Could you please elaborate why the following topics belong in the flame wars section when they are scientifically relevant?
Information about junk DNA actually having a function
Biomolecular machines and how cells work
Preadaptations and evolutionary dynamics
Quantum physics and consciousness (EDIT: partially I see)
How am I suppose to reply to assertions without referencing peer-reviewed literature and giving links to them? That is the source of my information.
I have no reason to engage in a silly mudsling fest in the flame war section.
With regards to junk DNA, the argument was to show that junk DNA actually have a function.
With regards to biomolecular machines, the purpose of the thread was to highlight the interesting discoveries regarding the intracellular biomolecular machinery that are crucial for life to exist. Discussion around the mechanisms are encouraged. Why can’t discussion be limited to that?
With regards to preadaptations, the purpose of the thread is to highlight preadaptations in primitive organisms and how they affect evolutionary trajectories. Why can’t discussion be limited to that?
With regards to quantum physics and consciousness, the purpose of the thread is to look at the possibility of microtubules as information processing structures and their possible role in consciousness and how quantum physics may affect the behaviour of these structures. Links to peer-reviewed research have been provided. Why can’t discussion be limited to that?
Let me get this straight. Are you—
[ol]- Denying that you have a religious/creationist/ID agenda?
Denying that your religious/creationist/ID agenda is relevant?
Denying that you hardly ever answer relevant questions?
Other (please specify)?[/ol]
Would they help hide the fact that you’re dodging, you think?
It’s not an argument. It’s a fact-based observation, one intended to call into question the assumed attribute of intelligence belonging to your designer. That would cut through much of the nonsense, but I’m sure you can fabricate, if you haven’t already, a suitable tuft of yarn to sweep such incongruities under the rug.
I moved some of those topics because they became inappropriate for the science and technology section. If everyone played nice, some of it could have stayed there. I am still going through some of those posts to see if it can be moved somewhere more appropriate.
Of course you can reference your sources. But you have to get your argument across too. And most people don’t bother with walls of text.
Yet that is exactly what you are doing.
Because you are unclear as to what you are actually arguing. You are posting topics in the scientific section, and arguing from a religious standpoint. If you keep them separate and in the relevant sections, there won’t be a problem.
I am not denying that I have one. Are you denying you have an anti-religious/metaphysical materialistic/anti-design agenda? Both don’t belong in a scientific discussion. How about we stick to the facts as they are presented? Do you have a problem with junk DNA having a function, preadaptations and biomolecular machines? If these scientific facts are problematic, perhaps the problem does not lie in the facts or the discussion of them? Do you mind sticking to the FACTS?
The relevance of religious/creationist/ID agenda towards scientific facts (including junk DNA having a function, preadaptations and biomolecular machines) are about as relevant as an anti-religious/metaphysical materialistic/anti-design agenda towards these facts. You leave your bias and I leave mine and we happily discuss the scientific FACTS ;).
I think this is a good time for you to lay out all the problematic questions you have. Make a thread to lump all those questions. Let’s see how far we get.
Discussing scientific facts…
See point 3 above ;).
Hence the theological and philosophical nature of the observation. Nothing scientific. Surely you can see that.
Fair enough, I hope you will consider and recognise instances of baiting and trolling and logical fallacies in the future.
Do you mind pointing that to those arguing from an anti-religious standpoint please? Why can’t they keep their biases separate from discussing the facts?
My my, how you dissimulate! Let me put things to you straight:
Your thread “purpose” that you inevitably articulate in the first post is NOT your purpose in any way. Your purpose is invariably to peddle ID via a barrage of scientific quote-mining coupled with weak insinuation.
You peddle the SAME threads on different forums around the net. To what end? If you really wished to discuss the science, you would post only to a science forum. But that is not your purpose in any way, is it?
This is a forum for skeptical discussions, ones based on the critical stance. Your threads are not so in any way - you merely peddle a viewpoint, rather than posting skeptically about an issue. So “scientific relevance” as a defence for your twaddle is a red herring, as you are undoubtedly aware.
So don’t whine. You have been found out. Go post your evangelical cr@p on the bizarre “spiritual” forums, where the members are suckers and believe anything and everything.
Kindly refer to your first paragraph in Reply #26, the bit about “Could you please elaborate why the following topics belong in the flame wars section when they are scientifically relevant?”. Don’t try to duck my accusations by moving the goalposts. How exactly are 1, 2 and 3 above relevant to your big quote-mining ID threads?
One would think not. I am sure you think the content is more important and it would be the right thing to do to openly address any unscientific posts or posts which are not scientifically relevant ;).
See? Like I said elsewhere: “you have no actual respect for science, merely a shabby pretence to it.” Science proceeds from the minimalist assumption that matter, energy, matter-mediated properties and strict laws governing them are all that are required for a fruitful and meaningful description of the world. Thus, its very methodology is premised on an “anti-religious/metaphysical materialistic/anti-design” agenda, and it will remain so until compelling reason and evidence are advanced that would prompt a rethink. In contrast, your own claims and implications are all positive: the existence of some “intelligent designer”; the existence of some “supernatural realm”; the existence of some grand teleology; and so on. You have the onus of proof. There is no onus of disproof on your detractors. All you’ve provided so far is salvo after broadside of ignorant and anti-scientific innuendo:
Junk DNA = Wow, god doesn’t add any useless stuff.
Biomolecular Machines = Wow, god is just such a cool engineer.
Preadaptations = Wow, god foresaw what was necessary for a species’ survival and blessed it with those facilities in advance.
Quantum physics and consciousness = Wow, god lives in an indefinite state inside microtubules.
To think I have to explain this to you… ;D
And those questions are peppered throughout the threads you yourself started. Few of them have received any decent answer. Now you seek to make it my responsibility to tie them together into a convenient bundle for you so that you can dodge some more? You’re a fool if you think I or anyone else will fall for that after all the prevarication and shystering we’ve seen. Dig them up yourself. Answer what you can, as best you can. That way lies redemption. The choice is yours.
The only thing I can see is more incipient sidestepping. What’s not scientific about the observation that for every species alive today, about 999 species have gone extinct? What’s not scientific about the rather obvious inference from that observation that any ostensible “intelligent designer” behind this fiasco very probably botched 999 times out of 1,000?
Phrony post wall’o’text with some comments
‘Luthon responds with comments directly aimed at the comments, not the copied-paste text.
Cyghost responds to one comment he finds particularly troublesome
Phrony says “latter style of thinking” is not scientific either and accuses ‘Luthon of being uncivil
Cyghost asks for an elaboration
‘Luthon explains why it isn’t unscientific (null-hypothesis) and to accusations of incivility
Phrony chooses to respond only to the “incivility” he sees and asks null-hypothesis to be applied to junk DNA.
Cyghost focuses ‘Luthon’s point and makes a point about civility
Phrony ignores this and repeats request to apply null-hypothesis to junk DNA
‘Luthon complies
Etc etc etc
That was the 1st 10 posts only. After post 1 we are obliged to direct our responses to phrony and to expect straightforward and decent answers to questions and comments. None was forthcoming. I submit this is because phrony doesn’t know the first thing of what he copies and pastes and links to. I have the advantage (displeasure?) of having engaged him on these particular subjects for two years now. (my the time flies when one has fun- Happy Anniversary, phrony, it was this month in 2007 we first crossed swords.)
This indubitably has created a bias in me towards his posts.
So much so that I at first didn’t want to respond to anything he says here, and leave others to make up their own minds, but there is little else going on from day to day and I do so like these discussions and I think he was easily discovered anyway.
Phrony, in my opinion, leaves one with little else than poking fun at his silly beliefs, beliefs he tries to conceal with a constant claim of reason and logic, both of which he has a short supply of…
The way he uses “science” for his insinuations and innuendos grates on me.
I’ll easily refrain from ad homs if we can get him to answer questions straightforwardly or admit that he doesn’t want to answer or can’t answer. But the constant evasion, even after two years, still doesn’t sit easy with me.
Junk DNA = Wow, god doesn’t add any useless stuff.
Biomolecular Machines = Wow, god is just such a cool engineer.
Preadaptations = Wow, god foresaw what was necessary for a species’ survival and blessed it with those facilities in advance.
Quantum physics and consciousness = Wow, god lives in an indefinite state inside microtubules.
By all means, please do. Where appropriate, you can also add:
Biomimicry = Wow, god made biology so cleverly that we now copy his best ideas.
Programmed Evolution = Wow, god planned exactly how every species will evolve.
Optimality of the Genetic Code = Wow, god made DNA a near-perfect information carrier.
Genetic Toolkits and Multicellularity = Wow, god put all the basic requirements for multicellular organisms into simple life forms well before they were even needed.