Re: Lenny's Counter Argument

On Jan 29, 6:24 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 29, 12:20 am, "richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"

<richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

< snip >

 Have any demonstration or
statistical analysis?

It's been demonstrated over and over again by the evidence, and
exhaustively investigated using *real* statistical analyses (unlike
the technically incompetent rubbish you pull out of the air). I've
given you references. Of course, you ignore them as you ignore
anything which shows that you are wrong.

All of the references you've listed deal only with the assumption that
RM/NS did the job.

What references? I made a general reference to the centuries of
research findings which demonstrate that all organisms are related by
common descent. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of
papers.

 If fact, some of the authors in the very
references you've listed admit that they have only assumed that RM/NS
did the job - i.e., the use the very word "assume".

And which authors are those?

 Nowhere is there
even a shred of statistical analysis of the particular creative
potential of RM/NS beyond 1000 fsaars.

There is extensive evidence on evolution way, way beyond your utterly
phony limit. Even if natural selection cannot do the job - and there
are plenty of scientists who have challenged it's capacity over the
years, and are doing so now - that *still* leaves you with the
evidence that *some* mechanism is involved. As there is no evidence
whatsoever for any "human-level intelligence", or a species with the
technological capacity to give evolution a tweak now and then, you
have no evidence whatsoever that a "human-level intelligence" has ever
been involved.

 There isn't a single paper to
this effect anywhere.

That's because it's an utterly phony limit based on a ridiculous and
deliberately flawed model of evolution you have invented.

 The very best there is are bald assumptions
that given certain degrees of homology that RM/NS must have done the
job.


Bull***, Sean. Anyone with any education in evolutionary biology
knows that scientists are testing the hypothesis that "RM/NS must have
done the job". In fact, it's now widely accepted that genetic drift is
a significant - possibly the most significant - factor in the
mechanism.

 However, no one actually sits down and considers the odds of
this notion being remotely realistic.

Bull***, Sean. Numerous hypotheses of how evolution proceeds can and
have been exhaustively tested.


Your bald declarations that there is overwhelming "evidence" available
is just a bunch of hot air.

No, it isn't. It's merely pointing out the bleedin' obvious.

 There is no such evidence, none at all;
not even an attempt at producing it.

Bull***, Sean. Just because you avoid educating yourself in the work
of evolutionary biologists doesn't make them all go away.




 Science doesn't require
perfection.

No, but it does require naturalistic explanations which can be tested
by the acquisition of evidence.

What observation or measurement could test *your* "theory" that "at
least human level intelligence", possibly using supernatural methods
is required?

The ID-only hypothesis is easily falsified by demonstrating a non-ID
mechanism doing the job.

Bull***, Sean.
How do you know that the mechanism doesn't work only because some
supernatural force is manipulating it?

What?  This question doesn't make any sense . . .


Let me rephrase it.
How do you know that the "laws" of nature don't work as they do *only*
because some supernatural entity is manipulating them?

If that's too hard for you, I can't help you. It seems a very simple
question.

More to point, your "hypothesis" of a "non-ID mechanism doing the job"
is so vague and unspecified as to be meaningless.

How is that?  All you have to do to falsify the ID-only hypothesis is
to demonstrate any non-intelligent force of nature doing the job in
question.

And this "non-intelligent force of nature" may behave as it does
*only* because some supernatural and omnipotent entity is directly
involved. You *cannot* rule out this possibility once you invoke the
supernatural as a possible explanation, which is why your "theory" has
no value as science.

 If you can show that certain chemical interactions, or
weather system or volcanic activity, or whatever is likely to produce
the phenomenon in question in a reasonable amount of time, the ID-only
hypothesis is clearly falsified.

Nonsense.


Take a snowflake, for example.  It is very intricate and geometrically
beautiful.  Some, not knowing much about how they are produced my
propose an ID-only hypothesis for their formation.  However, all you
have to do to disprove the ID-only hypothesis for the origin of
snowflakes is show that they are in fact often produced by storms in
cold weather . . .  And, tada! the ID-only hypothesis is neatly
falsified in this case.

Nonsense. How can you rule out the possibility that the hand of God
forms every snowflake, following a strict set of self-imposed rules in
their formation?


The very same thing is true of SETI.  They have an artifact-only
hypothesis that is essentially the same as a ID-only hypothesis.

Bull***, Sean. They have a programme to detect radio signals with
characteristics of *artificiality*, based on a knowledge of the nature
of signal made by *known* mechanisms. Moreover, as their web site
makes abundantly clear, and the relevant sections of which I have
posted in response to the lie of yours in the past, they will *not*
treat the detection of such a signal as "proof" of an extraterrestrial
intelligence, but as the *starting* point of further investigations to
test hypotheses of how such a signal could originate.

I suggest that you stop lying about this. Your silly and untestable
"theory" bears no relationship whatsoever to SETI. Quite apart from
anything else, they are actually doing research, not posting garbage
on internet forums.

 All
you have to do to falsify their hypothesis is to show their proposed
artefactual radio signal being produced by non-intelligent forces of
nature.  If you were to be able to do that, you'd completely undermine
the current basis of SETI.

Nonsense, as SETI's own web site shows. I've posted the relevant
sections in some detail previously, so I suggest that you stop lying.


Of course, we all know that you'll just carry on with this bull***,
but then why should I care?

I don't know?  Why do you care?

Because I want you to make yourself look dishonest so that I can
demonstrate the fundamental dishonesty of creationism. I've told you
this several times in the past but you carry on posting your dishonest
garbage.

Deluded, maybe. Dishonest, nope.

Dishonest because you continue to post the same old assertions - such
as the outright falsehood that your "theory" is equivalent to SETI -
even when it has been demonstrated over and over again that they are
simply wrong.


It just amazes me how many evolutionists there are in forums like this
that can't stand the idea of a sincere, but mistaken, opponent to
their ideas.

I have no problem with that at all. What I *do* have a problem with is
creationists pretending that they have a scientific argument,
producing a bunch of misrepresentations, distortions and outright
falsehoods to support their argument, but continuing to produce
exactly the same arguments after it has been shown that they are based
on a bunch of misrepresentations, distortions and outright falsehoods.

 All those who disagree with you must be fundamentally
evil liars - right?

No. It's the people who repeat falsehoods knowing that they are false
who are liars.

For example, you have claimed to have a statistical methodology which
can detect "non-deliberate forces" in a collection of objects.
You haven't. You know you haven't. That's what makes it a lie.
You have claimed to know the results of this non-existent methodology
without the need to applyit. This is so obviously false that it amazes
me that you insist that you can do this. This is another lie.
You claim that the Choi and Kim paper which you are so fond of citing
supports your model of the evolutionary process. It doesn't, and I and
others have posted the relevant sections of the paper which make this
abundantly clear, and yet you continue to cite the paper. This is
another lie.

 LOL - sounds a bit desperate and narrow minded to
me . . .

So what is your attitude to people who are deeply and systematically
dishonest?


You know perfectly well that your "theory" is nothing but bull***.
That's why you don't write it up as a scientific paper and present it
to an academic journal. That's why you evade this issue every time
it's raised. That's why you make facile excuses rather than committing
yourself . And I suggest that the reason why other creationists are
not urging you to publish your "theory" which you claim to present as
scientific basis for ID is that they also know that it is bull***.
Do any of our creationist readers think that Sean's "theory" is valid
as science? If so, perhaps *you* can explain why he does not even try
to get it published.

Someday I might publish -

Bull***, Sean. You'll never publish because you know that your
"theory" will not stand up to critical scrutiny.

It likely will not stand up to narrow minded passionately and
dogmatically opposed scrutiny - that's quite true.

More bull***, Sean. You have said that anyone with a "candid mind"
can understand your "theory".
So either you think that no editor of *any* academic journal has a
"candid mind", or you are bullshitting.
Which is it?


though publishing something so fundamentally
counter to the views of mainstream publishers would be extremely
unlikely to get past the vetters.

Something which is such a load of unmitigated bull*** won't get past
the "vetters".

I've published many papers in mainstream literature - more than you
have.

How many of them invoked the supernatural as a potential explanation?

 Vetters are just as passionate about their personal beliefs on
certain issues as any church going dogmatic group of hardened
sectarian fundamentalists.

More bull***, Sean. You have said that anyone with a "candid mind"
can understand your "theory".
So either you think that no editor of *any* academic journal has a
"candid mind", or you are bullshitting.
Which is it?


That's the fact of the matter.  Often,
science does not progress until old and powerful scientists die off
and new ideas are allowed to be seriously considered.


Oh, please! The reason why new idea are accepted is that the
scientists proposing them make as solid case based on the evidence.
Even if the major journals won't publish them, there are plenty of
other journals out there which *look* for unconventional ideas and
challenges to orthodoxy.


 Certainly no one here would
published something along these lines regardless of how good of a
paper it might be.

But you have claimed that anyone with a "candid mind" can understand
your "theory".

That's right . . .

Are you seriously telling us that no editor of any
journal in academia has a "candid mind"?

I'm not holding my breath . . . that's correct.


Of course, a far more reasonable conclusion is that you know perfectly
well that your "theory" is a load of unmitigated bull***.

In any case, until then, what do you have as anything remotely
resembling a reasonable counter?

The fact that your "theory" is based on a model of evolution which has
never been proposed by any evolutionary biologist, which is
unsupported by any evidence, and the technical incompetence of your
mathematics is a pretty good start.

My model is the very same proposed by evolutionary biologists - RM/
NS.

Bull***, Sean. Your model *relies* on an adaptive landscape of
isolated islands of function.
No evolutionary biologist has *ever* proposed such a model.

 There is also overwhelming evidence that sequence space is
populated by potentially beneficial target sequences that are fairly
homogeneously distributed throughout that space and that the ratio of
targets vs. non-targets is very low and gets exponentially lower and
lower with each step of the ladder of minimum structural size and/or
specificity requirements.

That is an outright lie. The evidence shows that "beneficial target
sequences" are *clustered* near existing functional sequences. That's
what the Choi and Kim paper you are so fond if citing shows.


Those are the facts.

No Sean. They are lies, pure and simple.

 You've not come remotely close to explaining how
the mechanism of RM/NS can remotely deal with these cold hard facts.
Sorry.

 Do you really need an argument to be
"published" before you can recognize it as valid or invalid? - before
you can even try to come up with a reasonable argument against it?

What's wrong with the facts that your "theory" is based on a model of
evolution which has never been proposed by any evolutionary biologist,
that it is unsupported by any evidence, and that your mathematics is
technical incompetent?

Produce at least an attempt at your own mathematical support then.

Of what? Educate yourself in evolutionary biology.

Your position has absolutely no statistical analysis or support
whatsoever.

Actually, anyone with an education in the science of evolutionary
biology knows of a considerable chunk of the literature which does
exactly that.

Your position, on the other hand, has *no* statistical support because
you are so incompetent that you can't even carry out statistical
calculations correctly.

 Short of this, you haven't remotely challenged my own
statistical calculations - you haven't even tried.

Others have done a far better job of demolishing them than I can.

 Of course, this is
only to be expected from someone who doesn't really deal with or care
about mathematical analysis.

I use statistical analysis extensively in my research! I know it's
value, but I also know that it is a tool used by scientists, not a
fundamental requirement of any scientific paper.

Where's the statistics in Einstein's seminal paper on relativity?

 You're much happier telling just-so
stories about what is possible without having to consider if your
stories are actually likely to represent reality or not . . .

That is your position, not mine.

RF

RF

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

.

Loading