The Dixie Challenge....

I am not attempting to create a double standard for ID and ET, that is my point. They are both judged by the same criteria. But put ET and ID aside, and address the point of whether ideas (or knowledge) can vary in strength and support without absolute knowledge.

Oh, I know you are judging them both by the same criteria, your tainted and biased opinion. You believe in Science, therefore, scientific theories become fact to you. Subsequently, you don't believe in God, so anything related to God is tossed out on its face, and never considered. You are absolutely correct, you use the same standard, your biased and tainted opinion.

Again, nothing but ad hominem attacks. To use a football term, play the ball, not the man. Attack the argument, don't just accuse the person presenting it of bias.

Ad hominem attacks are a sign of someone struggling to produce a coherant argument.


Let's transpose it to a different scenerio.

Okay, I'll play... but just to prove a point...

A detective is investigating a murder. He has many methods open to him which can provide evidence to help him, though none can give him absolute knowledge of the murderer (even forensics only can be correct in the high 90%ile). He looks at the methods available and compares two ideas, say phrenology and forensics. Looking at the two methods, he can judge the quality of the knowledge they can provide. Forensics provides substantial evidence that is highly reliable, whilst phrenology provides evidence that is based on little more than myth.

You simply can't argue that we "know" this or that is most likely, has more weight, is more valid, than something else, without proving we do have some absolute knowledge. If we didn't, we couldn't "know" anything! What would give something "more weight" or validity, if you have no absolute knowledge of something? Isn't it simply an assumption or perception of "more weight" then?

Not at all. Take my phrenology/forensics example. When a detective decides what method is better, even though he knows neither can provide absolute knowledge, forensics is a lot more reliable than phrenology.

Do you not agree that forensics (high 90%ile accurate) is more reliable a source of knowledge than phrenology?


How can the detective make any determination if the knowledge he possesses is not absolute? How can forensics provide evidence if the knowledge is not absolute? How can he compare methods without making an absolute determination about which is best or worst, and how can he do this without any absolute knowledge? At some point, he has determined that forensics have validity, and phrenology has less, but he can't make this determination if knowledge is not absolute, it's impossible. If that were the case, there would be no difference in the two, one would be as predictable as the other in theory, because nothing is absolute. In fact, without absolute knowledge, the law of odds would dictate the most likely answer to any problem, would be the one which comes up the least. You can only flip a coin twice and get heads, before the odds of the next flip being tails is greatest, and with each flip of heads, those odds go up substantially more. So, without absolute knowledge, the odds would dictate any solution to be the one least realized.

Of course he can make the decision, even recognising that forensics cannot provide absolute knowledge, he is capable of recognising it as the most reliable source of knowledge out of the two.

We know this through repeated observation. If we have 100 cases, and apply both methods to solving them, forensics would come out the more superior by far. We know that the information forensics provides isn't absolute, as I said, high 90%ile, but we can deduce from repeating the method how reliable it is.

Believe it or not, I understand what you have said in the context of a science lab. As a scientist studying something in the lab, it is important to keep an open mind, and assume that knowledge is not absolute. Which is why I think you are not being very scientific in your approach to ID, you've assumed your knowledge to be absolute. You've also decided that knowledge which is not absolute, only theory, is indeed 'close enough' to absolute that you can make it a fact, regarding ET. This is not very scientific either.

Again, I have repeated ad nausium, that I don't consider ET to be absolute knowledge, nor have I discarded ID on the basis that ET is absolute. I have judged both ideas on their merits, using the same criteria for both. I have found, as have most people who have looked at the subject without the implicit premise that 'god did it', that ID is a simple logical fallacy that produces no testable hypothesis, supported by no evidence. I have explained in great detail above why this is so. ET has, however, an overwhelming weight of evidence to support it, and as yet has not been successfully refuted. It is simply that ET is more epistemologically sound than ID. They are forensics and phrenology of origins.

Of course, we all know you aren't really a scientist, you're just an atheist who wants to sound like a scientist to others, that's why you use the big scientific words and go out of your way to explain the scientific method. You've gone out on a limb and proclaimed that knowledge is never absolute, and in scientific evaluation and experimentation, this may be true, but it is not a fact of reality outside of a science lab. Many things we know, are absolute, they simply can't be described any other way. Science itself, would be pointless without some absolute knowledge.

Again with the ad hominem attacks?? And I don't use big scientific words. If you don't understand anything I write, just ask, I will explain it or rewrite it in simpler terms.

Can you present any knowledge that you consider to be absolute? I'll show how it simply appears absolute, because of the a posteriori evidence to support it....

You are putting words into Einstein's mouth.

No, I was giving you the proper interpretation of his words.

By rewriting what he said? What makes you qualified to be revisionist over something that Einstein said, by adding sections to his quote to fit what you want him to say? All I am doing is presenting his words. If you think I am presenting them out of context, show the quote in context, don't add your own words to Einsteins.

Are you denying that Einstein is capable of speaking for himself?

Yes, Einstein is dead, therefore he is not capable of speaking at this time.

So's Jesus, but you Xtians would be mighty miffed if I were to take his words, add my own to his and then declare that it is what Jesus 'meant'.

If Einstein meant to address those who 'remain ignorant by claiming 'common sense' as their only justifying logic for belief' (something you have done with ID), why did he not say so?

He did, you construed it to mean something else.

Dixie, this is why you are such a poor debator. You make statements, yet fail to back them up.

How have I, by presenting the exact words used by Einstein, misconstrued his words, whilst you, who have added your own words to make his quote fit your beliefs, not?

Why did he say that 'common sense' is an accumulation of prejudices, not those who 'remain ignorant by claiming 'common sense' as their only justifying logic for belief' are an accumulation of prejudices etc etc?

Maybe because he didn't want to sound offensive? Maybe because he was trying to sound 'philosophical' and maybe he was speaking in metaphoric context? I can't attest to why Einstein said it the way he said it, and he is not here to explain it. You believe he was telling us to never use common sense, that it was a form of prejudice. I think that is ridiculous and foolish, but if that is what you want to believe, you are completely entitled to be ridiculous and foolish. I also think Einstein makes a valid point about assumption, the kind of assumption you make regarding intelligent design. Einstein is speaking to you, as well as those who say things like... "It's just common sense that men are smarter than women!" ...."It's just common sense that whites are smarter than blacks!" He is making a poignant statement about our judgements, attitudes, and prejudices, based on our presumed "common sense" reasoning. When you boil that down, you get Einstein's statement, and I think that is what he meant.

And you are acting as a revisionist, putting your own spin on Einstein's quote.

Again, what makes you qualified to rewrite Einstein's words so that they fit your perspective?
 
Again, nothing but ad hominem attacks. To use a football term, play the ball, not the man. Attack the argument, don't just accuse the person presenting it of bias.

Ad hominem attacks are a sign of someone struggling to produce a coherant argument.


You can say it's ad hominem if you like, but I don't think so. I honestly do think you are using the same criteria to judge both ET and ID, and it is your biased, slanted, tainted, nonobjective opinion. You believe ET to be practically a proven fact, even though your own "scientific method" forbids you to make such a conclusion, and at the same time, you argue that ID can be dismissed without further question, also in contradiction to the scientific method. The basis for your position is your atheist beliefs in God, and your religious faith in science. I'm not making an ad hominem attack in pointing that out.

Not at all. Take my phrenology/forensics example. When a detective decides what method is better, even though he knows neither can provide absolute knowledge, forensics is a lot more reliable than phrenology.

Do you not agree that forensics (high 90%ile accurate) is more reliable a source of knowledge than phrenology?

Again, in a world without absolute knowledge, what do you mean by "more reliable"? What defined it as such, without coming to the absolute conclusion that one was more reliable? I am not disagreeing with the fact that the detective would make a determination on the most reliable means, I am disagreeing with your assessment that we don't have absolute knowledge, otherwise the detective would not be able to make such a decision, there would be no reliability, as our knowledge would not be absolute in that regard. In order to say, A is more reliable than B, you must have some absolute knowledge, if you don't, neither would be more reliable than the other.

I have found, as have most people who have looked at the subject without the implicit premise that 'god did it', that ID is a simple logical fallacy that produces no testable hypothesis, supported by no evidence.

This is incorrect, MOST people, as a matter of fact, about 95% of them, found they believe in something greater than self, a creator or intelligent designer. You and about 5% of the idiots on the planet, have repudiated God and refuse to accept anything remotely associated with God. That's fine, it's your free will to do so, but don't confuse yourself into believing most of the world thinks as you do.

Also, on the principles of ID, many noted physicists and scientists have given consideration to the theory, some have written books on it, like Dr. Beyhe. Einstein alluded to the realization of a creator when he stated that "God doesn't roll the dice", and I don't think Einstein was a whacked out religious fanatic, do you? I think he realized the awe of our universe was so great and so intricately complex and yet balanced, that there was simply no other plausible explanation.


I've given you a clear scientific experiment to test, and you dismissed it like you have everything else pertaining to ID, because you aren't interested in examining ID from a science perspective, you had rather repudiate it off the cuff and leave it at that. The experiment is to show how a human eye could have evolved. See, if we are talking about a lung or fingers, those things can begin to develop and function over time, they could 'evolve' into a species over vast periods, which is precisely what Darwin suggested, but this was before we understood genetics, and before we knew how the human eye worked. The components which make the eye function, simply could not have evolved, the eye would have been non-functional if any one of the several components were missing, or had not yet "evolved" so there would be no functional purpose for a non-functioning eye.... this completely contradicts natural selection.


Can you present any knowledge that you consider to be absolute? I'll show how it simply appears absolute, because of the a posteriori evidence to support it....

We've already done this! The Sun will rise in the East and set in the West. It is an absolute, we don't predict this will happen, we predict exactly WHEN it will happen, and usually are dead accurate on that. This absolute is known because the Earth rotates once every 24 hours, and so we have determined the sun will rise in the east with absolution, based on absolute knowledge. There are any number of other examples, some as simple as your detective analogy. I understand your point in the confines of a scientific experiment or study, I think you must have read this somewhere and misinterpreted the context to mean we should apply this standard universally, but that is just plain dumb. Like the common sense thing!

By rewriting what he said? What makes you qualified to be revisionist over something that Einstein said, by adding sections to his quote to fit what you want him to say? All I am doing is presenting his words. If you think I am presenting them out of context, show the quote in context, don't add your own words to Einsteins.

LMAO... Show the quote in context? That's what I did! I broke down, in simplest of terms, exactly what he said and meant by the statement. That is not rewriting what he said, that is showing you the context of what he said, as opposed to your literal interpretation, which he did not mean in the literal context you took it. I don't know any other way to show you the context without showing you the context.

How have I, by presenting the exact words used by Einstein, misconstrued his words, whilst you, who have added your own words to make his quote fit your beliefs, not?

Again, I have not added my own words to Einstein's, I merely gave you my interpretation of what he said. You are welcome to believe whatever you wish, again, you have free will to be a moron if you like. If Einstein had said, "I love daisies in the morning!" and you thought Einstein enjoyed daisies for breakfast, you would be a moron! Me explaining that he didn't literally mean he likes to eat daisies, and that he was talking about the beauty of the daisies in the morning, would not be "adding my words" to what he said, it would be showing you the proper context of what he said in the only way one can do that.

So's Jesus, but you Xtians would be mighty miffed if I were to take his words, add my own to his and then declare that it is what Jesus 'meant'.

NAh... people do it everyday... they are called, "preachers".

And you are acting as a revisionist, putting your own spin on Einstein's quote.
Again, what makes you qualified to rewrite Einstein's words so that they fit your perspective?

I don't know, maybe the same thing that qualifies you to assume a literal interpretation he didn't mean, and is frankly as absurd as Einstein enjoying daisies for breakfast!
 
You can say it's ad hominem if you like, but I don't think so. I honestly do think you are using the same criteria to judge both ET and ID, and it is your biased, slanted, tainted, nonobjective opinion. You believe ET to be practically a proven fact, even though your own "scientific method" forbids you to make such a conclusion, and at the same time, you argue that ID can be dismissed without further question, also in contradiction to the scientific method. The basis for your position is your atheist beliefs in God, and your religious faith in science. I'm not making an ad hominem attack in pointing that out.

What is it with you and strawman arguments?

I have never claimed ET as absolute knowledge, and have never dismissed ID on the basis that ET is absolute knowledge. I accept ET as having significant supporting evidence, and on that basis is reliable information, whilst I reject ID because it is based on logical fallacy, produces no empirical evidence to support its assertions.

This is entirely ad hominem and strawman. You aren't addressing the points I am bring up, you are insinuating something I haven't stated, for lack of decent argument.

Attack the points I make, not me.

Again, in a world without absolute knowledge, what do you mean by "more reliable"? What defined it as such, without coming to the absolute conclusion that one was more reliable? I am not disagreeing with the fact that the detective would make a determination on the most reliable means, I am disagreeing with your assessment that we don't have absolute knowledge, otherwise the detective would not be able to make such a decision, there would be no reliability, as our knowledge would not be absolute in that regard. In order to say, A is more reliable than B, you must have some absolute knowledge, if you don't, neither would be more reliable than the other.

You don't have to have absolute knowledge of something to evaluate the quality of knowledge. Explain why you think it does.

If you have two pieces of knowledge, you can test them initially by checking for logical fallacies, you can compare the supporting evidence behind them and you then test the knowledge a posteriori, against experience.. You won't reach a conclusion that A is absolutely correct and B is absolutely wrong, but you will be able to say that A has substantial evidence to support it, whilst B doesn't, ergo A is considerably more reliable.

Now explain why you cannot have any knowledge without the existence of absolute knowledge?....

This is incorrect, MOST people, as a matter of fact, about 95% of them, found they believe in something greater than self, a creator or intelligent designer. You and about 5% of the idiots on the planet, have repudiated God and refuse to accept anything remotely associated with God. That's fine, it's your free will to do so, but don't confuse yourself into believing most of the world thinks as you do.

Comprehension problems? Read what I wrote again....

"I have found, as have most people who have looked at the subject without the implicit premise that 'god did it', that ID is a simple logical fallacy that produces no testable hypothesis, supported by no evidence."

What does "people who have looked at the subject without the implicit premise that 'god did it'" mean?

The experiment is to show how a human eye could have evolved.

Again, comprehension problems? I have already provided a link for you, and explained that if the eye were designed, the fact that the optical cells are the wrong way round indicate a pretty incompetent designer...

I'll repost the link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Can you present any knowledge that you consider to be absolute? I'll show how it simply appears absolute, because of the a posteriori evidence to support it....

We've already done this! The Sun will rise in the East and set in the West. It is an absolute, we don't predict this will happen, we predict exactly WHEN it will happen, and usually are dead accurate on that. This absolute is known because the Earth rotates once every 24 hours, and so we have determined the sun will rise in the east with absolution, based on absolute knowledge. There are any number of other examples, some as simple as your detective analogy. I understand your point in the confines of a scientific experiment or study, I think you must have read this somewhere and misinterpreted the context to mean we should apply this standard universally, but that is just plain dumb. Like the common sense thing!

As you said yourself, we can PREDICT it happening, we can even calculate when it will happen, but that isn't absolute knowledge.

It is a prediction based on a posteriori experience, and the calculations are based on the a posteriori actions of the sun and planets.

But until it occurs, it is still nothing more than a prediction. Suppose a random body is flying through space and hits, the sun, knocking it off its axis. Suppose the sun implodes. The sun won't rise as predicted. It isn't absolute.

You are confusing highly reliable, and substantially supported knowledge with absolute knowledge. Simple as that.

LMAO... Show the quote in context? That's what I did! I broke down, in simplest of terms, exactly what he said and meant by the statement. That is not rewriting what he said, that is showing you the context of what he said, as opposed to your literal interpretation, which he did not mean in the literal context you took it. I don't know any other way to show you the context without showing you the context.

You haven't presented it in context, you have added your own words to what Einstein said to make it appear that he is agreeing with you.

Let's look at it. 'Common sense is an accumulation of prejudices acquired by age eighteen'.

He didn't say that 'Some people who use common sense to account for their prejudices', he said 'Common sense IS an accumulation of prejudices acquired by age eighteen'

And what makes you qualified to alter the words Einstein used, and how do you know how he meant it, especially when you need to completely alter what he said to make it fit?

Again, I have not added my own words to Einstein's, I merely gave you my interpretation of what he said. You are welcome to believe whatever you wish, again, you have free will to be a moron if you like. If Einstein had said, "I love daisies in the morning!" and you thought Einstein enjoyed daisies for breakfast, you would be a moron! Me explaining that he didn't literally mean he likes to eat daisies, and that he was talking about the beauty of the daisies in the morning, would not be "adding my words" to what he said, it would be showing you the proper context of what he said in the only way one can do that.

Ha ha ha ha! You are attempting to claim that there is ambiguity in the statement 'Common sense IS an accumulation of prejudices acquired by age eighteen'!

I'll put that to the test on another thread...

I don't know, maybe the same thing that qualifies you to assume a literal interpretation he didn't mean, and is frankly as absurd as Einstein enjoying daisies for breakfast!

You mean taking Einstein by what he said, not by what you want him to say... As I said, I'll open another thread on this topic...
 
What is it with you and strawman arguments?

I've not presented a strawman argument.

I have never claimed ET as absolute knowledge, and have never dismissed ID on the basis that ET is absolute knowledge.

Sure you have, you believe ET is true, you are absolute in that viewpoint, you have articulated that sentiment very clearly. You also believe ID is untrue, you are absolute in that viewpoint, and have also articulated this clearly. Nowhere do I see you state that ET might be wrong, or there is some question to its validity, everywhere, I see you state that ID is 'logical fallacy' a determination you made before you even began to examine it, as you said before.


I accept ET as having significant supporting evidence, and on that basis is reliable information, whilst I reject ID because it is based on logical fallacy, produces no empirical evidence to support its assertions.

Here we see you support ET as empirical and refute ID as fallacy. I don't see where you are leaving any room for objection or possibility that you are wrong. You seem relatively "absolute" on this matter.

This is entirely ad hominem and strawman. You aren't addressing the points I am bring up, you are insinuating something I haven't stated, for lack of decent argument.

No I'm not, I am pointing out that you are taking contrary positions to scientific method and evaluating or concluding things based on your biased and slanted opinions, not the facts. You don't like that I am pointing this out, so you've decided to label it as a "strawman" or "ad hominem attack" but it's really not.

Attack the points I make, not me.

If you ever make a point, I will attack it.

You don't have to have absolute knowledge of something to evaluate the quality of knowledge. Explain why you think it does.

If you have two pieces of knowledge, you can test them initially by checking for logical fallacies, you can compare the supporting evidence behind them and you then test the knowledge a posteriori, against experience.. You won't reach a conclusion that A is absolutely correct and B is absolutely wrong, but you will be able to say that A has substantial evidence to support it, whilst B doesn't, ergo A is considerably more reliable.


And when you make this determination, have you not, in fact, demonstrated absolution in your finding? Didn't something cause you to believe A had more weight than B? Was that not absolute? Without absolute knowledge, wouldn't it be just as likely that B could have more weight than A? Wouldn't your posteriori, against experience be based on a conclusion of absolution based on your observations?

As you said yourself, we can PREDICT it happening, we can even calculate when it will happen, but that isn't absolute knowledge.

It is a prediction based on a posteriori experience, and the calculations are based on the a posteriori actions of the sun and planets.

But until it occurs, it is still nothing more than a prediction. Suppose a random body is flying through space and hits, the sun, knocking it off its axis. Suppose the sun implodes. The sun won't rise as predicted. It isn't absolute.

No, we don't 'predict' the sun will rise in the East, it will indeed rise in the East, we know this absolutely. We predict the time it will absolutely rise. IF something happens to knock the sun of it's axis (does the sun even have an axis?) THEN it won't really matter about this argument, and the point will be moot.


You are confusing highly reliable, and substantially supported knowledge with absolute knowledge. Simple as that.

No, I am stating that nothing can be "highly reliable" or "substantially supported" without some degree of absolute judgement being applied. Simple as that.



As I said on Einstein, he isn't here to defend his words, or tell you what he meant. You are welcome to believe whatever you like, I have given you my interpretation of what he meant, and you have refused to accept it. I can't change your mind and you can't change mine. I have not put words in anyone's mouth, I merely presented the quote in an explanatory context for you.
 
I've not presented a strawman argument.

Don't want to sound like a panto audience, but Oh yes you did.

You stated that I have argued ET is absolute knowledge and we can dismiss ID because of this. This is a strawman argument, you are attacking an argument I didn't make, because you fail to argue against the point I do.

And guess what? In the next paragraph you present your strawman again.

Sure you have, you believe ET is true, you are absolute in that viewpoint, you have articulated that sentiment very clearly. You also believe ID is untrue, you are absolute in that viewpoint, and have also articulated this clearly. Nowhere do I see you state that ET might be wrong, or there is some question to its validity, everywhere, I see you state that ID is 'logical fallacy' a determination you made before you even began to examine it, as you said before.
Click to expand...


I have never argued this. I have argued that absolute knowledge doesn't exist, but when you epistemologically examine both notions, one falls at the first hurdle, the other is substantial.

Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if Dixie would one day argue the points being made, rather than creating strawman arguments and dodging the point....

And when you make this determination, have you not, in fact, demonstrated absolution in your finding? Didn't something cause you to believe A had more weight than B? Was that not absolute? Without absolute knowledge, wouldn't it be just as likely that B could have more weight than A? Wouldn't your posteriori, against experience be based on a conclusion of absolution based on your observations?

It doesn't rely on the presence of absolute knowledge to discover if something is more substantial or not, nor are all ideas equal in the absence of absolute knowledge.

A detective doesn't have to have absolute knowledge of who committed a crime to work out that forensics is a more weighty method of garnering knowledge than phrenology does he?

And its a posteriori, not posteriori.

No, we don't 'predict' the sun will rise in the East, it will indeed rise in the East, we know this absolutely. We predict the time it will absolutely rise. IF something happens to knock the sun of it's axis (does the sun even have an axis?) THEN it won't really matter about this argument, and the point will be moot.

No, its not. You're claiming that it is absolute knowledge that the sun will rise in the morning. It isn't. Our knowledge that the sun will rise is based on previous observations. But it is still a prediction. If something knocked the sun out of kilter, or the sun imploded, the sun won't rise in the morning.

Ergo the sun rising in the morning is just a prediction.

No, I am stating that nothing can be "highly reliable" or "substantially supported" without some degree of absolute judgement being applied. Simple as that.

Explain why this is. That's what happens in debates. You make a statement, then present reasons behind it. Be my guest....

As I said on Einstein, he isn't here to defend his words, or tell you what he meant. You are welcome to believe whatever you like, I have given you my interpretation of what he meant, and you have refused to accept it. I can't change your mind and you can't change mine. I have not put words in anyone's mouth, I merely presented the quote in an explanatory context for you.

No, you added words to Einstein's quote to make it sound like the opposite of what he said.

Debating with you is so much more tiring than debating normal people. You misrepresent arguments others make, make statements that you don't support with reasoning, and rely on great swaithes of ad hominem attack.

Its hard work, but not hard work in a good way.
 
Last edited:
I have never argued this. I have argued that absolute knowledge doesn't exist, but when you epistemologically examine both notions, one falls at the first hurdle, the other is substantial.

And these conclusions you've made are based on what, exactly? IF we suppose your argument is true, that there is no absolute knowledge, then how can you possibly determine something "falls at first hurdle" OR the other is "substantial" ...substantial to what, if there is nothing absolute? You have essentially argued yourself into a box with no way out. You can't claim that we don't know anything absolutely, yet we absolutely know ID is bogus and ET is valid! That is impossible to determine absolutely, you have no absolute knowledge, remember?

So, as it stands, I don't agree with you, that mankind has no absolute knowledge, I certainly think we do, but IF I agree with you, that we have no absolute knowledge, then it also means we have no absolute knowledge regarding the validity of ET or invalidity of ID. Arnold, you just can't have this both ways, I don't how much clearer I can make that. Of course, when you have abandoned common sense as you have boasted, anything is possible, I guess?
 
No, you added words to Einstein's quote to make it sound like the opposite of what he said.
Click to expand...


No, Damo went and looked up the statement, and when it was made. He found that, much as I stated, it was a response to someone who questioned his theories on physics with the argument it defied common sense. Einstein said what I told you, that we shouldn't allow our "common sense" to dictate scientific methods. I have repeatedly said, your Einstein quote and point are well-taken in a lab environment, when examining something from a scientific perspective, and in this same context, you should apply it to your own "common sense" wisdom regarding ID. But he was not repudiating common sense as a whole, and you misunderstood him if that is what you interpreted.
 
It doesn't rely on the presence of absolute knowledge to discover if something is more substantial or not

You continue to defy common sense here, and repeat something that is just plain false, and has no basis of support in logic. It's almost as bad as arguing that we don't need our eyes to see things. Speaking of eyes, did you ever address my ID theoretical point about the impossibility of a human eye evolving? No, you didn't, that was about the time you diverted the debate into this parsing and literal interpretation of what Einstein said in response to an idiot questioning physics experiments. You really have no desire to debate this subject, you never have. You've already admitted, as a "scientist" you are tainted, your judgement is invalid because you've already made a preconceived determination about ID before you reached the "first hurdle", and it is based on your hatred for God.


Let's observe what has been said thus far, I have stated that we "don't know" how we originated here. That it is possible we were created by intelligent design, and that it is possible we evolved too. Both theories could be correct, or neither could be correct, and we could have originated through some means we are not even able to comprehend at this time. From a scientific standpoint, you must respect this fact of science, which means not ever closing the door on any possibility or proclaiming any possibility the empirical answer.

Your position is all over the board... We don't have 'absolute knowledge' (which is true from purely a science perspective--see above) Yet, we absolutely know somehow, we all came from apes and God didn't create us! Oh, we don't know absolutely, but we are 99.9999% sure because we know other things... but not absolutely though... we're really not sure of any damn thing... even if the sun is going to rise tomorrow... it may not, it's just prediction and speculation that it will, based on some big-assed word you know!

Arnold... you are about the biggest idiot I've ever known, who had the ability to memorize a lot of big words. It's amazing what the mentally challenged can achieve!
 
Your position is all over the board... We don't have 'absolute knowledge' (which is true from purely a science perspective--see above) Yet, we absolutely know somehow, we all came from apes and God didn't create us! Oh, we don't know absolutely, but we are 99.9999% sure because we know other things... but not absolutely though... we're really not sure of any damn thing... even if the sun is going to rise tomorrow... it may not, it's just prediction and speculation that it will, based on some big-assed word you know!

I see you have no argument left.

You are left with nothing but misrepresenting my argument. I had gone through ad nausium that absolute knowledge is impossible, yet knowledge that we do have can vary in quality, some supported and substantial, some not. That doesn't mean that all ideas are equal, just that all ideas should be considered on the basis of their supporting evidence. (Read 'On Liberty' by John Stuart Mill) I illustrated this by explaining how the idea of ET is very well supported by evidence and that ID is based on a logical fallacy and no evidence. You haven't once addressed this point, instead you have created strawman after strawman.

I have never claimed absolute knowledge that a 'god' doesn't exist. Not once. Yet page after page you claim that I am being hypocritical by stating absolutely that a 'god' doesn't exist whilst claiming absolute knowledge is impossible.

I thought once it was possible to have a decent debate with you, but all you have is bluff and blustre, masked by semi-articulate rhetoric.

As for a few philosophical terms I have used, I've already said, if you don't understand ask. Or even better, research yourself. But that would involve learning things that don't correspond to your world-view, so I doubt that would happen.
 
Speaking of eyes, did you ever address my ID theoretical point about the impossibility of a human eye evolving?

Yes, I did. But guess what? You ignored it. Read back through the thread, and you'll find it.

More misrepresentation!
 
The components which make the eye function, simply could not have evolved,

Absolute rubbish. You are ignoring evolution of function.

Comparative Analysis of Gene Expression for Convergent Evolution of Camera Eye Between Octopus and Human
Atsushi Ogura, Kazuho Ikeo and Takashi Gojobori1
Center for Information Biology and DNA Data Bank of Japan, National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, 411-8540, Japan

Although the camera eye of the octopus is very similar to that of humans, phylogenetic and embryological analyses have suggested that their camera eyes have been acquired independently. It has been known as a typical example of convergent evolution. To study the molecular basis of convergent evolution of camera eyes, we conducted a comparative analysis of gene expression in octopus and human camera eyes. We sequenced 16,432 ESTs of the octopus eye, leading to 1052 nonredundant genes that have matches in the protein database. Comparing these 1052 genes with 13,303 already-known ESTs of the human eye, 729 (69.3%) genes were commonly expressed between the human and octopus eyes. On the contrary, when we compared octopus eye ESTs with human connective tissue ESTs, the expression similarity was quite low. To trace the evolutionary changes that are potentially responsible for camera eye formation, we also compared octopus-eye ESTs with the completed genome sequences of other organisms. We found that 1019 out of the 1052 genes had already existed at the common ancestor of bilateria, and 875 genes were conserved between humans and octopuses. It suggests that a larger number of conserved genes and their similar gene expression may be responsible for the convergent evolution of the camera eye.



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

The evolution of the eye is one of the most complicated and interesting stories for molecular biologists and molecular evolutionists. Much is known about the photoreceptive organs of various animals (Salvini-Plawn and Mayr 1977; Osorio and Bacon 1994). These organs are highly diverse in structure, ranging from small groups of light-sensitive cells to highly sophisticated and complex structures that register precise images in some groups of arthropods, molluscs, and vertebrates. The single-lens camera eye is found in vertebrates and in two groups of molluscs, octopus and squid. Other molluscs have various types of eye, such as the concave mirror eye and the pinhole eye. Insects, members of Lophotrochozoa, have compound eyes. Despite the differences in direction of visual cells, focusing mechanism, ability to detect polarized light and encoding genes for crystallins, the camera eyes of human and octopus are believed to have independently evolved after the divergence of the two lineages during the Precambrian period because both humans and octopuses have structural similarities in their camera eyes, as shown in Figure 1 (Harris 1997). Therefore, the eyes of humans and octopuses have been described as a typical example of convergent evolution (Fig. 2; Brusca and Brusca 1990; Futuyma 1997). Convergent evolution is the process by which independently evolved features that are superficially similar to each other can arise through different developmental pathways (Lauder 1981).






View larger version (49K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
Figure 1 Structural similarities between human and octopus eyes. Even though there are some differences between human and octopus eyes, each of the tissues such as eyelid, cornea, pupil, iris, ciliary muscle, lens, retina, and optic nerve/ganglion corresponds well to each other. The octopus eye forms from an epidermal placode through a series of successive infoldings, whereas the human eye forms from the neural plate and induces the overlying epidermis to form the lens (Harris 1997). The differences in developmental processes between human and octopus are explained in the same reference (Harris 1997). This figure was modified with permission from Sinauer Associates, Inc., © 1990 (Brusca and Brusca 1990).









View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
Figure 2 The phylogenetic evidence of convergent evolution of camera eyes between humans and octopuses. Each camera eye has different evolutionary origins.




This view has been changed, however, by Gehring and Ikeo (1999), who maintain that the expression of the common master regulator Pax6 in both types of eyes indicates the divergence of these two types of eyes from a single prototype eye present in the common ancestor of cephalopods and vertebrates. It has previously been reported that Pax6, a "master control" gene for the development of the eye, is highly conserved across species. Within molluscs, it has been shown that the scallop, ear shell, and squid all express Pax6 (Tomarev et al. 1997). Pax6 expression has not yet been observed in the octopus. However, the expression of Pax6 in the camera eye of the squid, a member of the same phylum, supports the prediction that Pax6 controls the development of the octopus eye. However, there is no clear explanation of how the elaborate camera eyes of humans and octopuses evolved from the prototype eye. In other words, there is a gap between the evolution of genes expressed in the camera eye and the evolution of morphological structures of the camera eye.
Studying gene expression can lead us to speculate on the biological and functional mechanisms. It is of particular interest to examine the convergent evolution of human and octopus camera eyes from the viewpoint of gene expression, in order to understand the diversification of these organs. Here, we address the question of what kind of gene expressions are maintained in their camera eyes during evolution. Thus, we focus on the gene expression profiles to explain the evolutionary process of camera eyes. For this purpose, we use two approaches. First, we conduct a comparative analysis of gene expression between human and octopus eyes to examine the similarity of gene expression. Second, we estimate the ancestral gene set of the camera eye to determine the number of genes that have been conserved since the divergence of these two lineages from the common ancestor. We then discuss the evolutionary mechanism of convergent evolution of the camera eye from the viewpoint of gene expression profiles.


RESULTS
Top
ABSTRACT
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
METHODS
REFERENCES
WEB SITE REFERENCES


Gene Expression Profile of the Octopus Eye
We made a gene-expression profile based on the occurrence frequency of the mRNAs in the octopus eye. The expressed sequence tag (EST) assembly system was used to obtain 2824 nonredundant sequences from a total of 16,432 clones. To investigate the possible functions of these octopus-eye ESTs, we conducted a similarity search for identifying homologous sequences in the nonredundant protein database. Using the 2824 sequences as a query, we identified homologs for 1052 of the ESTs (Supplemental Table). This set of 1052 genes was used for the analyses described below, to determine the relationships of the genes expressed in the octopus eye to those that are involved in the developmental process and biological function of the eyes of other species (Table 1). The sequences of octopus-eye ESTs are available online at http://www.cib.nig.ac.jp/dda/database/octopus.htm.





View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
Table 1. The Number of Octopus ESTs Obtained in This Study




Commonly Expressed Genes in Human and Octopus Camera Eyes
Using the 1052 nonredundant gene sequences, a comparative analysis of gene expression in human and octopus camera eyes was performed to estimate the number of genes that are commonly expressed in these two lineages. A similarity search was conducted using the set of genes expressed in the octopus eye and the gene-expression data for the human eye obtained from the three databases of BodyMap, the Mammalian Gene Collection (MGC), and the National Eye Institute NEIBank. First, we created a single set of genes from the three distinct databases of gene expression for the human eye (see Methods section). Next, we obtained full-length gene sequences by comparing the gene-expression database with the human gene data from Ensembl (at the European Bioinformatics Institute) and UniGene (at the National Center for Biotechnology Information). We confirmed that 13,303 human-eye ESTs have matches in protein databases. Using the 1052 nonredundant sequences from the octopus eye as query sequences, we performed a BLAST search against the 13,303 human genes. As a result, we identified a total of 729 genes that were commonly expressed in both human and octopus eyes (Fig. 3). It follows that 69.3% of the 1052 nonredundant sequences from the octopus eye were commonly expressed in the human eye. To test whether these genes are significantly different when the same sequences from the octopus eye are compared with the genes expressed in human tissues other than eyes, we also performed a homology search between octopus-eye ESTs and human-connective-tissue ESTs. To be fair, we used 2430 human-connective-tissue ESTs as well as 3809 human-eye ESTs from the same database, BodyMap. We then found that the number of genes commonly expressed between the octopus eye and the human connective tissues was only 44, whereas that of genes between the octopus and human eyes was 162 (Fig. 3). Thus, the former was about four times less than the latter.





View larger version (50K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
Figure 3 Commonly expressed genes between octopuses and humans. (A) Comparing 1052 nonredundant genes expressed in octopus-eye ESTs with the 13,303 gene set (data from NEIbank, MGC, BodyMap) expressed in human eyes, 729 genes were detected as the commonly expressed genes between octopus and human eyes. (B) In all, 162 genes are commonly expressed between octopus and human eyes (data from only BodyMap), whereas only 44 genes are commonly expressed between octopus eyes and human connective tissue (data from BodyMap).




Moreover, to investigate the functional characteristics of the commonly expressed genes in human and octopus eyes, we conducted functional annotation of each gene (Table 2). A comprehensive survey of the literature showed that some of the genes have been previously reported to have functions that are related mainly to the eye. Besides, the homologous genes to six3, lhx2, retinal arrestin, retinal dehydrogenase, -catenin, neuron-specific enolase, and human nuclear-transport receptor karyopherin/importin- were found to be expressed in the octopus eye. These genes are known to be important for the formation and function of the vertebrate camera eye. For example, Six3 is necessary for the patterning of anterior neuroectoderm including the retina (Carl et al. 2002), and Lhx2, which is regulated by Pax6, is also necessary for normal development of the eye, particularly the retina (Porter et al. 1997).

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/14/8/1555
Click to expand...
 
And these conclusions you've made are based on what, exactly?

Jeez, you are slow.

As I said, based on the fact that ID is little more than a non-sequiter logical fallacy, that produces no evidence to support its notions apart from attributing supposed patterns to a deity.

If you are struggling to understand how knowledge is judged in the absence of absolute knowledge, either study epistemology or read JS Mill 'On Liberty', where he explains in such simple terms you might understand how knowledge is judged in the absence of absolute knowledge as part of his justification for freedom of expression.

Though you might not like what you read, so I doubt you'd bother....
 
You continue to defy common sense here, and repeat something that is just plain false, and has no basis of support in logic.

That there is no absolute knowledge?

Explain how 'common sense' leads us to believe in absolute knowledge?

You claim that 'The sun will rise tomorrow' is absolute knowledge, yet as I pointed out, if the sun were to implode in the night it wouldn't rise. Thus the sun rising tomorrow isn't absolute knowledge, but a prediction based on previous experience.

Now lets see your 'common sense' explain how, if the the sun rising is absolute knowledge, if it implodes, the sun won't rise the next day....

Not very absolute is it....
 
Last edited:
LMAO... Show the quote in context? That's what I did! I broke down, in simplest of terms, exactly what he said and meant by the statement.

Bullshit. You rewrote the quote so it fits what you wanted to hear.

When the reporter said 'common sense' says it shouldn't, Einstein didn't reply that 'common sense in science is an accumulation etc', he said 'common sense'.

And he was right. Common sense is merely the general or prevailing popular opinion. As John Stuart Mill argued in his defence of freedom of expression the general and prevailing popular opinion has shown itself to be wanting.

You talk as if this herd-held opinion is infallible, like the fat-head in the pub who booms out 'its bloody obvious isn't it!'

Common sense is merely the prevailing prejudices of popular society, a poor arbitrator and certainly not reliant on any of the substantial epistemological methods such logic or reasoning.

Any words you don't understand? Buy a dictionary..
 
You've already admitted, as a "scientist" you are tainted, your judgement is invalid because you've already made a preconceived determination about ID before you reached the "first hurdle", and it is based on your hatred for God.

Ha ha ha

I'ved never claimed to be a scientist. And I didn't dismiss ID before the first hurdle. I studied ID, looked at Behe's idea of IC, considered Paley's watchmaker analogy.....

I looked at all they had to offer...and found them lacking in logical validity (Paley's WM), to be little more than attribution (Behe) and totally unsupported by the evidence.

A good philosopher keeps an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. Should we consider phrenology to be epistemologically sound just because it is an 'alternative idea'...

As for a hatred of some 'god'... lol it'd be a little daft hating something you don't believe in wouldn't it....

It is the ignorance (faith), dogmatism and absolutism that belief in 'gods' creates that I find very repugnant. And the notion of 'god' is also a little ridiculous, like grown-ups believing in Santa.
 
No, I am stating that nothing can be "highly reliable" or "substantially supported" without some degree of absolute judgement being applied. Simple as that.

Hey, you know why reasoning is called reasoning? Because you present reasons for your argument.

Here's a wacky idea. Why don't you back up your claim that nothing can be "highly reliable" or "substantially supported" without some degree of absolute judgement being applied with a supporting argument.

And, for a good laugh, explain how you can have 'degrees of absolute'....

Ha ha ha You're such a fuckwit.... lol
 
From a scientific standpoint, you must respect this fact of science, which means not ever closing the door on any possibility or proclaiming any possibility the empirical answer.

Then why isn't phrenology considered the equal to forensics when it comes to crime detection?

That would be a signature for you... Dixie: Proud Supporter of Phrenology - cos a bad idea is never a bad idea with Dixie....
 
I have never claimed absolute knowledge that a 'god' doesn't exist. Not once.

"As I said, based on the fact that ID is little more than a non-sequiter logical fallacy, that produces no evidence to support its notions apart from attributing supposed patterns to a deity." --from this very post, about two paragraphs down.

When something is described as a "logical fallacy", I find it hard to believe you aren't claiming it absolutely doesn't exist. You have repeatedly argued that ID is 'logical fallacy', and you have constantly denounced the existence of a God. For you to be claiming you haven't done this, is pretty laughable to me, to be honest.

You are left with nothing but misrepresenting my argument.

No, I have correctly stated you argument. You don't believe we can be absolute about anything, but if it is your Evolution Theory, then we can be 99.999% absolute, and you can dance around on the head of a pin and be two-faced about ID.

You are ignoring evolution of function.

Function doesn't evolve in the human eye.

As for your science study, it is full of the word "suggests" which is not a conclusion. I can 'suggest' that we obtained eyes from the Eye Fairy! Proving it? That's a different story! You've given us some lab experiment regarding Octopus eyes, and this creature is not even in the same animal group as humans. As I said, there is very little evidence to support your theory. The components which make up the human eye, are not reducible, meaning, if they have not developed (evolved fully) they simply will not work and the eye will not function. It is contradictory to natural selection for any species to generate parts with no function.

Bullshit. You rewrote the quote so it fits what you wanted to hear.

Ah... so it's time to divert the debate again? I didn't rewrite the quote, idiot! That would have been me saying that Einstein said "quote" and making something up that he didn't really say. I merely put his words into the proper context for you to better understand, and you refuse to even try and understand that you are wrong.

I'ved never claimed to be a scientist.

And I don't believe you are one, which is why I put "scientist" in quotation.

I looked at all they had to offer...and found them lacking in logical validity...

AT FIRST HURDLE! Before you even got to the first hurdle, truth be known! Why? Because you don't believe in God! You have applied your own "common sense" to this 'scientific' argument, you have determined before you started, that there is no God, therefore this theory can't be valid, and instead of objectively looking at the possibility from a legitimate scientific perspective, you chose to repudiate it and discount it "at first hurdle" ...I guess you think allowing it to reach the first hurdle was 'fair' enough?

Here's a wacky idea. Why don't you back up your claim that nothing can be "highly reliable" or "substantially supported" without some degree of absolute judgment being applied with a supporting argument.

If there is no "absolute knowledge" as you have ignorantly claimed, then there is no way to determine whether something has more weight, less weight or the same weight. These would be determinations based on things that are not absolute, therefore no conclusion could be reached from a logical standpoint.

In a purely 'clinical' setting, a lab experiment or science theory, the scientific method requires you to keep an open mind, and not form absolute judgments. (like you did with ID) This is how discovery is often made in science, and I think it is what you are continuing to refer to, but much like the comment by Einstein, you are not simply applying it in a science context, you are attempting to apply it literally and universally, and it just doesn't work. There are any number of things we know absolutely, men and women are physically different, this isn't a prediction or suggestion, it's absolute fact and knowledge. Iron has greater density than Oxygen in our environment, this is absolute, there is no question about it, we know this for absolute certain, and it will never change. Human lungs are unable to extract oxygen from water like fish, we know this for a fact, it is absolute, if you attempt it, you will drown.

Then why isn't phrenology considered the equal to forensics when it comes to crime detection?

This is what I need for YOU to explain, if we can't be absolute in any knowledge. I don't understand how we can be sure enough to say one thing is more valid, has more weight, is more substantial, or whatever. Those are all determinations based upon some manifestation of absolute knowledge, otherwise they are invalid. It seems to me, you want to pick and chose what is 'absolute' and what is not.
 
I have never claimed absolute knowledge that a 'god' doesn't exist. Not once.

"As I said, based on the fact that ID is little more than a non-sequiter logical fallacy, that produces no evidence to support its notions apart from attributing supposed patterns to a deity." --from this very post, about two paragraphs down.

You are really slow aren't you.

Stating that the notion of ID is a logical fallacy doesn't equate to stating that 'god' doesn't exist is absolute, it is stating that the notion of ID is a logical fallacy.

AGAIN, you are using strawman arguments.

You don't believe we can be absolute about anything, but if it is your Evolution Theory, then we can be 99.999% absolute, and you can dance around on the head of a pin and be two-faced about ID.

Again, How is it two faced about ID? I state that absolute knowledge is impossible, but the supporting evidence behind ET is far more convincing and overweighs the logical fallacy of ID.

What is hard to understand about that, without rewriting my argument in some BS strawman.
 
the supporting evidence behind ET is far more convincing and overweighs the logical fallacy of ID

1.) You have produced no evidence to support human evolution.
2.) You have produced no evidence to support ET as a theory of origin.
3.) You have admitted abject bias toward the ID argument, thus disqualifying your 'peer review' of the facts.
4.) You have still not explained how certain validity can be given without absolute knowledge.
5.) ID is not based on logical fallacy, it is based on principles of science, biology, and overwhelming physical evidence, from DNA to microbiology and genetic coding, all of it points clearly to some form intelligent design. You look at the Universe, the very principles of Physics, the planet itself, the environment, atmosphere, rotation of the planet and even the wobble on it axis which causes the various seasons, which enables life to function. The perfectly balanced food chain, the circle of life, how their seems to be some symmetry to our universe and consciousness. All of it points to a design of some intelligence, and it defies the most perplexed logic to be anything else.

You are big on Einstein quotes, and you like to take them literally, so you must believe that God doesn't roll the dice. Einstein said it, and you need not "explain" what he meant, it is perfectly clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top