a debating tactic that's as old as the ancient Greeks. When your opponent
is correct and you can't refute his arguments, you use an ad hominem attack
instead. You smear his character. Mock and ridicule him personally. Call
him a liar, even when you know he's correct. Anything to cover up the fact
that he's right.
Here is the statement that you made:-
(Creationist Propaganda Tactic)
Charles P: The 20th Century version of The Theory of Evolution assumed
that living things are not designed. The 21st Century version of The
Theory of Evolution assumes that living things are designed.
Stewart: Far from being right, you could not have been further from the truth. There is absolutely no basis in fact for your statement. The Theory of evolution doesn't now, nor has it ever considered life to be a deliberate design. I promise you Charles that if I thought you were right I would have no reason to debate with you. What you wrote was wholly untrue, a fib, a falsehood, a porky, an untruth, a lie.
Charles P: There are two possibilities for living things: (1) design or
(2) no design. No design = random. Design = not random.
Stewart: I have no reason to argue with this because it is correct.
Having no specific
pattern, purpose, or objective.
definition, is a method of learning about the natural universe by asking
questions in such a way that they can be answered empirically and
verifiably. If a question cannot be framed so that the answer can be
tested, and the test results can be reproduced by others, then it is not
Stewart: Yes, right again
Charles P: What is a partial list of the evidence for the design in living
things that can be shown empirically and verifiably and can also be tested
by others and those test results reproduced by others?
1 There is evidence that living things have specific patterns.
2 There is evidence that living things can't be described by a probability
Stewart: Could you explain that please?
3 There is evidence that living things have outcomes of survival, growth,
and proliferation that are not equally likely.
Stewart: Absolutely right. Life is a lottery, some might say that luck is randomly distributed.
4 There is evidence that living things do not have an equal chance of
being selected for survival, growth, and proliferation in nature.
Stewart: Which would seem utterly out of place in a planned, purposefully designed scenario.
5 There is evidence that living things "interact purposefully to ensure
survival, growth, and proliferation". (Evolution: A View From The 21st
Stewart: To some extent I agree with this. Some living things interact purposefully. There are living things like trees and bacteria which are not acting purposefully in the sense that they don't make decisions. Although how they operate serves to maintain their existence, I don't think that qualifies as purposeful interaction though.
6 There is evidence that living things "possess corresponding sensory,
communication, information-processing, and decision-making capabilities".
(Evolution: A View From The 21st Century, p.143).
Stewart: Again yes, some living things have that capability.
7 There is evidence that living things have systems, processes, and
elements that have been studied by scientists to help solve human problems.
The examination of
nature, its models, systems, processes, and elements to emulate or take
inspiration from in order to solve human problems.
Charles P: There is evidence that living things do not occur randomly in
Stewart: Oops, See this is what normally happens with your posts Charles. You frame the whole thing in uncontroversial, if unnecessary statements, and then toss in a complete falsehood at random. There is no such evidence, at least not evidence that is recognised by scientists.
If there was evidence that life was designed, (which is where you're heading here) you would not be contributing to this forum. Science would have ensured that it became widely known and people like me would have to accept what they presently cannot. This forum would be unnecessary and wouldn't exist.
If however, your statement refers to the fact that there is evidence which proves that life is not spontaneously created, I agree. I take it that's not what you're saying though, is it?
Chas: There is evidence that every living thing is complex. Non-living
things can be described adequately by using the laws of physics. Living
things can be described adequately by using the laws of physics but the
description must also include the laws of information that are are quickly
being learned in the 21st Century version of The Theory of Evolution.
Stewart: Not true. In fact information is entirely dependent on physics. Information is only information if it is stored. To store information you need physical material, information can't exist without matter and is therefore subject to the laws of physics. This phantom 'New Theory of Evolution' that you speak of isn't necessary.
Charles P: http://ncse.com/evolution/science/what-is-science
descriptions of living things are tentative and "will be changed if new
evidence contradicts previous understandings". The 20th Century version of
The Theory of Evolution is not scientific. Science and most of its dogmas
have never been adequately tested. There are 20th Century dogmas that
can't be tested empirically and verifiably by others.
Stewart: This has descended into your usual line of rhetoric. Whenever you stray from absolute descriptions, as in dictionary definitions, your flights of fancy emerge with no obvious link between cause and effect.
Charles P: There is evidence from the 21st Century version of The Theory
of Evolution that living things are designed to evolve:
Stewart: To say that things are designed to evolve is not the same as saying they were 'deliberately' designed to evolve. This is the point that Glaudys tried to make to in a previous post. You of course were either oblivious to that point, or deliberately ignored it.
1 Living things change over time. Descendants are slightly different from
2 Living things are related by common design. All living things respond
to the instructions that are found in the DNA digital code information that
is common to all living things. Common ancestry can only be adequately
tested empirically and verifiably by comparing genomes.
Which it has. The genomes of modern Human are 3% Neanderthal, which is a familial share equal to that which you have with your great, great, great, great Grandmother.
N.B. The first line should have read :- Living things are related by common descent.
Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/28921
Primates Without A Common Ancestor.
Stewart: Nonsense. If there were ten such examples, it would disprove common descent and common design.
3 Living things are naturally selected as they change over time in
predictable and purposeful processes that can be repeated by others
empirically and verifiably that ensure survival, growth and proliferation.
Stewart: You do realise that you're suggesting that the course of evolution in a particular lineage can be reproduced by "others" and result in the same outcome? I would suggest that to be so unlikely as to be an impossibility.
Scott Adams: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/scott_adams.html
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
Stewart: What is it called if you continue to make the same mistakes over and over again, without ever showing any sign of recognising your errors?
--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
> Stewart: This is the kind of arse gravy that illustrates your contempt for
> facts, and your hypocrisy in lecturing others on the scientific validity of
> their conclusions. Both of those sentences are 21st century bollocks! The
> 21st century evolution you describe exists only in the abandoned recesses
> of your mind. The 'actual' theory of Evolution assumes nothing, it is a
> science and as such isn't in the business of making assumptions on design.
> Debate tactic:
> a debating tactic that's as old as the ancient Greeks. When your opponent
> is correct and you can't refute his arguments, you use an ad hominem attack
> instead. You smear his character. Mock and ridicule him personally. Call
> him a liar, even when you know he's correct. Anything to cover up the fact
> that he's right.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]