Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-19-2019 3:30 PM
32 online now:
Chatting now:  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume:
Total: 861,793 Year: 16,829/19,786 Month: 954/2,598 Week: 200/251 Day: 29/59 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Author Topic:   INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1932
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 286 of 302 (372824)
12-29-2006 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by TheMystic
12-29-2006 5:16 PM


But anyway, can you see how the questions you've raised can only be answered within an intelligence framework?

No.

How can something be 'broken' unless there was some way it was supposed to be?

Deviation from the usual function does not automatically mean that the usual function has been designed into the system.

It's the same for 'perfect design' and 'standards'. So you tell me what 'standards' are

You're the one proclaiming a perfect design, it's up to you to provide the standards that you're measuring against.


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by TheMystic, posted 12-29-2006 5:16 PM TheMystic has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by TheMystic, posted 12-29-2006 5:28 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 302 (372825)
12-29-2006 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by DrJones*
12-29-2006 5:26 PM


"You're the one proclaiming a perfect design, it's up to you to provide the standards that you're measuring against."

Ok, I'm the standard, and I'm perfect. QED.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by DrJones*, posted 12-29-2006 5:26 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3849 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 288 of 302 (372841)
12-29-2006 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Phalanx
12-29-2006 1:42 PM


Re: common sense? Prevention
The lack of any corroborating evidence tells me that amygdalin, at this point in time, is not a remedy for any form of cancer, nor has it been shown to prevent cancer.

Dr Robert Good misrepresented Sloan study and it was presented as evidence and Dr Kanematsu Sugiuraf was asked if he recanted. In spite of this evidence presented as truth he stood upon what he knew to be the truth.

Another Italian Dr Guidetti said he cared not what the United States believed. When the Sloan study showed they lied to get Dr. Kanematsu Sugiuraf to recant it only confirmed Dr. Kanematsu Sugiuraf saying I stand and won't recant.

They also tried to bully Dr. Guidetti but he stood too and rightfully so because hes not bound by the FDA's marriage to the drug companies profits. His testimony is based on his personal experience treating patients in Italy thus he was not intimidated but only testifying what he personally saw within his own clinic.

THE POLITICS OF DEATH

"Few if any names in cancer research are as widely known as Kanematsu Sugiura’s... Possibly the highest regard in which his work is held is best characterized by a comment made to me by a visiting investigator in cancer research from Russia. He said, "When Dr Sugiura publishes, we know we don’t have to repeat the study, for we would obtain the same results he has reported."" So wrote Dr C Chester Stock, head of Sloan-Kettering’s cancer drug-testing division.
Dr Kanematsu Sugiura, arguably America’s leading cancer biochemist of the ‘70s, was given the task of researching B17 laetrile/amygdalin to determine whether it could prevent or regress cancer. After a five-year series of trials during which Dr Sugiura eminently proved the startling effectiveness of this treatment, his peers convened a press conference in New York. Dr Robert Good, President of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Institute where Dr Sugiura worked, rose to his feet to address the gathering:

"After careful and exhaustive testing of laetrile, it was found to possess neither preventative, nor tumor-regressant, nor anti-metastatic, nor curative anti-cancer activity."

"Dr Sugiura!" a reporter suddenly shouted. "Do you stick by your belief that laetrile stops the spread of cancer?"
The room suddenly became very quiet as the TV cameras turned on the elderly Japanese doctor for his reaction. Dr Sugiura calmly looked the reporter in the eye and, in a clear voice, replied, "I stick!"

Italy: Professor Etore Guidetti of the University of Turin Medical School. Dr Guidetti addressed the Conference of the International Union Against Cancer held in Brazil in 1954 and announced startling results with laetrile in successfully combating many types of cancer, including cervix, breast, uterus and rectum. After his speech, an American doctor rose in the audience, challenging the Italian professor that laetrile had been found to be worthless in the United States. Dr Guidetti was abrupt and dismissive: "I care not what was determined in the United States. I am merely reporting what I saw in my own clinic ."

http://www.credence.org/doctors.html

On a much more serious level was the well-publicized Laetrile test conducted at Sloan-Kettering in the 1970s. The final report stated there was no evidence that Laetrile was effective. However, employees inside Sloan-Kettering secretly sent copies of the actual lab reports to the press that proved just the opposite. Dr. Ralph Moss, who was Assistant Director of Public Affairs at Sloan-Kettering, was one of the whistle-blowers. He was fired because of it. The Sloan report was an insult to truth and a prostitution of science.

http://www.cancure.org/letters.htm

Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

Edited by Charley, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Phalanx, posted 12-29-2006 1:42 PM Phalanx has not yet responded

platypus
Member (Idle past 4011 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 289 of 302 (372842)
12-29-2006 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by TheMystic
12-29-2006 4:16 PM


Re: moron?
One of the things I was told in engineering school is that if you learn the general principles of engineering you can work in any field because nature is an orderly place.

You were lied to. I am in a biomechanics lab, and I am told the exact opposite qutie frequency.

So you have springs in cars and ball-point pens and wings on both airplanes and submarines.

None of these example refer to things in nature, they are all human designed. Biological organisms have immense variability that immediately complicates any sort of simple engineering test. Simple example- it hard to get stress-strain curves for many biological materials because there is just no easy way to get them to stick to force transducers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by TheMystic, posted 12-29-2006 4:16 PM TheMystic has not yet responded

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 4011 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 290 of 302 (372844)
12-29-2006 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by TheMystic
12-29-2006 5:25 PM


To make a human with all the features of every animal on the planet is a silly idea, really. In engineering we call them tradeoffs - weight vs. strength, etc. So the human is designed with the perfect mix of features for his intended purposes.

So, perfection no longer refers to "perfect" features, but to the "perfect" mix of features. Tell me, how many times in your engineering classes was the word perfect applied to any sort of design? I hope zero. Can't a material always theoretically be better at resisting forces? At what strength (engineering definition) is perfection reached?

There is no such thing as a perfect design in engineering, so your argument from engineering about a perfect biological system is silly.

You certainly can't argue this from an evolutionary viewpoint, because to claim the human is somehow defective is to claim there was something else he was supposed to be.

Humans aren't "suppose to be" anything. Like any organism, they still live because they are good enough at reproducing themselves to sustain their existence. They can have defects while still being just good enough to reproduce.

So the human is designed with the perfect mix of features for his intended purposes.

If a human being had a different mix of "perfect" features, would that mean he was designed for a different purpose? You should watch your implicit assumptions that humans are designed, have a purpose, and that this purpose is intended by some external agent. Your assumptions structure your questions such that they inherently exclude any answer that does not include a creator.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by TheMystic, posted 12-29-2006 5:25 PM TheMystic has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by TheMystic, posted 12-30-2006 8:12 AM platypus has not yet responded

  
TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 302 (372949)
12-30-2006 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by platypus
12-29-2006 8:03 PM


ok, I think we're arguing in circles. Let me see if I can make my point without any subtlety: I see a number of arguments on this thread saying that life cannot be designed because the designer didn't do a good job. I'm pointing out that in an evolved world, or more generally, a world that arose by purely natural causes, there is no such thing as 'good' or 'perfect' or so on. There is no such thing as right or wrong. You may *feel* like something is right or wrong, but only because certain electro-chemical reactions take place in your brain. Those reactions have tended to be successfully passed on throught zillions of generations and that's why you are the way you are. That's the only reason you are the way you are according to Darwin. So it is logically inconsistent to make any sort of value judgements about a non-existent designer. Hmmm, design itself is only an illusion as well, because what humans produce is only a response to certain verbal, tactile and visual stimuli, filtered through our inherited behavior patterns. No, it is only the ID'er who can logically talk about whether life is, or even would be, a good design.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by platypus, posted 12-29-2006 8:03 PM platypus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2006 8:46 AM TheMystic has responded
 Message 295 by iceage, posted 12-30-2006 3:33 PM TheMystic has not yet responded
 Message 301 by PaulK, posted 12-31-2006 5:40 AM TheMystic has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 292 of 302 (372958)
12-30-2006 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by TheMystic
12-30-2006 8:12 AM


ok, I think we're arguing in circles. Let me see if I can make my point without any subtlety: I see a number of arguments on this thread saying that life cannot be designed because the designer didn't do a good job. I'm pointing out that in an evolved world, or more generally, a world that arose by purely natural causes, there is no such thing as 'good' or 'perfect' or so on. There is no such thing as right or wrong. You may *feel* like something is right or wrong, but only because certain electro-chemical reactions take place in your brain. Those reactions have tended to be successfully passed on throught zillions of generations and that's why you are the way you are. That's the only reason you are the way you are according to Darwin. So it is logically inconsistent to make any sort of value judgements about a non-existent designer. Hmmm, design itself is only an illusion as well, because what humans produce is only a response to certain verbal, tactile and visual stimuli, filtered through our inherited behavior patterns. No, it is only the ID'er who can logically talk about whether life is, or even would be, a good design.

Simple observation proves you wrong. Non-creationists can tell good design from bad. Given this, it seems superfluous to pick out all the fallacies, equivocations, and nonsense in your post, since it is sufficient to point out that your conclusion is known to be false.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by TheMystic, posted 12-30-2006 8:12 AM TheMystic has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by TheMystic, posted 12-30-2006 10:33 AM Dr Adequate has responded

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 293 of 302 (372971)
12-30-2006 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Dr Adequate
12-30-2006 8:46 AM


I don't want to be insulting, but may I gently suggest you don't understand what I'm saying?
Non-creationists can tell good design from bad.
That's precisely my point. Remember how you proved things wrong in math class by following the premise to a contradictory conclusion?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2006 8:46 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-31-2006 1:36 AM TheMystic has not yet responded

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1855 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 294 of 302 (373034)
12-30-2006 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Percy
12-29-2006 10:16 AM


Re: cancer warning
Percy:

Please, anyone out there with cancer or concerns about cancer, be sure to seek professional medical help. Do not waste time on folk or quack remedies, the consequences of delay are too drastic to consider.

Absolutely. Emphatically seconded.

___


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Percy, posted 12-29-2006 10:16 AM Percy has not yet responded

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4172 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 295 of 302 (373047)
12-30-2006 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by TheMystic
12-30-2006 8:12 AM


Good, perfect and right and wrong.
themystic writes:

I'm pointing out that in an evolved world, or more generally, a world that arose by purely natural causes, there is no such thing as 'good' or 'perfect' or so on.

No such thing as perfect, but there is a concept of better, or more relative "good" or more "perfect" than others.

For example, we can identify certain abilities in some animals that are better than others. Many, many of these abilities far exceed human abilities so they are "better" than ours.

themystic writes:

There is no such thing as right or wrong. You may *feel* like something is right or wrong, but only because certain electro-chemical reactions take place in your brain.

Whoaa... You just leaped from functional good to issues of ethics. This may have something to do with you flawed thinking. Nevertheless I can make a similar claim:

"There is no such thing as right or wrong. You may *feel* like something is right or wrong, but only because the Intelligent Designer designed you that way."

themystic writes:

That's the only reason you are the way you are according to Darwin.

Ditto... "you are the way you are according to how the designer designed you".

themystic writes:

So it is logically inconsistent to make any sort of value judgments about a non-existent designer. Hmmm, design itself is only an illusion as well, because what humans produce is only a response to certain verbal, tactile and visual stimuli, filtered through our inherited behavior patterns.

One can make logical conclusion of nonexistence, like the way one can dismiss Zeus, leprechauns and haunted houses.

themystic writes:

No, it is only the ID'er who can logically talk about whether life is, or even would be, a good design.

You must have arrived at this conclusion mystically because logic was not at work.

Now I have always felt that the best antidote to the ID philosophy is show how particular designs are very good and complex - but also outrageously cruel and arbitrary. And then ask, what does that say about the Intelligent Designer?

The ultimatum outcome of that thought experiment is that the Designer is Evil, or at least arbitrary, which does not fit well with the larger (often tacit) philosophy of ID.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by TheMystic, posted 12-30-2006 8:12 AM TheMystic has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 296 of 302 (373079)
12-30-2006 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by limbosis
12-26-2006 11:05 PM


Re: Topic now uselesss? Seems so.
While it remains difficult to show how life began here, science itself suggests that it could not have happened by chance.

So, for our purposes, we can go straight back to the origin(s) of life on earth, and start there.

Even if speciation did occur, even if evolution was an actual process, nothing would have properly explained the initiation of life itself.

I'll take this as tacit recognition that the "speciation" test for your concept has been falsified per Message 188 and that there is no follow-up test proposed for validating the overall concept.

The sonic boom was the moving of goal posts at hypersonic speeds from speciation ("micro"evolution) all the way back to the origin of life (abiogenesis, not evolution), thus leaving evolution as the best overall explanation for the diversity of all life as we currently know it, ever since that seminal event of {first life} by whatever definition and process.

In the process this leaves the original concept as a fairly useless philosophical hypothesis that doesn't lead to any scientifically valid results.

The rest of your post is obfustication over the fact that you have not addressed the rebuttal of your original ideas but have engaged in denial, goal post moving, equivocation and hand waving - the usual "shuck and jive" dance of the creationist when confronted with reality.

Enjoy.

ps - I expect this thread to be closed soon (+/-300 post limit to threads) , so you may not get a chance to answer before it is, to actually address this issue, or even if you do make such an attempt for the debate to progress to resolution. That's what happens with topic drift.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by limbosis, posted 12-26-2006 11:05 PM limbosis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by limbosis, posted 12-31-2006 2:04 AM RAZD has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 297 of 302 (373146)
12-31-2006 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by TheMystic
12-30-2006 10:33 AM


Non-creationists can tell good design from bad.

That's precisely my point.

Good. You acknowledge that truth at least.

Now, you were going to argue for creationism or something, please go ahead.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by TheMystic, posted 12-30-2006 10:33 AM TheMystic has not yet responded

limbosis
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 298 of 302 (373148)
12-31-2006 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by RAZD
12-30-2006 5:56 PM


Re: Topic now uselesss? Seems so [important].
[This post is reserved for a reply to the most recent post by RAZD.]

-------------------

-------------------

RAZD, not once have I conceded the process of evolution.

To review, I had arbitrarily conceded to the issue of speciation. That wasn't because I agreed with that concept either, but because the question of speciation, itself, was not well-defined. This concession was done strategically and specifically to develop my main idea, with enough room to take it one or two steps further.

If you recall, I clearly stated that a lack of speciation wasn't necessary to do that. No, even the systematic invalidation of "macro-evolution" remains unnecessary to advance the actual topic of this thread. I believe that invalidation is easily done, though, at least to the point of relieving science of any legitimate duty. Science itself is under no obligation to continue any support for such a damaged idea.

Yes, there are conditions that exist, which would lend themselves in support for the theory of evolution. Big deal. It is simply a theory. That much seems to be forgotten. No amount of support validates a theory, as long as at least one other theory explains the same situation, or takes existing data down a separate path of an equally likely reality. That's simple science, my friend.

Believe it or not, the phrase "a fabricator of life exists" is a theory. It may appear to be a very simple theory. And you may insist that there is no evidence to support it, but that's immaterial. It doesn't need ANY support for the time being, until and unless anything can disprove it. When someone sets out to characterize that position, science is obligated to observe, whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter who's doing it, or whether it has been attempted before.

Call it a hypothesis if you want. It is no less sound than the theory of evolution. It carries as much merit, weight, and potential value to the scientific community. No number of layers of supporting evidence for the theory evolution has changed that, because it has arrived nowhere. Evolution is no more sound than the claim that pixie dust snaps into existence, out of thin air, and magically takes the shape of plants and animals.

Now, if you want to talk about likelihoods, we can do that. You haven't brought it up yet, though. But, since you've goaded me into responding, I'll go ahead and address my position.

First of all, the speciation that is defined by evolution takes time. You yourself admit that. If you want to remain true to the overall theory, itself, you'd be careful to examine any attempt to mimic such a process in a lab. The experimental mate selection process you advocate is valid by exactly no means, because it doesn't address evolution. It addresses the effect of artificial duress on an existing species.

Now, it may have identified some other significant, yet unrelated process. And, it may have stumbled onto some quirk of, dare I say, design. Neither of which would I pretend to understand. But, it hasn't supported the idea of evolution, because the natural persistence of the new "species" over time has not been studied. Yes, it's interesting, but no more so than breeding dogs is.

You must concede the scientific importance of establishing the natural stability of new species. So, when you fairly evaluate the method I suggested, you see that it takes a much more realistic approach, and that it's presented as a more scientific approach. I don't appreciate you stepping on good science. But again, it no longer applies to my argument.

What WOULD apply to my argument is the idea that many of the organs in our bodies can be treated as animals themselves. They qualify under several criteria as living creatures. Take the sponge, for example, which is much less complex than most of our organs. When you consider that these organs, when immersed in an appropriate environment, may survive indefinitely. Doing that may actually isolate the cause of aging. It's certainly worth taking a look at, in the context of defining a more meaningful classification system.

But, I won't lay that proposal down here, with no room for responding. Maybe another thread.

Now, kindly move my goal posts back, please.

Next?

Edited by limbosis, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by RAZD, posted 12-30-2006 5:56 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
limbosis
Member (Idle past 4536 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 299 of 302 (373149)
12-31-2006 2:08 AM


NOT SO FAST
[This post is reserved for my own final comments.]
  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 300 of 302 (373151)
12-31-2006 2:25 AM


Uh ... Forums Don't Work Like That
They really don't.
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019