Originally posted by RJHinds
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY
Irreducible complexity means that the function of a complex machine is not maintained if we take away any of its core parts. Behe’s main argument is that Irreducible complex machines like the flagellum cannot reasonably be the product of direct Darwinian pathways, because the function only emerges when the machine is wholly assemble ...[text shortened]... plex. And anyway, the TTSS itself is irreducibly complex.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/
…
…. because the function only emerges when the machine is wholly assembled,
….
….The overall function of the flagellum cannot be accomplished by any simpler subset.
…
...
You have already been informed of the existence of bacterial flagellum with parts of them missing that function just fine thus these above assertions, along with the whole of your above post, has already been totally debunked even before you wasted your time typing it out. Perhaps you think that by repeatedly typing vast amount of text expressing the same debunked claims would make the debunk magically disappear?
Originally posted by RJHinds
One of the scientist, on the video I posted the link to, said that as a scientist he must go were the evidence leads regardless of the theology implications. If the discovery of intelligent design in the cell implies there is a creator God, then so be it.
The Instructor
One of the scientist, on the video I posted the link to, said that as a scientist he must go were the evidence leads regardless of the theology implications.
-which is why you should dump your creationist religion.
Originally posted by humyWell, you have not debunked it. And from what I have seen the others are trying to debunk a strawman they have made.…
…. because the function only emerges when the machine is wholly assembled,
….
….The overall function of the flagellum cannot be accomplished by any simpler subset.
…
...
You have already been informed of the existence of bacterial flagellum with parts of them missing that function just fine thus these above assertions, along with t ...[text shortened]... st amount of text expressing the same debunked claims would make the debunk magically disappear?
The Instructor
Originally posted by twhiteheadI've never demanded an apology for your own uncalled rudeness, so by what insane double standard do you deserve to be treated better? A one sided self serving code of morality is bool sheet... hypocrisy is bool sheet. No matter how you spell it, bool sheet is bool sheet
Actually it has very little to do with programming. You certainly do not need to know any programming to understand the concepts involved here.
[b]Maybe someone else can help untangle this problem if indeed it is a problem. Dembskis primary area of expertise is math, so maybe he got it wrong and maybe he didn't. I'm not in a position to say if h ...[text shortened]... my post, now admit to not having understood it, and yet chose to call it Bool Sheet.
Originally posted by lemon limeSo because you haven't asked for an apology, that means I don't deserve one?
I've never demanded an apology for your own uncalled rudeness, so by what insane double standard do you deserve to be treated better?
A one sided self serving code of morality is bool sheet... hypocrisy is bool sheet. No matter how you spell it, bool sheet is bool sheet.
I ask for an apology, and you respond with more insults. I take it this means you know that logic has failed you and your argument is flawed, so insulting people who disagree with you is all you have left.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe part you were questioning ended with:
I challenged a claim in an article you posted and asked you to clarify where I was getting it wrong (if I am wrong). You didn't take the time to read my claim, nor the article, instead you saw the word Shakespere that you vaguely recalled from the article then said Bool Sheet without even considering what was being said. Sorry, but it is not me that is full of Bool Sheet.
"Our information-theoretic formalism therefore agrees with our intuition that two copies of Hamlet contain no more information than a single copy."
Did you get that? He called it our information-theoretic formalsim.
Dembski is plowing new ground and defining the terms of his paper for our benefit. And if we choose to follow through with his reasoning, whether we agree with him or not, then that is our choice. It's perfectly acceptable for a theoretical scientist to define terms that are not part of a traditional lexicon. In fact, it's expected of them to introduce new terminology whenever they introduce a new idea, because new ideas can't always be explained without some new corresponding terminology.
I'm still not sure what problem you spotted, but your explanation didn't help me to see what that problem was. And as I expected, instead of trying to explain the problem you immediately shifted into your attack mode. When I started at this these threads I tried to respectfully explain positions and concepts when you didn't understand them, or have misinterpreted something I've said. But the rudeness, and an attitude of winning a debate at any and all cost, and then arbitrarily claiming a weak victory based mostly on semantics has been wearing very thin with me. If the object of this is to wear an opponent down until he eventually gives up, then go ahead and declare yourself the winner. I'll wash my hands of this and go find someone else to talk to.
Originally posted by lemon limeAll perfectly OK. And it is also perfectly reasonable for someone reading it to question some of the claims to see if he has understood the definitions being made.
Dembski is plowing new ground and defining the terms of his paper for our benefit. And if we choose to follow through with his reasoning, whether we agree with him or not, then that is our choice. It's perfectly acceptable for a theoretical scientist to define terms that are not part of a traditional lexicon. In fact, it's expected of them to introduce ne ...[text shortened]... idea, because new ideas can't always be explained without some new corresponding terminology.
I'm still not sure what problem you spotted, but your explanation didn't help me to see what that problem was.
Fair enough, so ask for clarification. Calling it Bool Sheet in an aside to someone else, does not constitute asking for clarification.
And as I expected, instead of trying to explain the problem you immediately shifted into your attack mode.
Huh? Where is this coming from? At first you didn't even read my post nor what it was referring too. Then when challenged your response, you said you weren't qualified to understand programming, so wouldn't even try to understand my objection. You did not ask for clarification. Now you say I should have tried to explain?
Be specific about where you want clarification and I will give it.
But the rudeness, and an attitude of winning a debate at any and all cost, and then arbitrarily claiming a weak victory based mostly on semantics has been wearing very thin with me.
Ha ha. Says the person who when asked for an apology for uncalled for insults (that he fully admits were uncalled for), just piles on more insults.
If the object of this is to wear an opponent down until he eventually gives up, then go ahead and declare yourself the winner. I'll wash my hands of this and go find someone else to talk to.
The object is for us to both learn something. It seems you have no interest in learning and are more interested in rudeness. That being the case, maybe you should find someone else to talk to.
Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, you have not debunked it. And from what I have seen the others are trying to debunk a strawman they have made.
The Instructor
Well, you have not debunked it.
How not so? Do you deny that bacteriologists have found species of bacteria flagellum with part missing (to be more accurate than “missing”, not having the full complement of parts that some other bacteria flagellum have in other species) but function just fine?
If no, then explain to us how does that NOT debunk the creationist claim that bacteria flagellum cannot function with part missing?
Originally posted by humyI have no idea of what you are talking about.Well, you have not debunked it.
How not so? Do you deny that bacteriologists have found species of bacteria flagellum with part missing (to be more accurate than “missing”, not having the full complement of parts that some other bacteria flagellum have in other species) but function just fine?
If no, then explain to us how does that NOT debunk the creationist claim that bacteria flagellum cannot function with part missing?
The Instructor
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsHe didn't refer you to a Wikipedia link, that's a point in his favor.
I have no idea of what you are talking about.
The Instructor
By the way, have you heard about Wikipedia's 'edit wars'? Apparently people have been going in and editing other peoples contributions, and the problem has been escalating. I don't trust Widipedia except for looking at non-controversial topics, because it's the controversial topics that have become increasingly skewed and misrepresentational. And there is very little seen at this forum that isn't controversial, so I'm not the least bit surprised Wikipedia is the preferred reference of choice here.
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsEither you are pretending not to comprehend or you are even more stupid than I thought for failing to understand the basics of the very same creationist propaganda that you had just used!
I have no idea of what you are talking about.
The Instructor
Originally posted by lemon limeIt's worth checking the talk page on Wiki to see if there's a flame war. If there is then there is a high risk of bias in the article. Some Wikipedia pages are both uncontroversial and wrong, they tend to be badly edited and have poor English with no evidence of more than one person contributing, so that's something else to watch out for.
He didn't refer you to a Wikipedia link, that's a point in his favor.
By the way, have you heard about Wikipedia's 'edit wars'? Apparently people have been going in and editing other peoples contributions, and the problem has been escalating. I don't trust Widipedia except for looking at non-controversial topics, because it's the controversial topics t ...[text shortened]... so I'm not the least bit surprised Wikipedia is the preferred reference of choice here.
Whether referring to a Wikipedia link is a good idea or not depends on what the writer is expecting from the link. For example in the thread about bioluminescence my reliance on Wikipedia for the chemical reaction that produces the effect is reasonable enough, since that part of the science is both uncontroversial and well understood. I wasn't relying on Wikipedia to make any claims about evolution, but to speculate about whether the effect would be any use for practical lighting relative to LEDs. I agree that it's a mistake to claim the correctness of one's position solely on the authority of Wikipedia, but that is rather different.
It must be noted however that Wikipedia is just as good or better than any other encyclopedia.
For specific topics there may be more reliable sources and certainly there will often be sources with more information.
But no source is inerrant, not even peer reviewed material by top scientists in a given field.
If I give a Wikipedia page to support an argument, anyone is free to dispute it. However, simply saying 'Wikipedia suffers from flame wars, and other bias therefore you are wrong' just doesn't constitute a counter argument.