 |
CreationTalk.com
Creation Vs. Evolution Public Debate Board
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Cubist
Lion
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 925
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Arthwollipot wrote: | | It could be that no IDist actually reads this forum any more, Cubist. |
Maybe so... but as long as there's a decent chance of undecided lurkers coming across this forum, I don't see anything wrong with providing those lurkers with a concrete demonstration of exactly how ineffectual this ID stuff actually is. IDists can make all the noise they want about how they do, too, have a Design-detecting tool -- but their chronic, repeated failure to actually use that tool speaks volumes, eh wot? I am unsure which is the more devastating rebuttal to ID -- IDists' long-standing failure to detect Design, or IDists' attempts to claim that ID doesn't have to actually detect any Design -- but since the IDist response to this Challenge encompasses both fatal flaws, I won't fuss about it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Arthwollipot
Emperor of the World
Joined: 05 Feb 2003
Posts: 3276
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, I completely agree. I'm just suggsting that the reason no-one's answered the challenge here is not because they can't come up with the goods, it may simply be that there's no-one here to answer it.
We have a few creationists over at Religious-Science if you care to try it there.
_________________
The Nonsense Podcast
What's an "arthwollipot"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Lion King
Joined: 24 May 2006
Posts: 1097
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And there's always Bible-Discussion as well.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthwollipot
Emperor of the World
Joined: 05 Feb 2003
Posts: 3276
Location: Australia
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cubist
Lion
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 925
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's time, once again, for yet another encore presentation of Cubist's celebrated “Which One’s Random?” Challenge for IDists. As we all know, IDists claim that they've got some sort of methodology by which they can determine whether or not a given whatzit is Designed without needing any kind of info or conjectures about the whatzit's history… and real scientists think that claim is a bunch of horse manure. Thus, the “Which One’s Random?” Challenge, which cordially invites IDists to demonstrate that they really do have a Design-detection tool that really does live up to its press releases!
Long-time CreationTalk-watchers will recall that I've presented this challenge several times, the first such time being 25 August 2006; the most recent appearance before how was on 11 December 2008, a half-year-plus-change ago. So this little challenge has been here for close to three years now... and in all that time, exactly 1 (one) ID proponent who's responded to it, namely: jhudson, whose response is the first item on page 5 of this thread. Curiously, jhudson's response was an argument that ID doesn't have to meet this challenge.
Hmm.
Ah, well; I will continue to give our local IDists every opportunity to demonstrate that their support of ID really is based on the actual merits of ID, that ID isn't the worthless pile of bald and empty assertions its critics say it is, and, most particularly, that ID can do what it says on the label.
Anyway: ID claims to be able to determine whether or not a given whatever-it-is happens to be the product of Intelligent Design or not. Since intelligent messages are Designed (by whichever intelligence created them), it follows that ID should be able to determine which of two seemingly random character strings is an encoded message (hence, Designed), and which is a random jumble. If ID really is a proper scientific theory and really can "do what it says on the label" and all that, which ID proponents certainly do say it is and can and all that...
This is character string one:
| Code: | ={¡†¿ ¬&={‹ +ZrKU hg"Ix œgFZ" uaM?j œ?Uhg
>”H¿œ jCZrK ,MjRœ Lu"gF ZœKZ¢ g[)Zh Z"KXM
gcR"K XMgaX -KcZY [†lœX œ??U? ?waR, XmŒwM
Zvœ>Z ngo”_ v”U’T XV Xv Zuyw… y ,.! ¡‡!…& |
And this is character string two:
| Code: | jk?2J ^'VE¡ ?hS-c Z†“(# ]'6"8 0‹cWd Yfv”
BlGæB “a”?" B2#“_ 9‹g¡y £B…?J @Se&y ¬œ4Sp
…'T4? #ƒq”- 6[¢Of 1#3?} œ-§”÷ UTe…T Fdg›“
O÷iŒ. H¬^¿- ¢?Jv= ±1Q^o ‘O];v :?QE( 5qŒ3L |
So: Which of these two strings is Designed, and which is a random jumble? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthwollipot
Emperor of the World
Joined: 05 Feb 2003
Posts: 3276
Location: Australia
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nasa.
Big Hamster
Joined: 07 Sep 2007
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Imagine early earth, no life, just different environs. One molecule in one environment automatically attracts other molecules/atoms and absorbs them into itself (I like the Idea of a Carbon strand, so I'll use that for the sake of it)
As the strand gets longer, absorbing more atoms, It eventually breaks due to external forces. The two strands feed and break, etc. Result lots of strands. Eventually, one of the strands absorbs a different, less common atom, that by some chemical reation with the surrounding environ propells it around. It leaves the area with all the other strands and the breakages it creates also absorb similar atoms.
Other such chance mutations to the strand might be, it entwines itself around the other strands, and since the breakages are already entwined, it produces more entwined 'species'. I don't know how you get from here to a single celled organism, but it IS a plausable start to life, on a much smaller scale.
It isn't farfetched to see that with a whole world to inhabit, such molecules would never run out of atoms to feed on.
|
"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories -one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator."
R.L. Wysong. The Creation-Evolution Controversy p.455 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthwollipot
Emperor of the World
Joined: 05 Feb 2003
Posts: 3276
Location: Australia
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
politas
Lion King
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1203
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nasa. wrote: | | ... a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; |
If there is no life, there is nothing to be doing any "devouring". The ability to digest other life forms can only evolve once there are sufficient life forms available to make it a survival benefit.
| Nasa. wrote: | | faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories -one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; |
High levels of improbability can never "confirm a creator", they can only cast doubt on suggested mechanisms. There are more than two possible answers.
Oh, why am I bothering?
_________________
I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it.
- George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nasa.
Big Hamster
Joined: 07 Sep 2007
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why indeed.
"Nature is too thin a screen; [also your vain philosophy] the glory of the omnipresent God bursts through everywhere."
Ralph Waldo Emerson.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
politas
Lion King
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1203
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nasa. wrote: | Why indeed.
"Nature is too thin a screen; [also your vain philosophy] the glory of the omnipresent God bursts through everywhere."
Ralph Waldo Emerson.
{Cute Baby picture}
|
Is that supposed to stand in for actual argument?
_________________
I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it.
- George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nasa.
Big Hamster
Joined: 07 Sep 2007
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that all are without excuse.
Romans 1:20. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Lion King
Joined: 24 May 2006
Posts: 1097
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Oh whoops that's never been true shucks!"
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bad Medicine
Fierce Puppy
Joined: 18 Mar 2009
Posts: 228
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nasa. wrote: | For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that all are without excuse.
Romans 1:20. |
sounds like an oxymoron to me its meaningless dogma. If you meant to make a point I think you missed by a rather large margin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthwollipot
Emperor of the World
Joined: 05 Feb 2003
Posts: 3276
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bad Medicine wrote: | | sounds like an oxymoron to me its meaningless dogma. If you meant to make a point I think you missed by a rather large margin |
Or at least a rather large font.
_________________
The Nonsense Podcast
What's an "arthwollipot"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
