Why Are Darwinists Scared to Read Signature in the Cell?

[ricmat]

Post number 140, and the following posters have actually read the book:

ricmat

Please add your names when you read the book.

 

[tjm190]

It’s not that simple, and I don’t remember all the details. Please read the book. It’s not a cell with a particular protein makeup we’re talking about. You’ll probably get more out of the book than I did if you actually read it.

This is ridiculous. I’m (apparently) the only one on the thread who has read the book that is the subject of the thread. But everybody knows it’s wrong. And they can’t take time to actually read the book, although they have time to state here that they know it’s wrong.

Well you said it worked like this- "There are X of these in an early cell. In each of these, there are Y of those. That makes XY things. They can occur in any order, so there are (XY)! possibilities. (X*Y)! is a big number.

 

[ricmat]

Well you said it worked like this- "There are X of these in an early cell. In each of these, there are Y of those. That makes XY things. They can occur in any order, so there are (XY)! possibilities. (X*Y)! is a big number.

Post number 142.

ricmat

anybody else?

 

[tjm190]

Post number 142.

ricmat

anybody else?

If the book made good points, you should be able to make use of those points. If the book’s claim is different then how I showed it above, please enlighten me.

 

[ricmat]

If the book made good points, you should be able to make use of those points. If the book’s claim is different then how I showed it above, please enlighten me.

No. You got that wrong.

My ability to clearly explain the book (especially in a paragraph or two) has nothing to do with whether the book is correct or not.

You seem to think this is about tjm versus ricmat. If ricmat is wrong, then SITC is wrong. That’s a pretty strange concept.

I admit that I don’t make the case very well. But I also argue that your counterarguments are meaningless unless we are both talking about the same thing. And until you read the book, we’re not talking about the same thing.

 

[chessmane4e5]

No. You got that wrong.

My ability to clearly explain the book (especially in a paragraph or two) has nothing to do with whether the book is correct or not.

You seem to think this is about tjm versus ricmat. If ricmat is wrong, then SITC is wrong. That’s a pretty strange concept.

I admit that I don’t make the case very well. But I also argue that your counterarguments are meaningless unless we are both talking about the same thing. And until you read the book, we’re not talking about the same thing.

Which is why it is too bad that the scientists from each camp do not openly debate. With the internet, it would be awesome to have some genuine information. Each side could have an hour to present it’s case. Then each side could have a chance to ask questions and defend .

 

[Leela]

Of course. But the fact that we are here doesn’t prove that random unguided processes were responsible for it, as you claim.

There is nothing random about one species surviving over another. Natural selection just describes how one species is “selected” over another without intelligence guidance.

Nobody claims that the lack of proof of divinine intervention is proof that God did not intervene, we just haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that God did intervene. The ID claim is that a low probability proves that unguided processes could not have produced the results we see. This is just a understanding of the probabilities in question.

The book clearly points out that it cannot prove that life did not originate from random unguided processes. The book also clearly points out that it cannot be proven that life did originate from random unguided processes. If you read the book, you would know that.

Since you are the only one who seems to have read the book, and if you want to discuss it with those of us who have not read it, it looks like the burden falls on you to tell us what the book says.

What the book does is give relative probabilities of something having happened in an unguided fashion (using the known laws of physics and a non-pre-arranged sequence of events), and compare that with what’s called the probabilistic resources available. In summary (and I’ll try not to mess this up) - the first living cell would require 10^41,000 “trials” of the base material for a 50/50 chance of occurring. So what probabilistic resources are available to come up with the trials? Well, one could assume that each and every particle in the universe is involved in the trials (which of course is really optimistic), and that the interactions are occuring at a rate limited only by the speed of light (which again is really optimistic), and that all this has been going on since the big bang 14 billion years ago. It turns out that there are a total (maximum) of 10^139 possible trials available since the big bang. This pales in comparison to the 10^41,000 number required to have a 50/50 chance.

Is it still possible that random chance did it? Yes. Is it highly unlikely that random chance did it. Yes.

But so what. Of course it is unlikely that any particular outcome would occur. The probability of flipping a coin a bunch of times and getting HHHTTHTHTHHHTTHHTHTTTTTTTHHHHHTHTHTTHHTH is extremely unlikely but no less likely than getting any other sequence.

But we know that an intelligent agent can do things better and faster than random chance. That’s what selective breeding is. That’s what genetic laboratory manipulation is.

With regard to if God did it or not, that’s not what the book is about.

Of course an omniscient and omnipotent could being could do it faster and better because by definition such a being can do anything. Why then would such a being not simply create everything the way it intended it to be in a single instant? What could the hypothesis of ID possibly add to our understanding of the universe when it doesn’t predict anything or guide inquiry in any way. ID does not tell us what sort of universe we should expect to find when we study it, since anything would be consistent with the hypothesis that the universe was designed to be exactly the way it is. this would be true even if the universe were completely different from the way it is. Therefore, I don’t know what value it could have to science as a theory. Could ID be even valuable to religion? Most people claim that science can tell us nothing about whether or not God exists. What do you think?

Best,
Leela

 

[ricmat]

Which is why it is too bad that the scientists from each camp do not openly debate. With the internet, it would be awesome to have some genuine information. Each side could have an hour to present it’s case. Then each side could have a chance to ask questions and defend .

I agree.

Or even a running thread like this one with delays in between. But as it is now, we have e.g. ricmat - amateur, supporting the book versus (insert names here) - who have not read the book, attacking the book.

 

[tjm190]

No. You got that wrong.

My ability to clearly explain the book (especially in a paragraph or two) has nothing to do with whether the book is correct or not.

You seem to think this is about tjm versus ricmat. If ricmat is wrong, then SITC is wrong. That’s a pretty strange concept.

I admit that I don’t make the case very well. But I also argue that your counterarguments are meaningless unless we are both talking about the same thing. And until you read the book, we’re not talking about the same thing.

Can you render an opinion on America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle (Moon landing conspiracy)? How about Did Six Million Really Die? There are thousands of books I disagree with- am I obligated to read all of them?
I know when I read a book, I gain knowledge. And when I gain knowledge, I can relay it. Am I unique in this respect?

 

[ricmat]

There is nothing random about one species surviving over another. Natural selection just describes how one species is “selected” over another without intelligence guidance.

For the last time. The book is not about evolution.

 

[ricmat]

Can you render an opinion on America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle (Moon landing conspiracy)? How about Did Six Million Really Die? There are thousands of books I disagree with- am I obligated to read all of them?
I know when I read a book, I gain knowledge. And when I gain knowledge, I can relay it. Am I unique in this respect?

Again, you are looking at this as a duel with other posters.

Why don’t you read the book, gain knowledge, and relay it to us from your perspective.

 

[tjm190]

Again, you are looking at this as a duel with other posters.

Why don’t you read the book, gain knowledge, and relay it to us from your perspective.

Because I’ve got a small stack of books I’m working through (albeit slowly)- and based on your actions, all one gains from this book is the ability to say “You should read this book.”

Was there anything of value or not? For starters, you claimed they calculated the odds of life occurring. Earlier, you were talking about how a cell had X of these components and each of these had Y smaller ones and that the odds they would be organized in that way was very small- I explained why it’s wrong to use that calculation to state the odds of life occurring. Did you arrive at this number by a different calculation?

 

[buffalo]

Again, you are looking at this as a duel with other posters.

Why don’t you read the book, gain knowledge, and relay it to us from your perspective.

Why Are Darwinists Scared to Read Signature in the Cell? - has been vindicated as one can well see.

 

[ricmat]

Because I’ve got a small stack of books I’m working through (albeit slowly)- and based on your actions, all one gains from this book is the ability to say “You should read this book.”

So you’re judging the book (written by a PhD) by ricmat’s poor and inadequate interpretation of it.

If you were to read the book, no doubt you would get more out of it than the ability to say “read the book.” You would then have the ability to say “Now I’ve read the book, and I disagree with it here…” That way you could attack the book itself instead of the messenger.

Unless of course your purpose is not to grow in knowledge as you claim, but to attack messengers

 

[tjm190]

Why Are Darwinists Scared to Read Signature in the Cell? - has been vindicated as one can well see.

Why are people who accept the moon landing, the holocaust, and a no-conspiracy 9/11 afraid to read all of the books out there that contradict their views?

 

[buffalo]

So you’re judging the book (written by a PhD) by ricmat’s poor and inadequate interpretation of it.

If you were to read the book, no doubt you would get more out of it than the ability to say “read the book.” You would then have the ability to say “Now I’ve read the book, and I disagree with it here…” That way you could attack the book itself instead of the messenger.

Unless of course your purpose is not to grow in knowledge as you claim, but to attack messengers

This is the book of the year regarding this subject and there is no time to read it? Hmmmm.

 

[tjm190]

So you’re judging the book (written by a PhD) by ricmat’s poor and inadequate interpretation of it.

If you were to read the book, no doubt you would get more out of it than the ability to say “read the book.” You would then have the ability to say “Now I’ve read the book, and I disagree with it here…” That way you could attack the book itself instead of the messenger.

Unless of course your purpose is not to grow in knowledge as you claim, but to attack messengers

1. You’ve read the book.
2. You can not voice the book’s points
3. You can say ‘read the book.’

Why should I expect to be able to respond any more adequately? If the book truly contains solid information, you should win any debate on the subject in a rout.

If someone was trying to convince me that Elvis was the mastermind behind Hurricane Katrina, and that the proof was in a book, and that they had read the book and believed it I would ask them to demonstrate some of the book’s convincing arguments. If they could show me some interesting points, I would get the book. If they couldn’t, but insisted I read it anyway I wouldn’t.
Consider this discussion a ‘trial period’ for the book- there’s no reason to read a book that doesn’t have anything to offer.

 

[tjm190]

This is the book of the year regarding this subject and there is no time to read it? Hmmmm.

“Book of the year”?

 

[ricmat]

Why should I expect to be able to respond any more adequately? If the book truly contains solid information, you should win any debate on the subject in a rout.

I didn’t realize this was a debate. I thought this was about a book.

Debating was never my strong point. If I was assigned “Prove that the earth is spherical” and you got the “Prove the earth is flat” part - you’d probably win that debate. Proving of course, that the earth is actually flat

 

[tjm190]

I didn’t realize this was a debate. I thought this was about a book.

Debating was never my strong point. If I was assigned “Prove that the earth is spherical” and you got the “Prove the earth is flat” part - you’d probably win that debate. Proving of course, that the earth is actually flat

There are lots of nonfiction books out there- how would you recommend deciding which to read? If proponents of a nonfiction book claim said book contains a proof of this or evidence for that, and they can’t present any such evidence that seems like an easy way to cross that book off the list.