. You have not shown the quotes to be discredited or representations of those quotes to be false. Holding our debate about inference aside --- my representation was that some scientists said the universe appears designed. I provided quotes in support. 1. You could argue those quotes are discredited. However, professor Susskind just quoted them in his recent book. he is one of the top scientists in the world (co-inventor of string theory) He gave the quotes and then said these guys know good science. So you do not have the power to discredit the scientists or the quotes. 2. My representation was that top scientists have said the universe appears designed. This argument is proven by the existence of the quotes. You lose again. Therefore, for for saying I misrepresented "anything" without proving it --- you hold the title of dipshit.
I'm amazed that you can pretend that the thousands of posts in this thread just didn't happen. I guess that's one of the surviving skills of the ID proponents. This post below summarized it pretty well:
oh now I know you are a dipshit. Those were statements made by tradernik. Made without support or foundation of any kind. I belive TraderNik used Kjs private email with Susskind for support. Note when KJ was asked if Susskind was misquoted or saying his quotes were wrong KJ said ask him yourself. For even citing that garbage you have no credibility. Is that what you call proof of your argument that I misrepresented something. What was the misrepresentation?
At least you're making progress. This is the first post that you didn't make a single spelling error. Hooray! Your misrepresentation of others is well documented in this thread. I was merely reminding you that fact, not trying to prove it here. Calling others names is not an effective defense.
James Bond 3rd: I understand that the evidence needs be strong for there to be consensus among scientists that something is well established but this only occurs after a long successful investigation. One doesn't begin an investigation with overwhelming evidence. As you previously noted, the evidence for abiogenesis is very weak, yet many scientists are hypothesizing about it based on nothing more than a hunch. From zzz's link: Notice it doesn't say that "inference demonstrates itself in overwhelming evidence", it says that "inference demonstrates itself in hypothesizing". Hypothesizing about abiogenesis is based on nothing more than suspicion. Hypothesizing in general involves interpreting subtle clues in an effort to piece together a circumstantial case. If scientists had to wait for overwhelming evidence before hypothesizing, science would be dead in the water.
just curious about relative sense of intellectual (dis)honesty etc from various posters here... what if i were to quote Dumbski as follows: "There are rare times and places, in the illustrious history of science, when outbursts of genius supply human civilization with the supreme wonders of human greatness. It is the contemplation of these that raises the mass of humanity to levels not unworthy of what, in less enlightened ages, we would have regarded as the divine image and which we now, rightly, regard as the pinnacle of evolutionary development. Such moments of supreme scientific achievement are to be found in the works of Archimedes, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein. However, never beforeâor sinceâhas scientific genius burst in such profusion on the human scene as in the 19th century when Charles Darwin propounded his theory of evolution and taught the creatures of evolution to understand that they are products of evolution. If an award were to be given for the single best idea anyone ever had, it would go to Darwin, ahead of everyone else. In a single stroke, the idea of evolution by natural selection unifies the realm of life, meaning, and purpose with the realm of space and time, cause and effect, mechanism and physical law. Natural selection is the greatest, simplest, most elegant logical construct ever to dawn across our curiosity about the workings of natural life." just an excerpt from the following: http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/dawkinss-66th-birthday-hey-what-about-my-birthday-greeting/ ... Would you consider that i am: 1. misrepresenting Dumbski's quote 2. misrepresenting Dumbski's intent 3. just a dipshit 4. seriously weak in the head to have missed the underlying irony 5. acting in bad faith 6. some of the above 7. all of the above and more 8. none of the above (then U would be seriously weak in the head but that's another story ;-) )
tease aside, is anyone on this thread willing to argue whether a) "true randomness" per se, is incompatible with the notion of "ultimate causality", and if that should be the case, then b) "randomness" is also incompatible with "theism"? JMV but... as earlier pointed out in this thread, "causality" in many ways is our "raison d'etre": biological organisms, life, humans etc thrive because there is sufficient scope on this planet at least for "causal" type relationships these same organisms have and still can "rely" on, whether this be an "instinctive", "DNA-coded", "conscious" process or what not... in the case of humans, the top predator for now, it is our ability to identify "causal frameworks" of increasing complexity that has taken us to where we are today (nothing to be too proud of considering the ongoing bloodsheed, porn culture etc but lets leave that for another thread perhaps...) our brains by construction and if only for survival purposes are attuned to the notion(s) of "causality", to identifying, researching, understanding "causal-type" relationships, that we can then use to our "advantage", simply put (a bit simplistic, i know, eg this is not how artists proceed etc etc, but am not trying to write a thesis here... pls bear with me on this one) that doesn't however imply that "causality" be the name of the game in this "universe"/"megaverse" we live in, and for about a century already, a-causal, and much easier to grasp anti-causal models have been developed and used successfully in a variety of applied sciences / applications, therefore lending credence to the notion that this "universe" is in fact the theater of "strictly causal" to "truly random" "processes", with all the shades in between. is "our" purpose, the purpose of biological life in general - if purpose there is of course, but just for the sake of discussion... -, to reclaim / reestablish the reign of "absolute causality" across this universe and any other that may lie "beyond", in a cosmic and eternal yin yang struggle against "randomness", i'll happily leave to you guys to ponder... but i am honestly curious to know what your views are re a) and b) above thanks in advance for any thoughtful responses
Posted by Michael Egnor on March 22, 2007 Evolution News & Views Is Darwinism essential to understanding bacterial resistance to antibiotics? Consider the following conversation, at the bedside of a patient with a serious antibiotic-resistant infection: Nurse: Nothingâs working, Doctor! Doctor: I know. All of our antibiotics have failed. Penicillin, Cipro, Tetracycline. Nurse: Letâs ask the Darwinists for help! Doctor: (Slaps forehead) Of course! Darwinism is the foundation of our understanding of bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Darwinists claim that Darwinâs theory, which is the theory that all biological complexity arose by random variation and natural selection, is essential to our understanding of bacterial resistance to antibiotics. What exactly does Darwinism teach us about antibiotic resistance? Microbiology tells us that bacterial populations are heterogeneous. Individual bacteria differ from one another. Molecular biology tells us that some bacteria have molecular mechanisms by which they can survive antibiotics. Molecular genetics tells us how these resistance mechanisms are passed to other bacteria and through generations of bacteria. Pharmacology helps us design new antibiotics that circumvent the bacterial defenses. What does Darwinism add to the sciences of microbiology, molecular biology, molecular genetics, and pharmacology? Darwinism tells us that antibiotic-resistant bacteria survive exposure to antibiotics because of natural selection. That is, bacteria survive antibiotics that they'r e not sensitive to, so non-killed bacteria will eventually outnumber killed bacteria. Thatâs it. Microbiology, molecular biology, molecular genetics and pharmacology are indispensable to modern medicine. Weâve learned much about intricate bacterial defenses against antibiotics, and weâve developed hundreds of antibiotics that have saved millions of lives. What has Darwinism added to these miracles? Just this: non-killed bacterial eventually outnumber killed bacteria. Darwinism is worthless to modern medicine.