The goal of the Intelligent Design movement is the dismantling of modern science

[TheLurch]

Well, they had a wall around the city.

I let this one slide because Rogue had correctly pointed out that lots of cities had extensive buildings outside their walls. But then i got curious as to the extent of Babylon's walls. And, fortunately, there are lots of resources available online that describe them. This source is consistent with the others i've seen; i'll embed the diagram from it here.
babylon_map.gif
One, it's clear that there were a number of structures outside the walls of the city, and additional outer walls were built after the inner ones, just as Rogue had suggested. But the thing that's very striking about this is extensive area on the far side of the Euphrates that was enclosed by the wall. Why's that so striking? Well, let's go to the satellite imagery.

Screen Shot 2021-05-01 at 11.35.30 AM.jpgThe north to south width of the walls is nearly the full height of the screen capture. And the area enclosed on the far side of the river is about two-thirds of this width along its east-west axis. So, nearly everything on the left side of the river would have been inside the walls. That includes the pharmacy, shopping mall, and home improvement store.

Conclusion: the site of ancient Babylon has been resettled. Once again, Lee blunders in with confidence and gets things completely wrong when just a cursory check would have shown all the information i have here.

He should be embarrassed by this, but i've come to the conclusion that Lee is incapable of shame or guilt.

[TheLurch]

No, I was thinking they were possible.

Then you've wasted two pages on back and forth arguing over semantics when you knew you were in error from the start, refused to admit it, and tried to misdirect the whole conversation away from the fact that you were offering nothing more than an ill-informed guess.

How do you sleep at night knowing that your behavior is so contrary to the values you ostensibly espouse?

[lee_merrill]

Your claim has been refuted over and over and over by your own sources which state that there are Phoenician and Roman ruins above ground and under the existing buildings, and by a map showing the walls of ancient Tyre superimposed on the current coastline:

tyre_outline.png

Your last attempt to 'defend' your claim ended with you saying that Tyre hadn't been rebuilt because there were remains of Roman buildings there, an idea so utterly ridiculous that even you abandoned it.

"Thanks for the clarification of the date of the harbor sinking! And the acknowledgement that the harbor sank." Was my reply. But I don't want to reopen the Tyre discussion here.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

So, you said genome, even though you knew it was false?

No, I was thinking they were possible.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

What I don't understand is why the boys at the Discovery Institute have shown not a scintilla of interest in finding a way to do so.

I point out again Dembski's book "The Design Inference", and Behe's next book, as I have heard, will be along these lines.

Behe throws out a half-baked incomplete idea without bothering to show how one goes about making such "estimates."

But he does show his work, how he made his estimates.

1. The pathway from a scientific proposal becomes a valid scientific theory:

New Proposal: Propose new model to resolve difficult or unanswered questions in a field Retrospective Research Review existing research and apply new model to unresolved questions

Retrospective Research: Review existing research and apply new model to unresolved questions

Prospective Research: Purpose new research that explores limits and tests hypotheses based on new model

Scientific Exchange: Presentation of research results in scientific forums -- ultimately in the peer-reviewed scientific research literature.

Revision and Recycling: Contribution of new models to scientific understanding confirmed and models incorporated into contemporary understanding in the relevant scientific field(s)

--borrowed from Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey's essay Why Teach Evolution?

And after all this time I.D. is still stuck at step one.

But I think they are at the "Retrospective Research" step.

Blessings,
Lee

[rogue06]

But we have to do more than just claim something. We have to be able to support that conclusion in such a way that even a non-believer would accept the evidence. THAT is what science does. It can be practiced by anyone regardless of their personal beliefs and the results can be tested and verified by anyone regardless of their personal beliefs.

Until we can come up with an actual, workable way of detecting and demonstrating miraculous events and phenomena we are unable to scientifically posit a miracle as the cause for something. It really is that simple.

What I don't understand is why the boys at the Discovery Institute have shown not a scintilla of interest in finding a way to do so. It's not like they lack financing. But all they've done since making their initial proposals nearly 30 years ago is sit around writing books and articles repackaging the same assertions. They've shown no interest in doing the work necessary to advance their proposals from that stage. For the most part they've failed to move beyond the very first stage in the development of new scientific ideas^[1] -- that of an interesting idea.

In fact, it appears that those in the ID community have recognized this problem, as I noted back in post #151

I.D.'s "Mahatma," Phillip E. Johnson, was remarkably open about how even years after their five year plan had failed. In 2006 Johnson wailed that I.D.'s "scientific people" hadn't produced a legitimate scientific "alternative" that could stand up to evolution, saying in an interview published in Berkeley Science Review that

"I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove. ... No product is ready for competition in the educational world."

Paul Nelson, a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design appears to agree, stating in an article in Touchstone magazine:

"Easily, the biggest challenge facing the I.D. community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design."

Bruce Gordon, Research Director at Discover Institutes Center for Science and Culture, has also explained why I.D. has such a difficult time gaining a foothold in the scientific community:

"One of the principle reasons for this resistance and controversy is not far to seek: design-theoretic research has been hijacked as part of a larger cultural and political movement. In particular, the theory has been prematurely drawn into discussions of public science education where it has no business making an appearance without broad recognition from the scientific community that it is making a worthwhile contribution to our understanding of the natural world."

Gordon is complaining that they quit doing science and instead settled on doing an end around, focusing on "a larger cultural and political movement" -- a view that I strongly agree with, and one that the other "big gun" of the I.D. movement, William Dembski, seems to concur with:

"Because of intelligent designs outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the cultural and political component of intelligent design is now running ahead of the scientific and intellectual component."

So it seems that these leading proponents of Intelligent Design all think that the one thing that their movement is missing is scientific support. Not support from the scientific community but rather support in the way of actual corroborating evidence for their claims.

And nothing has changed in the going on two decades since those observations were first made.

So I.D. advocates (cdesign proponentsists ) are are no longer interested in looking for evidence to support their claims and don't ever appear to have been interested in finding a way to detect evidence for a miraculous or supernatural occurrence.

So just what do they do with all the money they get aside use it to get even more money?


Behe throws out a half-baked incomplete idea without bothering to show how one goes about making such "estimates." As I said, about as helpful and empty as the slogan "just do it."





1. The pathway from a scientific proposal becomes a valid scientific theory:

New Proposal: Propose new model to resolve difficult or unanswered questions in a field Retrospective Research Review existing research and apply new model to unresolved questions

Retrospective Research: Review existing research and apply new model to unresolved questions

Prospective Research: Purpose new research that explores limits and tests hypotheses based on new model

Scientific Exchange: Presentation of research results in scientific forums -- ultimately in the peer-reviewed scientific research literature.

Revision and Recycling: Contribution of new models to scientific understanding confirmed and models incorporated into contemporary understanding in the relevant scientific field(s)

--borrowed from Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey's essay Why Teach Evolution?

And after all this time I.D. is still stuck at step one.

The problem (one at least) with I.D. is that they don't want to bother doing the work needed to move an idea through the steps to make it a viable scientific theory.

7e6b044d-b749-4c86-8c27-3a42419111f2.jpg

They want to jump right to the end. That's why all their effort is in pushing to get their "interesting idea" inserted into school's science curriculums without first bothering to establish it as legitimate science.

Tbh, I suspect that most of them fully understand they can't successfully transitions through the steps and that I.D. will coming crashing down and undeniably exposed as a failure. And that is something they refuse to allow to happen even if it means their continued promotion of what they suspect is a fraud.

[rogue06]

It was - I don't know why it came out that small.

Png files constantly come out tiny since the update

If you have a way to convert it to jpg, jpeg or even gif it should be okay.

Otherwise...

community_image_1428590255.gif

[Roy]

85x120 is even too small for me to work with here.

Was that a png file? They tend to crap out like that

It was - I don't know why it came out that small.

[Roy]

My claim is that the ancient city of Tyre is underwater.

Your claim has been refuted over and over and over by your own sources which state that there are Phoenician and Roman ruins above ground and under the existing buildings, and by a map showing the walls of ancient Tyre superimposed on the current coastline:

tyre_outline.png

Your last attempt to 'defend' your claim ended with you saying that Tyre hadn't been rebuilt because there were remains of Roman buildings there, an idea so utterly ridiculous that even you abandoned it.

[TheLurch]

No, but gene duplications might indicate the genome duplications are possible, too.

So, you said genome, even though you knew it was false?

[rogue06]

Unless a supernatural explanation is in order! In the origin of life, for instance.

But we have to do more than just claim something. We have to be able to support that conclusion in such a way that even a non-believer would accept the evidence. THAT is what science does. It can be practiced by anyone regardless of their personal beliefs and the results can be tested and verified by anyone regardless of their personal beliefs.

Until we can come up with an actual, workable way of detecting and demonstrating miraculous events and phenomena we are unable to scientifically posit a miracle as the cause for something. It really is that simple.

What I don't understand is why the boys at the Discovery Institute have shown not a scintilla of interest in finding a way to do so. It's not like they lack financing. But all they've done since making their initial proposals nearly 30 years ago is sit around writing books and articles repackaging the same assertions. They've shown no interest in doing the work necessary to advance their proposals from that stage. For the most part they've failed to move beyond the very first stage in the development of new scientific ideas^[1] -- that of an interesting idea.

In fact, it appears that those in the ID community have recognized this problem, as I noted back in post #151

I.D.'s "Mahatma," Phillip E. Johnson, was remarkably open about how even years after their five year plan had failed. In 2006 Johnson wailed that I.D.'s "scientific people" hadn't produced a legitimate scientific "alternative" that could stand up to evolution, saying in an interview published in Berkeley Science Review that

"I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove. ... No product is ready for competition in the educational world."

Paul Nelson, a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design appears to agree, stating in an article in Touchstone magazine:

"Easily, the biggest challenge facing the I.D. community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design."

Bruce Gordon, Research Director at Discover Institutes Center for Science and Culture, has also explained why I.D. has such a difficult time gaining a foothold in the scientific community:

"One of the principle reasons for this resistance and controversy is not far to seek: design-theoretic research has been hijacked as part of a larger cultural and political movement. In particular, the theory has been prematurely drawn into discussions of public science education where it has no business making an appearance without broad recognition from the scientific community that it is making a worthwhile contribution to our understanding of the natural world."

Gordon is complaining that they quit doing science and instead settled on doing an end around, focusing on "a larger cultural and political movement" -- a view that I strongly agree with, and one that the other "big gun" of the I.D. movement, William Dembski, seems to concur with:

"Because of intelligent designs outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the cultural and political component of intelligent design is now running ahead of the scientific and intellectual component."

So it seems that these leading proponents of Intelligent Design all think that the one thing that their movement is missing is scientific support. Not support from the scientific community but rather support in the way of actual corroborating evidence for their claims.

And nothing has changed in the going on two decades since those observations were first made.

So I.D. advocates (cdesign proponentsists ) are are no longer interested in looking for evidence to support their claims and don't ever appear to have been interested in finding a way to detect evidence for a miraculous or supernatural occurrence.

So just what do they do with all the money they get aside use it to get even more money?

The Edge of Evolution produces one such calculation, but the emphasis is on "estimate", not "calculation". When the disciples saw their resurrected Lord, they did not need to do a calculation in order to believe.

Blessings,
Lee

Behe throws out a half-baked incomplete idea without bothering to show how one goes about making such "estimates." As I said, about as helpful and empty as the slogan "just do it."





1. The pathway from a scientific proposal becomes a valid scientific theory:

New Proposal: Propose new model to resolve difficult or unanswered questions in a field Retrospective Research Review existing research and apply new model to unresolved questions

Retrospective Research: Review existing research and apply new model to unresolved questions

Prospective Research: Purpose new research that explores limits and tests hypotheses based on new model

Scientific Exchange: Presentation of research results in scientific forums -- ultimately in the peer-reviewed scientific research literature.

Revision and Recycling: Contribution of new models to scientific understanding confirmed and models incorporated into contemporary understanding in the relevant scientific field(s)

--borrowed from Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey's essay Why Teach Evolution?

And after all this time I.D. is still stuck at step one.

[shunyadragon]

I don't think that it is correct to say it is "undocumented"

I believe it is correct to say undocumented. There are no known first hand documentation of the event of the claim of the Resurrection at the time it happened. It is the claim of a supernatural miraculous event from third hand records. Actually the documentation of the life of Jesus is very very limited. .

This drifting off topic from a thread The goal of the Intelligent Design movement is the dismantling of modern science that deals with Methodological Naturalism and the goal of the ID movement to change Methodological Naturalism to suit the ID movement. It would be further manipulation of MN to propose it can document the Resurrection.

[lee_merrill]

The point you seem dead set on avoiding at all costs is that one can be a thoroughly devoted Christian and still seek to understand how things work without resorting to supernatural explanations.

Unless a supernatural explanation is in order! In the origin of life, for instance.

So theses early scientists (natural philosophers) focused on the predictable ways in which God works because they realized that in no way threatened the fact that God occasionally works miracles.

Certainly, that's fine.

Please enlighten us on how exactly does one do that calculation.

The Edge of Evolution produces one such calculation, but the emphasis is on "estimate", not "calculation". When the disciples saw their resurrected Lord, they did not need to do a calculation in order to believe.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Gee, it would be such an amazing things if scientists understood the mechanisms that bring about whole genome duplications, and understood what species it can take place in. Or knew how to determine when one had taken place by looking at the gene content of organisms descended from one of these events. Then we wouldn't have to rely on Lee guessing what's possible.

But I thought it was impossible to prove a negative?

Blessings,
Lee

[rogue06]

Forgot to include the name of the character who provided the quote near the end: Inigo Montoya (You killed my father. Prepare to die)