I'm Not Giving Up The Watchmaker Argument , , , ,

Do you think the Pope is an atheist biased against intelligent design?

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, if you can link to the Theory of Intelligent design I would be most interested to read it, but so far no skyfairist has managed to do so.

If evolution was proved false tomorrow it would not make ID correct another fallacy you clearly do not understand.

 

Title of the Article , , ,
"A Respected Scientist Comes Out Against Evolution -- And
Loses His Wikipedia Page."
https://www.haaretz.com/science-and...inst-evolution-loses-wikipedia-page-1.5466166

"Günter Bechly, a devout Catholic from Germany, had a promising academic career
as a paleontologist. He had published numerous papers in prestigious, peer-review
journals – including groundbreaking studies he conducted into the evolution of
dragonfly wings – and was even a curator at Stuttgart’s State Museum of Natural
History. At least until 2016. That’s when he first came out against evolution and
in favor of intelligent design. He found himself embraced by the religious right
in the United States, becoming a pawn in their political struggle over the world’s
origin story."

“This whole process of trying to delete Dr. Bechly proves the small-mindedness
that prevails these days and the threat deep thinkers like him pose to certain
members of society. His interpretation of Origins issues are his personal business.
He is an outstanding academic and scientist in his own right; if he hadn’t changed
his stance this wouldn’t even be an issue,” one anonymous user wrote, going on
to summarize Bechly’s contribution to the field of his expertise."

Source
https://www.haaretz.com/science-and...inst-evolution-loses-wikipedia-page-1.5466166

__________

The article is pro-Wikipedia but it still makes my point that the so-called "scientific community"
is saturated with "science politics" and will "black-list" and destroy the academic reputations
of any one of "their own" that dares to defy the rigid lock-step orthodoxy of their Religion Of
Evolution.

Dr. Gunter Bechly dared to defy their Religion Of Evolution and he paid the price for his defiance
and lost his Wikipedia Page. How noble of the "scientific community" and how noble of Wikipedia.

If your dare to disagree with the "scientific community" they will "get together" and they will ruin you.

"becoming a pawn in their political struggle over the world’s origin story."___from the linked article

JAG

 

A " theory in crisis" ?
Poppycock; debates within the science community are about specific mechanisms within evolution, not whether evolution occurred/occurs.

 

There is also a lot of evidence that the High Priests
of The Religion Of Evolution will "ruin you" if you dare
to defy their Religious Beliefs and publicly go against
their established Religion Of Evolution. See my post up
there on what happened to Dr. Gunter Bechly when he
dared to defy the High Priests of the Religion Of Evolution.
Title of the Article , , ,
"A Respected Scientist Comes Out Against
Evolution -- And Loses His Wikipedia Page."
https://www.haaretz.com/science-and...inst-evolution-loses-wikipedia-page-1.5466166

Here is what I have read about the World Of Evolution
and it's High Priests the Biologists.

It is a tight knit group of people who will NOT tolerate any
opposition that challenges their religious ideological
worldview.

I have read articles that related how biologists who
dared speak out against the prevailing "consensus"
were "black-listed" and whose professional careers
were ruined by the so-called "scientific community
who became enraged that "one of their own" would
dare "go against" the "herd mentality" of the religious
dogmas of Evolution.

Fred Hoyle was one such atheist that would not keep his
mouth shut and suffered at the hands of his critics for
expressing his views publicly.

In other words, if you want to keep your job and if you
want to keep your reputation --- you will bow down
humbly to the so-called "scientific community" and
you will "keep your mouth shut" if you disagree with
the so-called "scientific consensus" on Evolution ---
otherwise they will "get together" and ruin you
permanently.
______

Guilty Of Being A Climate Science Denier , , ,

You can see this principle at work in the ongoing debate
about so-called "Climate Science" where the "scientific
experts" do not agree on what is "settled science" on
the subject of Climatology --- and where there have been
some efforts to establish the category of being a
"Climate Science Denier" so if you are "convicted" of being
a "Climate Science Denier" you can be persecuted and
"black-listed" and ruined professionally.

The world's so-called "Scientific Community" can be very
vicious. Be careful to not "upset them" ---or they will
"get together" and ruin you -- and they will do it, in the
name of Science.
__________

The Religion Of Evolution , , , ,

By the way, all that up there has strong religious over-tones to
it -- and contains religious zeal and religious fanaticism and
religious commitment on the part of the the "true believers"
in the World of Science. The attitude of calm disinterested
research is missing and in its place is put a type of zeal
and fanaticism that functions just like a Religion functions.
The religion Of Evolution demands conformity to the Religion's
dogmas --- otherwise they will "get together" and destroy you.


JAG

 

From the article you linked to,

The heated debate between experienced Wikipedians and proponents of “intelligent design” ended up backfiring on the latter and actually helped to finalize the deletion of the Bechly article.



By issuing a call to defend the scientist on the special “articles for deletion” page set up for Bechly, the anti-evolution missionaries broke a cardinal role in Wikipedia calling for “no canvassing,” which bars any attempts to influence the outcome of a discussion on Wikipedia by calling external actors into the fray.

So the Intelligent Design skyfairiests broke Wiki rules and got this guy deleted! So it was the ID skyfairiests who got him deleted and ruined his reputation!

 

Umm are you sure you want to say this about religion, I mean are you not just punching yourself in the face?

 

It is nothing more than an assumption, based upon an appearance of order.
The appearance of order in nature is not alone sufficient justification for assuming that this order is the result of purposeful, intelligent design by a supernatural deity.
In order to mount a convincing argument that things in nature require a Divine Creator to explain them, creationists must first demonstrate that it is impossible to explain them in any other way, and such design arguments as the watchmaker argument fail to do that.

 

No, not poppycock.
The person who said "theory in crisis" explained what
he meant by it. He was arguing against the Religion Of
Evolution, and you do not know that it will not eventually
become a "theory in crisis."

"In past human history, major scientific revolutions have
overturned theories that were at the time considered
near-certain. { So? } So current evolutionary theory is likely
to undergo such a revolution in the future, on the basis
that it is a 'theory in crisis' for one reason or another."
__Wikipedia

Wikipedia Article Titled "Objections To Evolution."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object...iable_evidence

Large numbers of people have been wrong as recorded
by human history and you do not know that the Religion
Of Evolution will not be demonstrated to be incorrect by
future generations of humans presenting solid Empirical
evidences that prove Evolution to have been wrong.

Or maybe Theistic Evolution is correct?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

JAG


``

 

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

 

Much more than mere assumption. The whole world around
you demonstrates Intelligent Design and this Intelligent
Design does not merely "appear" to be the case --- it actually
IS the reality.

Obviously not sufficient for YOU -- but obviously it IS sufficient
for me -- and for the world's some 5 billion Theists also.

Convincing to who?
To you?
Do you think that YOU are THE ONE that gets to decide what
is, or in not, a convincing argument?

This below does convince me --- and many others also.

It requires an Intelligent Designer to create and assemble a
Working Human Eye and a Working Human Brain, just as it
would require an Intelligent Designer to create and assemble
a Working Rolex Watch --- but , , ,

Natural Processes are not intelligent.
Natural Processes had no Intelligent Goal.
Natural Processes had no Intelligent Plan.

And the human eye and human brain is just as complex as a
Working Rolex Watch.

So?

So there is an Intelligent Designer that designed and created the
Human Person and the Earth --- and the Working Human Eye
and the Working Human Brain.

To say otherwise is absurd irrational nonsense.

The world's some 5 billion Theists do not agree with you and your
relatively much smaller band of "true believers" in the Religion
Of Evolution.

Who says? Who says that's true?
The world's some 5 billion Theists probably have no intention of
lining up with your assertion on that. I know I am not going to line
up with it. I have no intention of talking on the impossible task of
proving what is "impossible."

Fails to do that in your world.
But not in my world.
In my world the Intelligent Design Argument makes good sense
and the notion that non-intelligent Time plus non-intelligent Chance
plus non-intelligent Matter created and assembled a Working Human
Eye and a Working Human Brain --- is absolute absurd ridiculous
nonsense.

JAG

 

Intelligent design is not supported by any scientific evidence.
Evolution was and still is the only scientific theory for life that can explain how we get complexity from simplicity and diversity from uniformity.
ID offers nothing comparable. It begins with complexity,a Supreme Being,and also ends there. The explanations offered by ID are not really explanations at all,
they're more like last resorts.

 

If Data Dumps off the web convince you, then that's just dandy.
They do not convince me of anything.
I focus on Real World issues that are simple and to the point,
like this one , ,

It requires an Intelligent Designer to create and assemble a
Working Human Eye and a Working Human Brain, just as it
would require an Intelligent Designer to create and assemble
a Working Rolex Watch --- but , , ,

Natural Processes are not intelligent.
Natural Processes had no Intelligent Goal.
Natural Processes had no Intelligent Plan.

And the human eye and human brain is just as complex as a
Working Rolex Watch.

So?

So there is an Intelligent Designer that designed and created the
Human Person and the Earth --- and the Working Human Eye
and the Working Human Brain.

To say otherwise is absurd irrational nonsense.

__________


I'm using Working Rolex Watch to be the equivalent to a
Working Human Brain and a Working Human Eye -- all
3 are highly intricate complex fine-tuned entities.

And posting Data Dumps off the web does not explain how
non-intelligent natural processes can assemble a Working
Rolex Watch --- using "natural selection" when natural selection
is not intelligent and has no intelligent Plan and no Intelligent
Goal , , ,

So?

So Evolution's non-intelligent "natural selection" is a poor offering
to explain , , ,

~ The Working Human Eye
~ The Working Human Brain
~ A Working Rolex Watch

JAG

 

That is what YOU say.
But YOU are not my authority on what is, or is not, scientific evidence.
Neither are YOU my authority on your claim that Intelligent Design is not
supported by scientific evidence.
YOU do NOT own the domain of "Science" and you do not own
the domain of "scientific evidence."
You can believe whatever you want to to believe.
So can I,
And I will.
And I will present it.
And I have.
It is in my OP and in my many follow-up posts in this thread.
And you have not refuted any of it.
It all stands strong and solid and unrefuted.

{1} That can change.
{2} Large numbers of humans have been wrong before.
{3} Theistic Evolution might be true?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

JAG

 

It's simple. ID can never be science. Your theory has to be potentially testable, and ID is not. Btw, I got basic science training in college, as well as studying the history and philosophy of science.

ID was cooked up by a kook that wanted to sneak religion into public schools. The courts gave him the boot, and science can't touch it with a ten foot pole.

 

Lets put your argument in a logical way,

A Rolex Watch is very complex.
The Rolex Watch had a designer.
The Universe is Complex
Therefore the Universe had a designer.

What you have done is create a false analogy fallacy, just because two objects have a common quality they must have another quality in common ie a designer. You cannot prove that logically, your using faulty logic. By using your faulty logic I can make up other analogies.

The Rolex Watch is Complex.
The Rolex Watch was made in Switzerland.
The Universe is Complex
Therefore the universe was made in Switzerland!

See how logic works?

 

I'm not going to go over all of that, but the eye evolved multiple times.

 

here's short video

and a longer video on the impropability of Darwinian evolution
the most basic of science.. mathematics.. so certain of evolution? Then you hve to do... what is the term bandied about "anti-science"\

 

Arguments based on probability, statistics or information theory by creationists have serious fallacies:

1. They presume that a given biomolecule came into existence “at random” via an all-at-once chance assemblage of atoms. But this is not the scientific hypothesis of how they formed; instead, numerous published studies, covering many biomolecules, indicate that these biomolecules were the result of a long series of intermediate steps over the eons, each useful in a previous biological context. Thus such arguments are fundamentally flawed from the beginning.
2. They apply faulty mathematical reasoning, such as by ignoring the fact that a very wide range of biomolecules could perform a similar function to the given biomolecule. Thus the odds they provide against the formation of the given biomolecule are greatly exaggerated.
3. They ignore the fact that biological evolution is fundamentally not a purely “random” process — mutations may be random, but natural selection is far from random.
4. They ignore reams of evidence from the natural world that evolution can and often does produce highly improbable structures and features.
5. Some writers attempt to invoke advanced mathematical concepts (e.g., information theory), but derive highly questionable results and misapply these results in ways that render the conclusions invalid in an evolutionary biology context.
6. The creationist hypothesis of separate creation for each species does not resolve any probability paradoxes; instead it enormously magnifies them.

 

Do you want to see some "science-politics" involved in the Wikipedia deletion of
Gunter Bechly's Wikipedia Page, if so you can read this , , , ,

"Wikipedia: Articles For Deletion/Gunter Bechly"
Read both the Delete and Keep entries -- and the Comment section.
It has some :"science politics" as the Keep's vs. the Delete's argue back and forth.
In spots its like reading threads on the Internet.

"Now find reliable sources to support your belief that this person is notable or go away.
If you are feel I'm being combative and condescending towards you that's because I am.
I have no patience for attempts at vote manipulation and people who don't respect or
know a thing about Wikipedia standards. I will not be adding anything to this discussion
anymore. As far as I see this is a case of canvassing and incompetent attempts at
saving this non-notable persons article."__from the Wikipedia debate over deletion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Günter_Bechly

JAG

 

Again,

From the article you linked to,

The heated debate between experienced Wikipedians and proponents of “intelligent design” ended up backfiring on the latter and actually helped to finalize the deletion of the Bechly article.



By issuing a call to defend the scientist on the special “articles for deletion” page set up for Bechly, the anti-evolution missionaries broke a cardinal role in Wikipedia calling for “no canvassing,” which bars any attempts to influence the outcome of a discussion on Wikipedia by calling external actors into the fray.

So the Intelligent Design skyfairiests broke Wiki rules and got this guy deleted! So it was the ID skyfairiests who got him deleted and ruined his reputation!

And the parts you again left out as they disagree with your summation.

• • Also, a little note, Wikipedia doesn't care about personal views, it will always reflect evolution as factual because that is what overwhelming scientific consensus says. So any attempt to try to turn this into a debate about how Wikipedia is biased will be null and void, don't even attempt it. This is an encyclopedia that reflects sources and consensus not about how stuff should be fair for both sides or some nonsense like that. You have made several keep "votes" already Mr Tanner which isn't even allowed do I'd say you have no clue about how Wikipedia works so lay off it.

Now, it maybe also appropriate to point out that I was not even aware that this person was some kind of creationist or whatever when I put this article up for deletion. I simply saw it a while ago by looking at someone elses edit it and decided to check the sources, which I do regularly, and saw that they were very lacking. I then checked the talkpage which had already brought up the issue of notability. I felt a AFD was a good idea. That's that.
Now find reliable sources to support your belief that this person is notable or go away. If you are feel I'm being combative and condescending towards you that's because I am. I have no patience for attempts at vote manipulation and people who don't respect or know a thing about wikipedia standards. I will not be adding anything to this discussion anymore. As far as I see this is a case of canvassing and incompetent attempts att saving this non-notable persons


And of course what we have here is an argument by skyfariests and wikipedians, there is as much evidence that the scientific community was involved as there is for the sky fairy religion!

 

Unthinking Matter , , ,

Arguments based upon Faith-based assumptions regarding
what Unthinking Matter can create and assemble have serious
fallacies.

Let us pause and pay homage to Unthinking Matter.

We have not only Unthinking Matter but we also have
Unthinking Time and Unthinking Chance and we
can include Unthinking Natural Selection and also
Unthinking Nature --- nonetheless all this Unthinking
Non-intelligent Time, Chance, Matter can create and
assemble a Working Human Brain which is just as
intricate and complex as a Working Rolex Watch -- so
that means that , , , ,

Non-intelligent Unthinking Time , ,

and

Non-intelligent Unthinking Chance , , ,

and

Non-intelligent Unthinking Matter , , ,

, , , can create and assemble a Working Rolex Watch , ,

, , , and then some have the nerve and the gall to ridicule
and mock "People Of Faith" because they believe that
an Intelligent Designer with an Intelligent Plan and an
Intelligent Goal --- created the intelligent Human Person
and the Highly Complex Human Brain.

The real and true People Of Faith are those that believe
in the Religion Of Evolution and in that Religion's religious
dogmas.

JAG

 

how about the propabilty of the formatoin of one amino acid?

 

The calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have?

If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case.

Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all.

For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite.

Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.

In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life

 

No they ridicule and mock sky fairy supporters because the sky fairy supporter believes in something they do not know exists and if it does they do not know it is intelligent and they certainly have no idea this sky fairy has any plan. Their Scientific Theory is that their sky fairy puffed everything into existence by magic in a week!

 

It does not matter so much WHAT Hoyle was.
All that matters at bottom is what Hoyle SAID.
And what Hoyle SAID makes good sense to
billions of people eg the world's some 5 billion
Theists , , , and maybe to a few atheists too.

For example the following makes sense:

“I am an atheist, but as far as blowing up the world in a nuclear
war goes, I tell them not to worry.”___Fred Hoyle

“Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that
there are about 2000 enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them
all in a random trial is only one part in 10^40,000, an outrageously
small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe
consisted of organic soup.”___Fred Hoyle

“There is a coherent plan to the universe, though I don't know
what it's a plan for.”__Fred hoyle

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/199992.Fred_Hoyle

The fact that Fred Hoyle claimed to be an atheist is just an
eye-catcher. Committed atheists will dismiss Fred Hoyle
as if Dear Fred was a mere speck of lint.

___________

By the way, in another vein , , ,

None of us know what God Almighty has in store for His
Human Race Project. I glanced at an article recently that
said. "This COVID-19 Virus pandemic has caused me to
seriously re-examine my entire life and for the better."

None of us know what the future holds for us or more
importantly for those we love.

Best.

JAG