Creationism education bills

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Galileo would have disagreed that religion fosters individuals to think for themselves.

 

Galileo's opinion is NOT science, as such it has no place in this thread.

[nikki2200 4]

There is a belief called Scientology that actually teaches that we all came from aliens who landed on Earth in a spaceship 1000s of years ago. This is a legitimate belief by a lot of people. It even has science in it's title. There are dozens of books written about it. It can't be positively refuted by and scientific findings. Shouldn't we then teach this in children's science classes, as well?

 

Why am I still in here????

 

 

[Frank M 181]

There is a belief called Scientology that actually teaches that we all came from aliens who landed on Earth in a spaceship 1000s of years ago. This is a legitimate belief by a lot of people. It even has science in it's title. There are dozens of books written about it. It can't be positively refuted by and scientific findings. Shouldn't we then teach this in children's science classes, as well?

 

Why am I still in here????

 

 

 

To educate the unwashed masses. It's a tough job, but some of us have to do it.

[naomi 360]

ID does exactly the opposite. It teaches kids that there is an end to the questions that science asks, and that end is "because God made it that way." That is the precise moment when thinking stops.

When you're thinking of statements like "look how beautiful that tree is, there has to be a God" or "God's omnipotence explains ...." I'll agree that it can, if the people stating that leave their curiosity there.

 

Intelligent Design from an arguably workable perspective (chance driving ______ is so improbable that it cannot be considered scientific) calls for thinking.

 

Do theories accepted by the general scientific community hinge on probabilities that necessitate faith?

 

That discussion is critical about the theories themselves. It doesn't bolster ID.

 

The scientist who wrote the paper I linked earlier believes that nearly everything else aside from the origin of the universe and life can be explained in terms of natural processes. That doesn't mean he advocates you stop searching. He's drawing on what he and other scientists have ascertained on that search so far.

 

In that vein, the scientist is impressed that he's seeing the fingerprint of design. It's not a "because we don't have another explanation right now" justification, it's a probability one. If you have to accept an utterly ridiculous probability if chance governs things, the alternative is that chance does not govern things. BUT, still, you can conduct science without loading that in. It can be left as an interpretive conclusion.

[MedStudent 56]

Galileo's opinion is NOT science, as such it has no place in this thread.

 

Galileo supported a heliocentric theory by factual observations. That is the essence of science.

[nikki2200 4]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKqZofK8AN4&playnext=1&list=PL7F1B3441F8B00E0A

[FeelingMN 273]

You're no different than me. You think you're right - but you insult without provocation because you think you're right

 

If you and I are no different, then you've just said that you insult without provocation. Which you do...which is why the bored treats you the way it does.

 

Yes...I admit I insult too...probably without provocation....whatever, I'm not keeping score. I just don't like you. Considering that fact, I try to be as civil as possible. Deal with it.

 

I believe I'm correct, but I continually attempt to post why using Shapiro's own words: he's the one who said that "we can now begin to bridge the gap between Christian and Darwinist".

 

Where does he say this? I didn't read it in the "Third Way". And a quick google search reveals that you're the only one to make this statement.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&noj=1&q=%22we+can+now+begin+to+bridge+the+gap+between+Christian+and+Darwinist%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

 

Honestly, that's pretty impressive. I've never seen just one hit on google. Congratulations?

 

He's also the one who said "although our knowledge of the molecular details of biological organization is undergoing a revolutionary expansion, open-minded discussions of the impact of these discoveries are all too rare".

 

Just so you can't spout conspiracy...like google trying to quiet the truth or some sh!t...here's the search results for the quote above:

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&noj=1&q=%22although+our+knowledge+of+the+molecular+details+of+biological+organization+is+undergoing+a+revolutionary+expansion%2C+open-minded+discussions+of+the+impact+of+these+discoveries+are+all+too+rare%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

 

And that's supposed to be a reflection on me? Look in the mirror and tell me if you see a guy who truly thinks that insults are constructive here, and if you're truly being open-minded. I've said to you repeatedly that Shapiro is not an ID proponent. I've also said he's not an ID antagonist either. He's trying to bring the two sides together, and he's letting his research do the talking. That's what he meant when he said "bridge the gap".

 

I'm being open minded. I just require something in the form of proof before I'm gonna change my mind. You're the one who has to play word games to try and make a point....he's not a proponent....but he's not an antagonist. I mean, you say this sh!t and I hear Lloyd Christmas.....so you're saying there's a chance?

 

 

He may have underlying suspicions about what his research is teaching him, however - and it is this strain of thought that I'm harnessing when I use his words to fortify my own opinion on this matter.

 

So you're hijacking his work to support your beliefs? Which is exactly what I've been saying all along. This is another example of intellectual dishonesty. He may have underlying suspicions about what his research is teaching him.....? Do you have anything to support this claim....or are you just gonna make sh!t up again?

 

There's no reason to ascribe intentions to somebody else here. Argue the FACTS as they're presented. Quit putting words into people's mouths.

 

Very weak.....but not surprising.

 

What is non-Darwinian to you? Something which was previously opposed by Darwinists. This is in micro-cosm why I've always said that I accept large chunks of Evolutionary Theory, but not the whole enchilada: not the part that attempts to explain the Origin of Species without an "underlying Intelligence at work which guides the Origin of Species".

 

DNA and cellular intelligence are driving evolution. Not necessity and chance. This is a radical departure from classical Darwinian evolution....it is not intelligent design.

 

Shapiro is trying to bridge the gap between Secularists and those who believe that ID research is legitimate.

 

Again show me where....wait a second...I thought he was "bridging the gap between Christian and Darwinist"? Now it's "between Secularists and those who believe that ID research is legitimate"? Memo to god....Mensa has a design flaw....he likes to make sh!t up.

 

Here's the facts: before this debate, I had very strong beliefs that our environment is designed by an Intelligence - an Entity (many call it God). Before this debate, many strongly reviled that notion.

 

Many call it god...you call it an Entity...that pretty much does everything that god does.

 

And what would you have concluded about such an accomplishment? That no such Intelligence was necessary? For crissakes! You would have just proven the opposite.

 

And what I'm saying is just how indicative it is - that cells have always been able to do that (they had to, because it is now got to be the theory that replaces Random Mututation as the vehicle for advance and simply makes Random Mutation an aberration, just like any corruption of data would be an aberration) - that there is an Intelligence behind it all.

 

Beyond here, we're going in circles. You're going to disagree, so do so by not responding if you cannot add something new here.

 

So cells are intelligent....and always have been. Therefore if humans are intelligent, they always have been as well? Well....the next time someone does something you don't like...blame Entity.

 

Also, why do you need evidence for the existence of god...or an Entity...or whatever? Why do you need evidence if your faith is unshakable? The difference between you and naomi....she KNOWS God exists....and you need proof. Is that a crisis in faith? Or do you have a larger agenda whereby that evidence could be used to make non-believers believe? You wanna control their thoughts.

 

Personally, if you presented a cogent argument, and I couldn't refute anything you said (like making sh!t up...and Shapiro stating he is not a proponent of ID) then I'd think this line of research would be the greatest event in the history of the world. I'd have no problem declaring that. But since your main argument relies on putting words into Shapiro's mouth...I feel pretty confident ID is nothing but a vehicle for the terrorists of Truth. Y'all are the fundamentalists of fallacy.

[Strike 6,023]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKqZofK8AN4&playnext=1&list=PL7F1B3441F8B00E0A

 

NOW you've gone too far!!!!

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Galileo supported a heliocentric theory by factual observations. That is the essence of science.

 

 

Doesn't make his opinion science, Sport.

[nikki2200 4]

NOW you've gone too far!!!!

 

 

 

I couldn't help myself. Come on.... it's good to get a little lesbianish every once in a while.

[FeelingMN 273]

Here are some search results focusing on "Natural Genetic Engineering"...the same kind of research currently conducted in the Shapiro Lab:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22natural%20genetic%20engineering%20%22

 

I found this one particularly interesting:

 

According to neo-Darwinian theory, biological evolution is produced by natural selection of random hereditary variations. This assumption stems from the idea of a mechanical and deterministic world based on the laws of classic physics. However, the increased knowledge of relationships between metabolism, epigenetic systems, and editing of nucleic acids suggests the existence of self-organized processes of adaptive evolution in response to environmental stresses. Living organisms are open thermodynamic systems which use entropic decay of external source of electromagnetic energy to increase their internal dynamic order and to generate new genetic and epigenetic information with a high degree of coherency and teleonomic creativity. Sensing, information processing, and decision making of biological systems might be mainly quantum phenomena. Amplification of microscopic quantum events using the long-range correlation of fractal structures, at the borderline between deterministic order and unpredictable chaos, may be used to direct a reproducible transition of the biological systems towards a defined macroscopic state. The discoveries of many natural genetic engineering systems, the ability to choose the most effective solutions, and the emergence of complex forms of consciousness at different levels confirm the importance of mind-action directed processes in biological evolution, as suggested by Alfred Russel Wallace. Although the main Darwinian principles will remain a crucial component of our understanding of evolution, a radical rethinking of the conceptual structure of the neo-Darwinian theory is needed.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20533189

 

Self-organized....emergent forms of consciousness....kinda sounds like something I've said in this here thread.

 

No mention of intelligent design....or Entity though.

 

Oh well....the abstract above proves nothing....but it does support some of what I've been arguing for here. And I'm intellectually honest....the above is from a theoretical journal: http://www.tilgher.it/(mhspav55tlissn45vgznykqe)/index.aspx?lang=eng&use=1.1&tpr=4 so it's on the same footing as ID. I'll admit that. Though I'll also contend that the concepts included above have been operationally defined....unlike god, I mean entity. And there is a kernel in the above that offers direction for further research...no matter how theoretical....

 

Amplification of microscopic quantum events using the long-range correlation of fractal structures, at the borderline between deterministic order and unpredictable chaos, may be used to direct a reproducible transition of the biological systems towards a defined macroscopic state.

 

....which is more than anything offered by ID.

 

The larger point here is that folks are studying what Shapiro is studying (check out the search results)....and nobody is invoking intelligent design.

 

Suck it.

[SUXBNME 1,596]

If you and I are no different,

You are best friends with Donald Driver and you have 8% body fat?

[FeelingMN 273]

Gosh...I mean, I'm trying here Mensa. I'm trying to find something to support ID in my searches....since you've been lackluster in that regard. But all I keep finding is stuff that reiterates what I've argued here.

 

It is becoming increasingly evident that the driving forces of evolutionary novelty are not randomly derived chance mutations of the genetic text, but a precise genome editing by omnipresent viral agents. These competences integrate the whole toolbox of natural genetic engineering, replication, transcription, translation, genomic imprinting, genomic creativity, enzymatic inventions and all types of genetic repair patterns. Even the non-coding, repetitive DNA sequences which were interpreted as being ancient remnants of former evolutionary stages are now recognized as being of viral descent and crucial for higher-order regulatory and constitutional functions of protein structural vocabulary. In this article I argue that non-randomly derived natural genome editing can be envisioned as (a) combinatorial (syntactic), ( context-specific (pragmatic) and © content-sensitive (semantic) competences of viral agents. These three-leveled biosemiotic competences could explain the emergence of complex new phenotypes in single evolutionary events. After short descriptions of the non-coding regulatory networks, major viral life strategies and pre-cellular viral life three of the major steps in evolution serve as examples: There is growing evidence that natural genome-editing competences of viruses are essential (1) for the evolution of the eukaryotic nucleus, (2) the adaptive immune system and (3) the placental mammals.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17347785

 

I have to admit Mensa...I got a little excited. I may have peed a little when I first saw the word "omnipresent". I thought I saw omnipotent or omniscient....and I thought, this is it. I found something that supports ID. But as you well know....it wasn't the case.

[FeelingMN 273]

You are best friends with Donald Driver and you have 8% body fat?

 

[Mike Honcho 5,439]

Gosh...I mean, I'm trying here Mensa. I'm trying to find something to support ID in my searches....since you've been lackluster in that regard. But all I keep finding is stuff that reiterates what I've argued here.

 

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17347785

 

I have to admit Mensa...I got a little excited. I may have peed a little when I first saw the word "omnipresent". I thought I saw omnipotent or omniscient....and I thought, this is it. I found something that supports ID. But as you well know....it wasn't the case.

 

 

Even Rocky thinks Mensa should "stay down"

[MedStudent 56]

Doesn't make his opinion science, Sport.

 

Brilliant. So an opinion of a scientist on say a court case deciding on what is science and what is not science would not be appropriate because an opinion is not science? LOL Keep fishing sporto. You have nothing to add to the discussion as usual. I know you are trying but you have a long ways to catch up to the buffoonery being displayed by your twin immensa.

[IMMensaMind 462]

If you and I are no different, then you've just said that you insult without provocation. Which you do...which is why the bored treats you the way it does.

 

As is your wont, you misread: me being no different than you references that we both believe that we're correct. I then went on to say that the difference between us is when we each think we're correct, only one of us insults without provocation - and that's you.

 

Now you're going to put your money where your mouth is, or STFU and back down - just like Frank M did: you show me where I insult without provocation: and not an odd exception to the rule (if you're even capable of that): you show me a tendency. And then we can keep track, as you outpace me in that regard about 1000:1.

 

You are not being honest about just how unlike we are in this regard. My behavior doesn't vary; it's just like it is in this thread: I point out insult if I feel someone is worth talking with in an effort to get it to stop while constructive points are being made, until the insults become the overriding response, at which point I simply fire back.

 

Yes...I admit I insult too...probably without provocation....whatever, I'm not keeping score. I just don't like you. Considering that fact, I try to be as civil as possible. Deal with it.

 

I don't like you either. That still doesn't cause me to insult you unless you've insulted me first - and usually repeatedly - before I simply insult you back, as I just did. Your moral relativism is disgusting, and on display here: you justify unwarranted insult because you don't like what I type. You're incredibly small-minded and hypocritical, as all those things which you've said you don't like about me are manifest if your response to me in thread: you claim arrogance, while you sound arrogant in your responses; you claim smugness; you are - you claim condescension, you are guilty of that as well. I think you're a hypocrite: deal with it.

 

Where does he say this? I didn't read it in the "Third Way". And a quick google search reveals that you're the only one to make this statement.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&noj=1&q=%22we+can+now+begin+to+bridge+the+gap+between+Christian+and+Darwinist%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

 

Honestly, that's pretty impressive. I've never seen just one hit on google. Congratulations?

 

I'm paraphrasing intent here. The very title of his article - A Third Way - is nothing more than a restatement bridging the gap between the other two ways: Creationist, and Neo-Darwinist. You don't want to admit that the very meaning of the title of his paper indicates bridging the differences between the two, as well as his overarching meaning in these paragraphs:

 

What significance does an emerging interface between biology and information science hold for

thinking about evolution? It opens up the possibility of addressing scientifically rather than

ideologically the central issue so hotly contested by fundamentalists on both sides of the

Creationist-Darwinist debate: Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species

displaying exquisite adaptations that range from lambda prophage repression and the Krebs

cycle through the mitotic apparatus and the eye to the immune system, mimicry, and social

organization? Borrowing concepts from information science, new schools of evolutionists can

begin to rephrase virtually intractable global questions in terms amenable to computer

modelling and experimentation. We can speculate what some of these more manageable

questions might be: How can molecular control circuits be combined to direct the expression of

novel traits? Do genomes display characteristic system architectures that allow us to predict

phenotypic consequences when we rearrange DNA sequence components? Do signal

transduction networks contribute functional information as they regulate the action of natural

genetic engineering hardware?

Questions like those above will certainly prove to be naive because we are just on the threshold

of a new way of thinking about living organisms and their variations. Nonetheless, these

questions serve to illustrate the potential for addressing the deep issues of evolution from a

radically different scientific perspective. Novel ways of looking at longstanding problems have

historically been the chief motors of scientific progress. However, the potential for new science

is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate. Both sides appear to have a common interest

in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be expected from the

Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and

more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and

accessible to our technology. But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we

Boston Review: Is Darwin in the Details? A Debate http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html

5 of 5 10/5/03 12:09 PM

can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive

posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to

validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.

 

He is clearly attempting to bridge the gap; to find common ground in mutual agreement, by removing the stridency apparent in the extremes of both sides. If you want to pick a nit, and not interchange "Creationist" with "Christian", feel free to do so, but the point is the same, as the two are interchangeable.

 

 

 

 

Just so you can't spout conspiracy...like google trying to quiet the truth or some sh!t...here's the search results for the quote above:

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&noj=1&q=%22although+our+knowledge+of+the+molecular+details+of+biological+organization+is+undergoing+a+revolutionary+expansion%2C+open-minded+discussions+of+the+impact+of+these+discoveries+are+all+too+rare%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

 

That was a direct quote. He said that verbatim.

 

I'm being open minded. I just require something in the form of proof before I'm gonna change my mind. You're the one who has to play word games to try and make a point....he's not a proponent....but he's not an antagonist. I mean, you say this sh!t and I hear Lloyd Christmas.....so you're saying there's a chance?

 

Open-minded to what? Only proof? That's not open-minded: only the close-minded cannot be swayed by anything less than proof, for crissakes. I've been constantly talking here about compelling arguments.

 

If I had broached this subject with you a year (let's say) ago, and had told you that I believe that Evolution is not driven by Randomness - that there's a designed programming within cells themselves that drives the Evolutionary process - that they act with intelligence to their environments - there is no doubt in my mind that you would have attacked that as a statement only an ID proponent would have made.

 

Can you deny that?

 

If you cannot (and only you know if you're being intellectually honest with yourself in answering that), then how can you simultaneously claim that a scientist who has established that assertion as true isn't de facto legitimizing the concept of ID in general - whether he wants to self-identify as having done that or not?

[IMMensaMind 462]

So you're hijacking his work to support your beliefs? Which is exactly what I've been saying all along. This is another example of intellectual dishonesty. He may have underlying suspicions about what his research is teaching him.....? Do you have anything to support this claim....or are you just gonna make sh!t up again?

 

There's no reason to ascribe intentions to somebody else here. Argue the FACTS as they're presented. Quit putting words into people's mouths.

 

Very weak.....but not surprising.

 

I think how 'weak' it is really depends upon if you're going to be intellectually dishonest and try to claim that you wouldn't have attacked a notion refuting Random Mutation in favor of Intelligence within cells themselves.

 

DNA and cellular intelligence are driving evolution. Not necessity and chance. This is a radical departure from classical Darwinian evolution....it is not intelligent design.

 

If you are unable to discern the philosophical ramifications of "cellular intelligence" driving anything (literally: cells as organic microchips) and no longer randomness and chaos, we really cannot advance this conversation.

 

The ramifications of Darwinists being forced to abandon the concept of chance in favor of design are profound.

 

Again show me where....wait a second...I thought he was "bridging the gap between Christian and Darwinist"? Now it's "between Secularists and those who believe that ID research is legitimate"? Memo to god....Mensa has a design flaw....he likes to make sh!t up.

 

How can you take issue with terms which are synonyms? Secularists=Darwinists. Christian=ID proponents. You've heard others in this room claim that ID is simply made up Christians, and you've also heard people equate atheists with Darwinism.

 

 

Many call it god...you call it an Entity...that pretty much does everything that god does.

 

Who cares what you call the Intelligent Designer? The fact is that before one can delve in the concept of understanding the nature of a Designer, one must come to terms with the existence of said Designer - and all you'll have in that endeavor is circumstantial evidence.

 

So cells are intelligent....and always have been. Therefore if humans are intelligent, they always have been as well? Well....the next time someone does something you don't like...blame Entity.

 

Not sure what you're trying to say here. If we are identifying cells as intelligent - and looking to explain the mechanism of Evolution in retrospect through this new discovery, then we must conclude that the programming at the cellular level has existed since the process of Evolution began.

 

Also, why do you need evidence for the existence of god...or an Entity...or whatever? Why do you need evidence if your faith is unshakable? The difference between you and naomi....she KNOWS God exists....and you need proof. Is that a crisis in faith? Or do you have a larger agenda whereby that evidence could be used to make non-believers believe? You wanna control their thoughts.

 

You're reaching. I don't require any evidence whatsoever; I suspect you know that. You do - so my attempts to illustrate evidence is for the benefit of people like you; not me.

 

Personally, if you presented a cogent argument, and I couldn't refute anything you said (like making sh!t up...and Shapiro stating he is not a proponent of ID) then I'd think this line of research would be the greatest event in the history of the world. I'd have no problem declaring that. But since your main argument relies on putting words into Shapiro's mouth...I feel pretty confident ID is nothing but a vehicle for the terrorists of Truth. Y'all are the fundamentalists of fallacy.

 

 

I think you are unable or unwilling to wrap your mind around the notion that this evidence indicates that not only did life spring from non-life at some point in the past, it sprung into a form of life which contained intelligent programming, capable of developing into wondrous higher forms of life. That metaphysical conundrum rips right through the fabric of conventional secular thought.

 

Last time I dropped a glass on the floor, it shattered. It did not spring into a crystal chandelier.

 

If you cannot understand what I mean by that, you will not understand what this information really means either.

[FeelingMN 273]

Awwhh man...still nothing from Mensa? Musta found some really interesting blogs. I can't wait to see what he's dug up.

 

Still researching on this end Mensa. Here's what I found:

 

Transposable element (TE) sequences make up a substantial fraction of mammalian genomes and exert a variety of regulatory influences on mammalian genes. We explore the contributions of TEs to the epigenetic mechanisms that regulate mammalian genomes, emphasizing nucleosome positioning and epigenetic histone modifications. A link between TEs and epigenetics rests on the fact that underlying genetic sequences partially mediate the nature and identity of epigenetic modifications. Here, we review the studies that have uncovered histone modifications that are targeted to mammalian TE sequences and propose a series of hypotheses regarding the potential epigenetic regulatory effects of mammalian TEs. We propose that mammalian TE sequences have specific nucleosome binding properties with regulatory implications for nearby genes, are involved in the phasing of nucleosomes, and recruit epigenetic modifications to function as enhancers; that epigenetic modifications at TE sequences affect the regulation of nearby genes; and that TEs serve as epigenetic boundary elements. It is hoped that these proposed scenarios may help to serve as a roadmap for future investigations into the epigenetic regulatory effects of mammalian TEs.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05007.x/abstract?systemMessage=Due+to+scheduled+maintenance%2C+access+to+Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+Saturday%2C+2nd+Apr+between+10%3A00-12%3A00+BST

 

 

There's no mention of "intelligence" per se.....but it's in there.

 

How 'bout this?

 

Since the birth of molecular biology it has been generally assumed that most genetic information is transacted by proteins, and that RNA plays an intermediary role. This led to the subsidiary assumption that the vast tracts of noncoding sequences in the genomes of higher organisms are largely nonfunctional, despite the fact that they are transcribed. These assumptions have since become articles of faith, but they are not necessarily correct. I propose an alternative evolutionary history whereby developmental and cognitive complexity has arisen by constructing sophisticated RNA-based regulatory networks that interact with generic effector complexes to control gene expression patterns and the epigenetic trajectories of differentiation and development. Environmental information can also be conveyed into this regulatory system via RNA editing, especially in the brain. Moreover, the observations that RNA-directed epigenetic changes can be inherited raises the intriguing question: has evolution learnt how to learn?

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04991.x/abstract

 

Sounds like more emergence huh? Then again I'm not into nuance like you are....so I bet he means intelligent design.

 

This entire issue of ANYAS was devoted to Natural Genetic Engineering. It's all hardcore science. No intelligent design.....but I guess that's a matter of interpretation.

 

Forget about your crusade man. This is interesting sh!t. Don't ruin it with an agenda.

[IMMensaMind 462]

(Cells) make wise decisions and act upon them.

- Dr. Barbara McClintock

 

Yeah. No intelligence there behind such a thing.

[FeelingMN 273]

 

I understand that thicker skin would increase your percentage of bod fat....but you really need some.

 

I'm paraphrasing intent here. The very title of his article - A Third Way - is nothing more than a restatement bridging the gap between the other two ways: Creationist, and Neo-Darwinist. You don't want to admit that the very meaning of the title of his paper indicates bridging the differences between the two, as well as his overarching meaning in these paragraphs:

 

He is clearly attempting to bridge the gap; to find common ground in mutual agreement, by removing the stridency apparent in the extremes of both sides. If you want to pick a nit, and not interchange "Creationist" with "Christian", feel free to do so, but the point is the same, as the two are interchangeable.

 

Oh...now you're paraphrasing. You emphatically stated you were using his words before. You used quotes. Whatever....you're seeing what you want to see.

 

And a Third Way is not a bridge to the other two ways. You're projecting the need to see your agenda satisfied here. A Third Way is a Different Way...A Better Way to explain why we're here. The first two ways suck. They're unsatisfactory....a third way was needed to better explain things.

 

 

That was a direct quote. He said that verbatim.

 

No sh!t? Really.

 

 

Open-minded to what? Only proof? That's not open-minded: only the close-minded cannot be swayed by anything less than proof, for crissakes. I've been constantly talking here about compelling arguments.

 

You've been making sh!t up....and you want me to just to believe you?

 

 

If I had broached this subject with you a year (let's say) ago, and had told you that I believe that Evolution is not driven by Randomness - that there's a designed programming within cells themselves that drives the Evolutionary process - that they act with intelligence to their environments - there is no doubt in my mind that you would have attacked that as a statement only an ID proponent would have made.

 

Can you deny that?

 

I'd have issue with designed. Just as I do now. And if I hadn't seen Shapiro's work....I'd have contested intelligence too. Having read his stuff though, I'm comfy with it.

 

 

If you cannot (and only you know if you're being intellectually honest with yourself in answering that), then how can you simultaneously claim that a scientist who has established that assertion as true isn't de facto legitimizing the concept of ID in general - whether he wants to self-identify as having done that or not?

 

From the very beginning, I've contested design. I've been pimping emergence....and have cited several abstracts now that support me. I've yet to read anything from any of this research about intelligent design....you put it there with your "interpretations".

 

Believe what you want. But considering the lack of evidence you've provided here, don't tell me to take ID any more seriously than scientology. Religion is not a bad thing. It's a good thing....but it's not the thing we need to explain the natural world. Why are you trying to make it so?

[IMMensaMind 462]

I understand that thicker skin would increase your percentage of bod fat....but you really need some.

 

 

 

Oh...now you're paraphrasing. You emphatically stated you were using his words before. You used quotes. Whatever....you're seeing what you want to see.

 

And a Third Way is not a bridge to the other two ways. You're projecting the need to see your agenda satisfied here. A Third Way is a Different Way...A Better Way to explain why we're here. The first two ways suck. They're unsatisfactory....a third way was needed to better explain things.

 

 

 

 

No sh!t? Really.

 

 

 

 

You've been making sh!t up....and you want me to just to believe you?

 

 

 

 

I'd have issue with designed. Just as I do now. And if I hadn't seen Shapiro's work....I'd have contested intelligence too. Having read his stuff though, I'm comfy with it.

 

 

 

 

From the very beginning, I've contested design. I've been pimping emergence....and have cited several abstracts now that support me. I've yet to read anything from any of this research about intelligent design....you put it there with your "interpretations".

 

Believe what you want. But considering the lack of evidence you've provided here, don't tell me to take ID any more seriously than scientology. Religion is not a bad thing. It's a good thing....but it's not the thing we need to explain the natural world. Why are you trying to make it so?

 

You've admitted much here. By admitting that you'd contest "Intelligence", you're illuminating that you WOULD have objected to such a statement as illegit - having come from an ID proponent (because that is what ID proponents have always said).

 

You've contested design, but you've already ceded that Random doesn't cut it. You acknowledge the superiority of the concept of Intelligence over Randomness. The opposite of Random is non-random. The opposite of Chaos is Order.

 

Order is Designed, by its own Nature.

 

I think we're done here.

[FeelingMN 273]

Yeah. No intelligence there behind such a thing.

 

I've been saying this after reading most of your posts.

[FeelingMN 273]

You've admitted much here. By admitting that you'd contest "Intelligence", you're illuminating that you WOULD have objected to such a statement as illegit - having come from an ID proponent (because that is what ID proponents have always said).

 

You've contested design, but you've already ceded that Random doesn't cut it. You acknowledge the superiority of the concept of Intelligence over Randomness. The opposite of Random is non-random. The opposite of Chaos is Order.

 

Order is Designed, by its own Nature.

 

I think we're done here.

 

 

I think I've broken you.....you didn't parse each of my statements.

 

We agree on something....the opposite of Random is indeed non-random.....I like how you italicized the non there. For emphasis....really drives home the point.

 

I think you would have excelled at Johns Hopkins.

[IMMensaMind 462]

 

I think I've broken you.....you didn't parse each of my statements.

 

We agree on something....the opposite of Random is indeed non-random.....I like how you italicized the non there. For emphasis....really drives home the point.

 

I think you would have excelled at Johns Hopkins.

 

Fock dude: I excel now: how do you think I have arrived at a point in life where I could buy you and sell you into slavery over and over again?

 

As for your admission that you would have squawked as illegitimate a claim that randomness is BS; that cells are intelligent...

 

...that's all we need to see here to understand that you're trying to dodge a very basic truth: this is ID - because you would have claimed that such a statement was the loony clucking of an IDer. Ain't no escaping it.

[Me_2006 14]

Mensa is the best Sux alias of all time. OF ALL TIME.

[FeelingMN 273]

My problem is the sheer number of people who project a conclusion from their own confirmation bias, and put words into my mouth that I didn't say.

 

but I continually attempt to post why using Shapiro's own words: he's the one who said that "we can now begin to bridge the gap between Christian and Darwinist".

 

My words leave little to chance, which is why I take my time to express them.

 

The opposite of Random is non-random.

 

[Me_2006 14]

note to drunk me. start speed debate thread when sober after lit culture seminar.

[SUXBNME 1,596]

Mensa is the best Sux alias of all time. OF ALL TIME.

"Nikkis Gay Dad" would have been my best alias of all time, but Mikey said no.

 

Mensamind is too smart to be me

[FeelingMN 273]

Fock dude: I excel now: how do you think I have arrived at a point in life where I could buy you and sell you into slavery over and over again?

 

It sure as hell ain't smarts. I'll say you married into it.

 

 

As for your admission that you would have squawked as illegitimate a claim that randomness is BS; that cells are intelligent...

 

...that's all we need to see here to understand that you're trying to dodge a very basic truth: this is ID - because you would have claimed that such a statement was the loony clucking of an IDer. Ain't no escaping it.

 

 

Who cares about a year ago? I'm just being honest dude.

 

The fact is you look pretty bad in this thread.

 

Thanks for spreading the word. Jesus is proud.

[nikki2200 4]

Even Rocky thinks Mensa should "stay down"

[penultimatestraw 473]

Honestly, that's pretty impressive. I've never seen just one hit on google. Congratulations?

Although it includes quotes and has too many words to technically fit the definition, this almost qualifies as a Googlewhack. Maybe a good nickname for somebody we know? Found link

 

On a related note, IMM, you have consistently insulted those with different views than you, often without provocation. You also have made assumptions about my personal level of understanding for this topic. Let me assure you I understand your point, as do many others; we just disagree. Please save the vengeful behavior for your Old Testament study group.

 

My degree is in biochemistry and I am familiar with transposons, operons, senescence and other "programmed" mechanisms of cellular biology. They are taught in college-level science classes. While these processes are quite spectacular, our limited understanding of their development does not necessitate a creator/designer/God/god more than any of the natural world's unexplained phenomena. Effectively this is another face of irreducible complexity. Do these findings add to traditional understanding of cell bio and evolution? Absolutely. Do they negate the role of random mutation in evolutionary change? Not a bit. If there were an intelligent designer, why would it produce a flawed organism and/or environment in the first place?

 

Like the birther thread a couple of weeks ago (and climate change as well, I suspect), I am not sure what drives you to cling to a minority opinion on a subject overwhelmingly refuted by those more erudite than you or I. Conspiracies exist, but so does personal bias jaundicing one's interpretation of the "facts". Your willingness to spend countless hours researching/debating others in this thread while not being able to watch Strike's outstanding video on the legal/scientific rebuttal to ID proves how open-minded you truly are. I know, it is not the same flavor of ID that Shapiro reportedly (but covertly ) supports, but many of the salient topics of this debate are discussed within. Please watch it.

 

Then (and only then) describe an experiment which predictably results in findings attributable only to the existence of your intelligent designer. Explain it in terms a Mensa non-member can understand. TIA.

[Frank M 181]

Now you're going to put your money where your mouth is, or STFU and back down - just like Frank M did: you show me where I insult without provocation: and not an odd exception to the rule (if you're even capable of that): you show me a tendency. And then we can keep track, as you outpace me in that regard about 1000:1.

 

 

There's a difference between backing down and refusing to deal with someone as thick as you. Seriously, you expected me to go back through old threads and find out who insulted who first? Um, sorry, but fock you.

 

And nobody gives a fock about insulting you. In fact, now people are doing it just because you keep pointing it out like the pvssy you are.

[IMMensaMind 462]

There's a difference between backing down and refusing to deal with someone as thick as you. Seriously, you expected me to go back through old threads and find out who insulted who first? Um, sorry, but fock you.

 

And nobody gives a fock about insulting you. In fact, now people are doing it just because you keep pointing it out like the pvssy you are.

 

Yet you keep responding, so claim all you want. You know you're lying; I know you're lying. The only thing I ever reference without provocation is general criticism of liberals. I don't make an insult personal unless it has been first done to me, and usually repeatedly. Period.

 

You can make excuses or make claims, but it doesn't make it so.

[IMMensaMind 462]

It sure as hell ain't smarts. I'll say you married into it.

 

 

Jealous and incapable of understanding. That's a great combination you have going for yourself. I built what I have solely on my own.

 

 

Who cares about a year ago? I'm just being honest dude.

 

I asked the question because I knew you had no choice but to answer that way. By answering that way, you prove my point. How exactly could a claim of cellular wisdom be derided as the the lunatic rantings of an IDer last year, but this year - when suddenly brought to light to the heavy-weight intelligences that are clearly on display in this forearm - such a discovery has nothing to do with Intelligent Design?

 

You painted yourself into a corner, as all I've been saying that this is supportive of ID. Now you've said it. Clever of me; stupid of you.

 

The fact is you look pretty bad in this thread.

 

By painting you in a corner, my position is vindicated. Sorry. Ain't no escaping this basic truth. Do you need me to type it again for you?

 

Thanks for spreading the word. Jesus is proud.

 

Hey, whatever, heathen. John Adams said that the Constitution is suitable only for a moral and religious people. If you aren't that; you're intruding and corrupting.

[Frank M 181]

Yet you keep responding, so claim all you want. You know you're lying; I know you're lying. The only thing I ever reference without provocation is general criticism of liberals. I don't make an insult personal unless it has been first done to me, and usually repeatedly. Period.

 

You can make excuses or make claims, but it doesn't make it so.

 

Pure and utter horsesh1t.

[MTSkiBum 1,626]

How does someone with the name "IMMensaMind" give no credibility whatsoever to theory of evolution?

 

 

Unless the name is a fallacy and he is not that smart at all?

[DanXIII 8]

How does someone with the name "IMMensaMind" give no credibility whatsoever to theory of evolution?

 

 

Unless the name is a fallacy and he is not that smart at all?

 

I think she's going for irony here.

 

[Frank M 181]

How does someone with the name "IMMensaMind" give no credibility whatsoever to theory of evolution?

 

 

Unless the name is a fallacy and he is not that smart at all?

 

He misspelled IMMensaD1ck on his registration and it was too late to change it when he discovered the error.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Although it includes quotes and has too many words to technically fit the definition, this almost qualifies as a Googlewhack. Maybe a good nickname for somebody we know? Found link

 

On a related note, IMM, you have consistently insulted those with different views than you, often without provocation.

 

You as well make the claim, and you as well should support it. Where did that happen, exactly? You'll find - if you look - that I don't do that. If I personally insult someone, it's because I was first personally insulted. Prove otherwise, or you're just another poster looking to add weight to a false claim.

 

You also have made assumptions about my personal level of understanding for this topic.

 

So you claim. You also explain that many of the surrounding concepts on this topic are taught - which I already knew. Are you attempting to claim that cellular intelligence is also taught? That is the only key point that I have explained hasn't been taught. This isn't a new discovery - and yet it is new to you, too.

 

In fact, there hasn't been a single poster who is trying to claim that they knew this already.

 

If this is taught already, how exactly is the conventional view of Random Mutation as the catalyst for Evolutionary advancement still the conventional view, exactly? What we're discussing here is pure science that directly contradicts that. This highlights a clear reticence (at best - and a stubbornness at worst) on the part of the Science community to accept a view which contradicts something which I view as a third rail to them: the notion that Random isn't as important (a synonym for no order; antonym for Designed).

 

Let me assure you I understand your point, as do many others; we just disagree. Please save the vengeful behavior for your Old Testament study group.

 

While you like to sit there and accuse me of making assumptions about your level of understanding, it's ok if you do the same here? I've never been in an "Old Testament study group" in my life. And isn't that itself an attempt at insult? Where have I insulted you personally, exactly?

 

My degree is in biochemistry and I am familiar with transposons, operons, senescence and other "programmed" mechanisms of cellular biology. They are taught in college-level science classes. While these processes are quite spectacular, our limited understanding of their development does not necessitate a creator/designer/God/god more than any of the natural world's unexplained phenomena.

 

You are putting words in my mouth. No where did I say that this means that a Designer becomes necessary (read: proof). I've only said that this strengthens the claim.

 

Weren't you the guy who claimed I made assumptions and all that other crap? How much correcting of what I've said must I do before you realize that you're doing that? When I make errors, I fess up to them. I've confused Strike with you, and I posted a video that I believe was shown in school when another similar video was likely shown. I've retracted both things.

 

Where has anyone on your side done something like that? And people are trying to claim that I'm the one who is supposed to be a "brick wall"?

 

Effectively this is another face of irreducible complexity. Do these findings add to traditional understanding of cell bio and evolution? Absolutely. Do they negate the role of random mutation in evolutionary change? Not a bit.

 

Negate? No one is saying that Random Mutations do not take place. What is being established here is that Random Mutations can be the source of possible "fine tuning" of an organism, but that's after the "heavy lifting" of genetic cellular intelligence has made the real changes (feel free to Google that: a statement that roughly boils down to that sentiment was made by a Scientist in this field). This is a major shift in the field of Evolutionary sciences - and I'm here to tell you that this shift had the research basis to have taken place decades ago, but didn't.

 

And secularists hand-wring that it's the Christians that would slow down scientific advancement? Here we have an example of the opposite: this sea-change has been throttled precisely because of the ramifications of it - just as Shapiro claimed when he said that such actions lend credence to the Creationist claim that "Darwinism has become more a faith than a science".

 

If there were an intelligent designer, why would it produce a flawed organism and/or environment in the first place?

 

You claim that you understand this subject, and then cannot digest the notion that if this programming is Intelligently Designed, it may also be corruptible? I submit to you that you understand what you want to understand, and the rest you dismiss - including this very basic understanding. Programming isn't perfect, because nothing on Earth is perfect. How does that eliminate a notion of an Intelligent Designer? Does the Designer have to be perfect in order to be established as Intelligent?

 

Like the birther thread a couple of weeks ago (and climate change as well, I suspect), I am not sure what drives you to cling to a minority opinion on a subject overwhelmingly refuted by those more erudite than you or I.

 

Here again you are trying to make this personal, illustrating massive hypocrisy. I have not done that with you, but here you are attempting to stigmatize my character. Are you blind to your own actions?

 

My position on Obama's bonafides are reasonable; I am not a fringe birther - despite lefty's attempts to paint with such a broad brush. Many people have echoed my position: there's something suspicious about a guy being unwilling to release the entirety of the information, and polls indicate that you hold the fringe position if you believe otherwise. That poll runs 70-30 that the concern is legitimate. You can retract now. Do you want to do this again for AGW? The same will result. If you're a lefty, and want to hold the other side, but don't you dare for a second attempt to marginalize a position which opposes yours as being fringe, because it's not.

 

Conspiracies exist, but so does personal bias jaundicing one's interpretation of the "facts".

 

You are just as guilty of this as anyone else, hence the questions I've asked you and the refutations I've provided.

 

Your willingness to spend countless hours researching/debating others in this thread while not being able to watch Strike's outstanding video on the legal/scientific rebuttal to ID proves how open-minded you truly are. I know, it is not the same flavor of ID that Shapiro reportedly (but covertly ) supports, but many of the salient topics of this debate are discussed within. Please watch it.

 

What part of "I've already watched it" did you not understand? I know what is contained in that video. I've already explained that the video is attempting to oppose something about which I do not favor. Do you not understand that?

 

Then (and only then) describe an experiment which predictably results in findings attributable only to the existence of your intelligent designer. Explain it in terms a Mensa non-member can understand. TIA.

 

More presumptions. I am not a member of MENSA - but you don't care about what's true apparently, even though you complain when someone makes false assumptions. How hypocriticall are you? My name has been a long-term topic with lefties; how frothily upset they get because of it (enjoyable ). My name was coined by my daughter; It's stuck. Deal with it.

 

I'll ask you the same question that I asked FeelingMN: if what we're talking about is literally an organic cellular microchip (can you agree that that is a fair description of what we're describing as impressive processing power found within the walls of a cell?), how does that revelation diminish a theory that it was Designed?

 

And I will also ask you another question in closing: why do you require a standard of the study of ID which Evolutionary study cannot hold itself to? Or can you describe an experiment which definitively establishes the claim of macro-evolution? Or do we have just evidence upon which to base our conclusions?