Real Science Radio CRSQ (Vol 43, Num 1)

[bob b]

Aren't there any creationist types with any kind of scientific awareness out there who have a problem with bob's continual and easy adoption of the "assume your conclusions" fallacy?!? I mean, come on!

I simply have observed that prior belief in evolution seems to blind people to the obvious, for example, that cells are obviously designed and did not arise "naturally".

Once one begins to suspect that cells did not arise naturally then everything else falls naturally into place.

Thus, my recent concentration in the Cell Trends thread on presenting the latest research revealing the intricately designed mechanisms in the cell.

 

[aharvey]

I simply have observed that prior belief in evolution seems to blind people to the obvious, for example, that cells are obviously designed and did not arise "naturally".

Once one begins to suspect that cells did not arise naturally then everything else falls naturally into place.

Thus, my recent concentration in the Cell Trends thread on presenting the latest research revealing the intricately designed mechanisms in the cell.

This is one weak justification for assuming your conclusions!

 

[Jukia]

I simply have observed that prior belief in evolution seems to blind people to the obvious, for example, that cells are obviously designed and did not arise "naturally".

Once one begins to suspect that cells did not arise naturally then everything else falls naturally into place.

Thus, my recent concentration in the Cell Trends thread on presenting the latest research revealing the intricately designed mechanisms in the cell.

Other than the fact that many of a cell's parts are complicated and interconnected, what evidence is there of "design"?

 

[Stripe]

And that evidence is????

fish, birds, mammals and people ...

throw in bugs and reptiles somewhere ...

 

[bob b]

This is one weak justification for assuming your conclusions!

For many people recognizing that a cell is designed and did not arise naturally is an important first step.

 

[SUTG]

For many people recognizing that a cell is designed and did not arise naturally is an important first step.

First step towards what?

Why do you think cells were designed and did not arise naturally?

 

[Johnny]

Anyone ever notice that Bob B only responds to a single quote (of his choice, of course) out of a big post, whereas aharvey responds to each and everything that warrants response (even to the point of responding individually to parts of a sentence)? This really bugs me, because I and others take great pains to respond to everything, and Bob only choses to respond to what he pleases.

I guess it's easier not to respond sometimes.

 

[Jukia]

First step towards what?

Why do you think cells were designed and did not arise naturally?

First step toward accepting Jesus, perhaps. Certainly not a first step, or any step, toward understanding living things or cells within living things.

 

[Stripe]

accepting jesus trumps all other understanding

 

[aharvey]

Anyone ever notice that Bob B only responds to a single quote (of his choice, of course) out of a big post, whereas aharvey responds to each and everything that warrants response (even to the point of responding individually to parts of a sentence)? This really bugs me, because I and others take great pains to respond to everything, and Bob only choses to respond to what he pleases.

I guess it's easier not to respond sometimes.

Bugs me too, but for a different reason; I'd probably be more effective if I let the little points slide and just focussed on the key points. (The fact that I don't do this well is partly why I'm glad I don't engage One-Eyed Jack anymore, since one of his favorite tricks is to absolutely atomize every clause in every sentence in every post, which has the curious effect of making the original coherent post seem almost unintelligible, and the expected effect of making the whole discussion completely unappetizing for anyone else to try and read.) However, bob seems to use a rather different set of criteria for what he chooses to respond to, and if you're not sure, you can usually gauge the strength of your argument by (weakest to strongest) whether he directly responds, intentionally misrepresents, changes the subject, or fails/ceases to respond altogether.

 

[Jukia]

accepting jesus trumps all other understanding

But you can't prove that by your total lack of understanding can you?

 

[Stripe]

shouldnt you be reading?

 

[bob b]

Perhaps it is my training in Systems and Operations Research that causes me to avoid getting sidetracked on peripheral issues, but instead causes me to stick like glue to the primary issues.

For instance, if cells did not arise "naturally" but instead were designed, as they appear to be, then the consequences for all the related minor issues are quite interesting and earth shattering.

 

[aharvey]

Perhaps it is my training in Systems and Operations Research that causes me to avoid getting sidetracked on peripheral issues, but instead causes me to stick like glue to the primary issues.
This might be an example of "failing to respond," but he might not have seen my post yet.
For instance, if cells did not arise "naturally" but instead were designed, as they appear to be, then the consequences for all the related minor issues are quite interesting and earth shattering.

Okay, this is a mix of "failing to respond" and a category I forgot "'respond' to a rebuttal by simply repeating your original claim." In this case, I've already noted that the ramifications would be the same if it could be shown that anything did not arise "naturally" but was instead designed, and have noted what those ramifications would be. So repeating this point hasn't really moved us anywhere. Nor does repeating the assertion that cells did not arise "naturally" but instead were designed over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, all the while studiously ignoring repeated requests for actual evidence that cells are designed (you know, besides assuming it's so, "it's obvious," and "cells are complex," none of which really count as evidence per se) move the argument anywhere. Is there perhaps nowhere else to go? At least until we too assume your conclusions?

 

[Jukia]

Okay, this is a mix of "failing to respond" and a category I forgot "'respond' to a rebuttal by simply repeating your original claim." In this case, I've already noted that the ramifications would be the same if it could be shown that anything did not arise "naturally" but was instead designed, and have noted what those ramifications would be. So repeating this point hasn't really moved us anywhere. Nor does repeating the assertion that cells did not arise "naturally" but instead were designed over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, all the while studiously ignoring repeated requests for actual evidence that cells are designed (you know, besides assuming it's so, "it's obvious," and "cells are complex," none of which really count as evidence per se) move the argument anywhere. Is there perhaps nowhere else to go? At least until we too assume your conclusions?

Is "bingo" the appropriate response here???

 

[bob b]

Okay, this is a mix of "failing to respond" and a category I forgot "'respond' to a rebuttal by simply repeating your original claim." In this case, I've already noted that the ramifications would be the same if it could be shown that anything did not arise "naturally" but was instead designed, and have noted what those ramifications would be. So repeating this point hasn't really moved us anywhere. Nor does repeating the assertion that cells did not arise "naturally" but instead were designed over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, all the while studiously ignoring repeated requests for actual evidence that cells are designed (you know, besides assuming it's so, "it's obvious," and "cells are complex," none of which really count as evidence per se) move the argument anywhere. Is there perhaps nowhere else to go? At least until we too assume your conclusions?

I have to repeat things over and over because some people fail to "get it".

There is little argument over cells being designed, but evolutionists like Dawkins insist that "random mutations plus natural selection" is the "designer".

As more and more intricate biological mechanisms are discovered within cells, the idea that "chance" can design things like a cell becomes less and less credible and people not dogmatically attached to evolutionism can easly see this.

 

[SUTG]

There is little argument over cells being designed...

Who are you trying to fool with this statement?

 

[bob b]

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose". Richard Dawkins

An Introduction to Systems Biology: Design Principles of Biological Circuits builds a solid foundation for the intuitive understanding of general principles.

Center for Biological Circuit Design - Caltech
The CBCD is developing new ways to design, build and analyze biological circuits. Biological circuits control information flow in biological systems, and as such are a core area of Information Science and Technology. The study of circuits cuts across vast areas of biology, from biochemistry, biophysics and genetics, to cell and developmental biology, to neurobiology and ecology. Understanding how to design and build circuits is crucial for the next generation of bioengineering. The study of biological circuits also opens up new areas for theory in computation. We combine the experimental biologist's desire to abstract the key principles from the richness and diversity of biological circuits, the physicist's sense of measurement and of simple underlying mechanisms, and the engineer's aesthetic of "to build is to understand," The CBCD is an interdisciplinary group of biologists and engineers from a broad range of engineering and biology disciplines.

Goals: We will deduce simple rules about biological circuits and understand how they act in circuits at the levels of molecules, cells, organisms and ecosystems. We will learn how to model, design, build and analyze biological circuits. We will forge effective interdisciplinary research teams and train interdisciplinary researchers, with fundamental connections between engineering and circuit biology, systems and molecular neuroscience.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Evolution is not about "an increase in information".

:rotfl:

This thread is classic!! How could I have missed it??? :doh:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Let me keep my running tab....

Johnny asserts that evolution is not about "an increase in information". And a couple years ago he asserted we could go into the future to see who will win the World Series. Wow! Johnny, you're a nut! :chz4brnz: