiht possibility. The fact is that in al lthe years of study, practically every mutation seen has been either deleterious or neutral with only a VERY few having a benign unintended immediate positive effect, but the mutations htemselves are still deleteriosu and add to increased deaths. If we’re goign to talk about irrelevent assumptions, then we’re goign to have to include the assumptions that the process of Macroevolution solely rely on because wwe have nothign but assumptions to go on

[[Mutation varies, selection directs.]]

Selection directs MICROEvolution- there is no proof that it directed Macroevolution- none- there are only assumptions that it must have

[[No genes were produced by random chance. No evolutionary biologist claims they were. This by itself debunks this ‘proof’.]

That doesn’t disprove their calculations at all- of course the genes had to be produced by random chance- A mutation is a random mistake regardless of the selective pressures.

[[If evolution had to start with E. coli, and could not rely on the determinism of chemistry, the guidance of selection, and the tendency of simple processes passed through multiple iterations to result in complex structures, then he might have a point. However, that isn’t the case, life began from much simpler molecules and through the process of imperfect replication (just as happens now in DNA/RNA) filtered through selection (just as happens today) and through multiple iterations of those two, has developed complexity.]

Order from chaos does nothign to explain the intense complexities of even the ‘simplest’ life forms- the only examples of order from chaos given are VERY simplistic examples, and to suggest that the immense intelligently designed features of the myriad of species we have today came from ordered chaos of the most simplistic means is askign that we suspend knowledge and rely solely on faith that something that had only a 10 to the 300’th or so power chance of ever happening just once is beyond a reasonable request.

[[Don’t be impressed with big numbers (or extremely tiny ones either) without first understanding the relevance of those numbers to observations.]

The relevence is backed up by the complete lack of both scientific evidence and fossil records, not to mention current and past test investigations- so I thank you kindly, but I’ll stick with the much more reasonable ‘big numbers’ and leave faith out of the discussion.

[[Now, could you please tell me where to find this number 10350 you just threw out.]

You’re right- I did throw it out as anythign above 10 to a much lower power is really irrelevent anyways- The societies needed to sustain such chance occurences and continue on in an ever progressingly complex upward Macroevoltion are completely absent from the fossil records, and as the scientists showed, it would have meant that the first colnies had to be inches deep- coverign hte whole earth and needing billions of years just to advance to the next step IF Macroevolution were even a possibility-

We can shaow all the simpler ‘orders from chaos’ examples we like- but these examples do nothign to shore up the complexities and intellgiently designed compelxities we see in actual biology.

[CottShop]

[[I said Denton? If so I meant Demski...
I beg your pardon. In post #152 you said:

I highly recommend you read the chapter “The Enigma of Life’s Origin,” from a book called “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” by Michael Denton.

Since you were so specific, citing title and chapter, I am curious as to whether you have examined Denton’s latest book on the same subject.]]

Yes, I was going through several sites at hte time looking for hte information I was talking about, and I had that site open and mistakenl;y listed that- I apologize for the error and confusion- I would not have listed that on purpose I think- I’ll go back to my post and see if I can figure outr the point I was making and see if the book was related to my point.

I also mixed up my last reply- I responded to both you and B_Sharp by mistake i ntrhe same post- that’s what happens when you don’t feel good and when it’;s late- sorry again

[valkyry1]

Your reply is total non sequitur.

folks with an ax to grind, and folks without the scientific training or technical background required to competently evaluate the sciences.

& the tens of thousands of PhD scientists.

How about all of us together dig into all the thousands and thousands of PHD thesis on all the floors of all the libraries that you appeal too, and see how just many should be tossed out because they are now obsolete at the least, and essentially worthless because they were based to varying degrees on past works. Works in which those in turn were built on evidences that later turned out to be fraud fabrication, misinterpretation, wishful thinking, and so on.

I hardly came from a religious family, and my doubts as to evolution came entirley on my own during a time when it was ‘settled science’. A few years later I was at the Chicago museum walking through the entire evolution series of exhibits. And not only looking, but reading too. I I came along the ‘Java Man’, and there in tiny writing I read that Dubious had not released those fragments to the science world for over 60 years, and there were other similar little indicators about each exhibit.

A few years later at various University's, I actually did read 40 or 50 of these PHD thesis from various individuals, and a pattern emerged. I saw how unoriginal most of their works were, and it was based on other works, works later shown to be false and quietly shelved away.

When a person actually takes a look at it evolutionary thought, it breaks down fairly fast.

[CottShop]

No coyote- their PERSONAL BELIEFS OUTSIUDE OF THE SCIENCE don’t sound objective- but listen up- for hte last time- a club’s personal beleifs OUTSIDE OF THE FACTUAL SCIENCE have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACTS OF THE SCIENCE that ID Scientists study- nothign at all

EVERY statement of beleif is also ABSOLUTELY consistent with the science gathered as I’ve made more than clear to you in the past- this is what is so tiring about folks like you- We show time and itme again that things like htis- personal beleifs, outside of the actual factual science have NOTHING to do with the science, and are entirely consistent with the science, and yet you REPEATEDLY ignore the easily debunked accusations and try to imply that ID science begins and ends with a club’s own PERSONAL BELIEFS- when anyone with an odicum of common sense who has actually taken a look at hte PURE ID SCIENCE knows you accusation to be a false and dishonest misrepresentation of ID science. You scream about intellectual honesty when ID and Creation scientists make honest mistakes, and accuse htem of intentional misleadings when you quite BLATANTLY MISLEAD others time and tiem again about ID

[[1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths]]

There is NOTHING inconsistent with science about htis- when you can prove MACROEVOLUTION, THEN and ONLY then can you say that they are misled- until then ALL you have is your own PERSONAL BELIEF that man came from mud

[[2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds]

Since hwne are scientists NOT allowed their own PERSONAL OPINIONS in science? Since hwne Coyote? This statement has absolutely NOTHING to do with the scientific evidences gathered EXCEPT to validate the FACTS found in science that itnelligent design is commonplace in species and that created k9inds are MUCH BETTER supported by Baraminology than is the fractured and broekn hypothetical tree of Macroevolution

[[3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect]]

Of which they have evidnece that strongly suggests it happened- when you positively can prove that it couldn’t have happened, then you can belittle and malign anyone who holds the position all you like- until then ALL you have is your own PERSONAL OPINION that it didn’t happen

Pointing to their personal beleifs OUTSIDE of the LIGITIMATE science that they do is an intellectually dishonest, and intellectually stunted attempt to malign someone based on NOTHING but your own persoanl bias against htem- did you hear that coyote? Your own personal bias against htem- If you are claiming that people with personal beleifs can’t study science and present factual evidences that support their beleif in intelligent design, then you are showing that you sir are NOT objective at all- Shall we simply scoff and laugh at you and call you an agendist disciple of humanism and nothign but a pseudoscientist because you beleive in somethign that can NOT be shown with the science and is nothign but an assumption that is unproven ? Shall we repeatedly post our feeligns about that everytime you comment? Shall we simply ignore all the scientific facts that you present and dismiss them point blank because you hold PERSONAL OPINIONS that go BEYOND the science Coyote? Shall we call all your scientific evidences void and null and simply ignore any defense you mount time and time again and just keep chiuldishly posting htem as you do the PERSONAL STATEMENTS OF BELIEF OUTSIDE OF THE SCIENCE of some clubs within the ID movement and shall we then suggest ot everyone that hte whole branch of evolutio nscience is nullified because of your own unsupported PERSONAL BELIEFS?

Your bias and intellectually dishonest accusations sure sound liek apologetics to me, and not true science- and just for the record, I’ll be copying htis to repost everytime you post the NON ISSUE of personal statements of faith when you try to denigrade, malign and ridicule ID science based on soem individual organization’s PERSONAL BELIEFS that are OUTSIDE and quite SEPERATE FROM the actual scientific facts that they investigate.

[Coyoteman]

When a person actually takes a look at it evolutionary thought, it breaks down fairly fast.

Not sure how quickly your thought breaks down, but my mileage varies considerably.

I studied fossil man, human osteology, and evolution as half of my grad school program for six years, and included those subjects on my Ph.D. exams.

Based on my studies then and since, I very much disagree with your conclusions. If you are trashing science because it is improving all the time, I don't have any sympathy for your position.

When science comes up with better answers than it previously had, it adapts and moves on.

What would you prefer, that science pretend to be inerrant and unchanging, such as many religions do? What would happen then when evidence comes along to suggest that the "inerrant and unchanging" is wrong? That is just what happened with flood geology, with the last major holdout in the scientific community capitulating on February 18, 1831. The sciences have provided little to no support for creationists' beliefs ever since. This has caused creationists to increasingly take a hostile, though generally unstudied, view of science.

Unfortunately, many religious practitioners, particularly those involved with creation "science," seem to think that they are qualified to judge science based solely on their religious beliefs. Sorry, science doesn't work that way. You have to bring evidence!

[CottShop]

[[Unfortunately, many religious practitioners, particularly those involved with creation “science,” seem to think that they are qualified to judge science based solely on their religious beliefs]

ID science doesn’t do so either and ot suggest htey do is an intellectually dishonest lie!

[[If you are trashing science because it is improving all the time,]

Trashing? No- Darwinism trashes itself- Improving? No- I’m afraid you’re sadly mistaken, it isn’t improving- it’s unravelleing and those hwo try to hold it together are having to come up with even more presumptious assumptions that are unsupported by the facts- they come up with these ideas to try to circumvent known serious impossibilities and each succesive assumptions relies on more and more extreme chance happenings, and greater and greater assumptive probability impossiblities. This isn’t how science works either, always patchign the broken links together with weaker and weaker hypothesis, but apparently that doesn’t stop Macroevolutionists from inventing htem and foisting htem on our kids as ‘science’

[valkyry1]

You are quite free to disagree with me or anyone else. Out of what you studied, human osteology sounds like the only thing approaching what would be considered a hard science.

however you keep projecting onto people, and throwing these red herrings out.

You: When science comes up with better answers than it previously had, it adapts and moves on.

Well that is the popular groupspeak, however that has not been born out historically except maybe for periods covering hundreds of years. As to evolution, essentially the same concepts/ideas keep getting re-packaged and re-formulated as new and better, when none are any closer.

You speak of science like it is a conscious entity of its own. Science comes from men.

You: Sorry, science doesn’t work that way. You have to bring evidence!

I have brought evidence, the evidence of the evolutionists. And that is what I want us all to look at on its own merits, the evidence of the evolutionists, one piece at a time.

For your information, you come across more as a crusader than a scientist

[incredulous joe]

Academic indoctrination.

How convenient.

I just received an email of my niece giving testimony before congress.

Anybody got the skinny on the organization known as powershift?

Looks like an offshoot of the global warming cottage industry.

It also looks very hard-core left.

[js1138]

You have thrown out a red herring or two there, and in doing so you have confirmed that you will strenuously avoid an independent objective critical look at your agent for biological design, evolution, based on its own merits.

Actually I'm begging someone to show the magic flaw in descent with modification. Bring it on. Imagine the look on the faces of the tens or thousands of PhD biologists, chemists, physicists, astronomers, geologists, when you show up with your strenuous look.

I'm all eyes and ears.

[js1138]

I apologize for the error and confusion...I can fully understand. It must be hell keeping track of the creationists who've turned to the dark side -- Michael Denton, Yockey, and now Michael Behe.

[b_sharp]

"I am trying to leave it as wide open as I can for you. I am trying to get you to see how many assumptions your ideas are based on, and I wonder how many of you fellows have ever really analyzed those assumptions."

Have you analyzed the assumptions your belief system is based on?

"A molecule has neither the energy nor the volition to ‘self replicate’"

Volition has nothing to do with it, molecule creation is based on energy levels. Energy availability is ubiquitous.

Have you brought your assurance that molecules cannot replicate to the attention of Dr. Julius Rebek, Jr, Dr M Reza Ghadiri, Dr. Guntr KieDrwski, or other of the many scientists who have developed self-replicating molecules or are actively researching in the area? If not, here is your chance.

Simple replicating molecules are likely to have played a critical role in the origin of life. Recent experiments show that non-enzymatic replication is conceivable in a wide range of synthetic chemical systems. The challenge now facing these studies is how to develop information-coding systems from simple prebiotic precursors. Leslie E. Orgel

Remember, that if you are claiming that self replicating molecules are impossible, as you just did, it only requires a single conceivable path, based on known physics, to indicate you are wrong and one instance to definitively prove you wrong. I listed 3 scientists who have done just that.