Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Arthur Caplan on the Elasticity of Evolution

Years ago, in response to worries that evolution was not falsifiable, an evolutionist assured me the theory was indeed falsifiable. Functionally unconstrained DNA, he explained, should not be conserved in distant species. Such a finding, he assured me, would absolutely refute evolution. Such claims of falsifiability can suffer from two potential problems: they can be too hard, or they can be too easy.

Falsifiability claims can be too hard in the sense that the finding in question is not likely to be discovered. Darwin made this move when he explained that his theory “would absolutely break down” if it could be demonstrated that “any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.” Not surprisingly Darwin concluded that he could find out no such case. What he didn’t tell the reader is that his falsification criteria was impossible.

On the other hand, falsifiability claims can be too easy in the sense that if the finding in question is discovered it can easily be accommodated by adjusting the theory. Evolution is constantly under revision due to the steady stream of unexpected scientific findings. When the evolutionist told me that evolution would absolutely break down if functionally unconstrained DNA was found to be conserved in distant species, I thought it was too hard. Given what we knew at the time, it seemed such a finding was unlikely. But then when it was discovered, the falsification criterion was revealed to be too easy. The discovery of so-called ultra conserved elements (UCEs) certainly was unexpected. As one evolutionist put it, “I about fell off my chair.” But of course, as with all the other unexpected findings, UCEs could do no real damage to evolutionary belief.

The seemingly infinite resiliency and elasticity of evolution is an indicator that there is more than mere science at play. Commentators have noticed this peculiar property of evolution for many years now. Philosopher Arthur Caplan once summarized these concerns as follows:

1. Evolution is rarely sullied by any specific predictions or retrodictions.

2. Evolution seems to possess a disquieting amount of elasticity. Anything and everything in the empirical biological world seems to be compatible with evolutionary explanations. Refuting evidence or crucial experiments that could realistically jeopardize an evolutionary account seem extremely few and far between.

3. Evolutionists seem willing to assume and postulate mechanisms, variables and conditions almost willy-nilly in their attempts to explain evolutionary changes. In evolutionary explanations the theorist simply assumes everything he needs to make the explanation work.

4. Evolution does not measure up to theories from other domains of scientific inquiry. Evolution is significantly poorer in its capacity for empirical refutation, falsifiability and testability.

Caplan noted that philosophers such as Michael Ruse had attempted to defend evolution against such charges. Caplan was not impressed with such attempts and concluded that perhaps we need to go easy on how we criticize theories such as evolution. Perhaps evolution is a different kind of theory, and needs to be treated as such.

Yes, evolution is a different kind of theory. Evolution is a religious theory. I once debated Ruse, but it was more of a discussion than a debate. I explained the metaphysics of evolution and Ruse explained the metaphysics of evolution. My point was that evolution is metaphysical and therefore a different kind of theory. Ruse point was that evolution is metaphysical and therefore true. He made the powerful point that without evolution we would be left with the foolish idea that god made this gritty and evil world.

There is no escaping the religion of evolution. Without it atheists would have to face the specter there is a God. And theists would have to face the specter there is the wrong kind of God. Better to believe the world spontaneously arose all by itself. Religion drives science, and it matters.

115 comments:

  1. Cornlelius: "Falsifiability claims can be too hard in the sense that the finding in question is not likely to be discovered. Darwin made this move when he explained that his theory “would absolutely break down” if it could be demonstrated that “any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.” Not surprisingly Darwin concluded that he could find out no such case. What he didn’t tell the reader is that his falsification criteria was impossible.

    Uhhh... tell that to EVERY OTHER CREATIONIST. The claim that many structures could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications is the foundational premise of the ID movement. If you suspect that any of your colleagues may read this, I'd start brushing up your résumé.

    Cornelius: "Evolution is constantly under revision due to the steady stream of unexpected scientific findings.

    I don't fault bloggers for not going through an editorial process; it is usually cost-prohibitive. Let me donate some time and fix that sentence:

    "All scientific ideas are constantly under revision due to the steady stream of unexpected findings."

    There, no charge.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Last night I visited a bookstore hoping to find some new material regarding evolution. It is hard to describe what I began to feel as I flipped through the pages. It seemed like a waste of paper, half truths and baloney all in the name of science. I felt like the field completely lacks integrity. The books should have been moved over to the nearby shelves where they stored the books on reading tarot cards.


    Philosopher Arthur Caplan that so aptly described the philosophy of evolution. It is a real travesty in the name of science like the global warming and UN scientists who trick the climate stats, hide past climate data from charts, and perform a variety of "tricks". They have a goal and their going to manipulate science to justify it.

    Coming from an Information Technology perspective where no nonsense evaluations and solutions are studied, the whole evolutionary endeavor seems so sloppy and unprofessional.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cornelius: "There is no escaping the religion of evolution. Without it atheists would have to face the specter there is a God."

    No. If evolution were dismissed tomorrow, scientists (including some atheists) would say "Well, I guess we don't know yet how we got here," and continue looking for a naturalistic explanation. (as they rightly should) They would accept the claim that God magically poofed everything into existence if, and only if, there were positive, verifiable, empirical evidence for that claim.

    "Evolution is false" "Magic Creation is true"

    I wonder, do you think methodological naturalism is the wrong approach? If so, why?

    (even claiming that God worked over billions of years, poofing the right mutations into existence, or something similar, that still falls under the claim that modern animals are here due to magic, if that claim cannot be substantiated.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tedford the Idiot said...

    Last night I visited a bookstore hoping to find some new material regarding evolution. It is hard to describe what I began to feel as I flipped through the pages. It seemed like a waste of paper, half truths and baloney all in the name of science. I felt like the field completely lacks integrity. The books should have been moved over to the nearby shelves where they stored the books on reading tarot cards.


    Really? What titles did you examine? Most books you find in a general public bookstore are going to be simplified explanations geared toward layman. If you want actual technical info you need to get a good college upper level text, and/or subscribe to some leading scientific journals (Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Nature, etc.)

    But we both know you're not really interested in learning.

    ReplyDelete
  5. CH: "The seemingly infinite resiliency and elasticity of evolution is an indicator that there is more than mere science at play. "

    More than "mere" science at play? Why not simply that we don't have a complete understanding of the natural processes at play? Or do you have a Direct Word from heaven that something else is involved here? Or does your God just win by default?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Neal: "Last night I visited a bookstore hoping to find some new material regarding evolution. It is hard to describe what I began to feel as I flipped through the pages."

    Neal, have you read (not skimmed) Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne? If not, i'll gladly send you a copy for free. Just specify whether you'd like a paperback or ebook version, and I'll send it to you. No need to even give me a personal address, I can send it to your church.

    Neal: "It is a real travesty in the name of science like the global warming and UN scientists who trick the climate stats, hide past climate data from charts, and perform a variety of "tricks". They have a goal and their going to manipulate science to justify it."

    Neal, search for "Climate Denial Crock of the Week" on YouTube. (Greenman3610's channel) watch at least 5, preferably 10 or 15 clips, and tell me if you still think it's the global warming proponents, and not your side, that are intentionally obfuscating the data.

    Neal: "Coming from an Information Technology perspective..."

    Strange how many ID/Creationists are engineers or developers, and how almost none are biologists in the life sciences. (And as I already mentioned, of those who are, 100% (+- 0.1%) are theists who's religious views preclude evolution from consideration, from one reason or another)

    Can you imagine how humorous it would be for molecular biologists with no IT training to show up on developer message boards, proclaiming that object-oriented-programming is hogwash, that writing in machine code is the way to go for every project?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't have access to the full paper, but my guess is that those four concerns of Arthur Caplan were objects that he proceeded to criticize (if he is the same Arthur L Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania who has made his mark as a bioethicist and defender of methodological naturalism).

    See Arthur L's takedown of the movie Expelled and of ID at:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24239755/ns/health/

    "Intelligent design film far worse than stupid.

    Ben Stein's so-called documentary ‘Expelled’ isn't just bad, it's immoral."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Derrick, what specifically impressed you from Jerry Coyne's book? He is a fairly skilled writer who frames the arguments in his favor using the same tired old arguments. That was one of the books I had in mind.

    Based on your other posts, a good part of your argument to be from authority or how can so many people be wrong?

    Perhaps you should also ask, "why are so many people, including top notch scientists and researchers, be skeptical of evolution?"

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tedford:

    Last night I visited a bookstore hoping to find some new material regarding evolution. It is hard to describe what I began to feel as I flipped through the pages. It seemed like a waste of paper, half truths and baloney all in the name of science.

    Are we supposed to believe this little anecdote? You strike me as a pathological liar, Neal, so I'm betting you can't name any titles of books you flipped through.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Kartrev said, "More than "mere" science at play? Why not simply that we don't have a complete understanding of the natural processes at play?"

    --

    Yet evolution is considered a settled fact by evolutionists.

    --

    Do you see the contradiction?

    --

    Could it be that there are so many unknown's in evolutionary theory because the theory is simply wrong? Geocentrism had a number of evidences in its favor, but also several unknown's that were attempted to be patched with buzz words that actually didn't explain anything. Sound familiar? Geocentrism wasn't completely understood either. The reason was not for lack of understanding every detail, but because the theory was simply wrong. Some things didn't fit geocentrism not because of lack of understanding a few details of the natural processes or exceptions.

    The history of geocentrism serves as a remarkable reminder that when things don't fit and you see some annoying contradictions (despite mountains of favorable evidence), take heed... it could be evidence that the very foundation of the theory itself is faulty.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tedford the Idiot said...

    Kartrev said, "More than "mere" science at play? Why not simply that we don't have a complete understanding of the natural processes at play?"
    --
    Yet evolution is considered a settled fact by evolutionists.

    Do you see the contradiction?


    I see the same dishonest equivocation between the observed fact of evolution - the history of life evolving by common descent over deep time - and the theory of evolution that describes the mechanisms which explain the fact.

    Do you Creationist clowns really think you're being clever by using the same tired old rhetorical word games? Do you think you're convincing any undecided lurkers with your lies?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Cornelius Hunter,

    are you referring to this discussion with Ruse?

    http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2006/05/23/cornelius_hunter_vs_michael_ruse_debate

    P.S.: The UCEs are the only serious problem for evolution I can see currently but I have not looked deeper into the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maybe you should just stick with the philosophy, because every time you opine on the science you are wrong!

    Hunter:
    "When the evolutionist told me that evolution would absolutely break down if functionally unconstrained DNA was found to be conserved in distant species..... The discovery of so-called ultra conserved elements (UCEs) certainly was unexpected."

    Key words-functionally unconstrained DNA. Are you so sure UCEs are unconstrained? If you are, you are wrong! The evolutionary prediction would be conservation implies function. And guess what? Working with that hypothesis, scientists are finding functions of ncRNAs including many associated with disease.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18708752

    "Evolutionary conservation has become a powerful tool to identify functionally important genomic sequences/elements in the human genome. ... Although our knowledge of UCEs is limited, most recent studies suggest that UCEs play a functional role in vertebrate genomes, such as serving as long-range enhancers of flanking genes, regulating splicing and epigenetic modifications, and functioning as transcriptional coactivator. Most recent studies show that expression of UCEs is consistently altered in tumors, strongly suggesting these elements may also be involved in human disease such as cancer development."

    So pretty damn poor falsification there. More recent work shows many UCEs are associated with diseases of the nervous system.

    And don't even get me started on choosing a 1975 review of the modern synthesis. Have there been any developments since then? Genome sequencing, molecular phylogeny, evo-devo? Nah.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Troy, I was actually looking forward to buying the new book by Collins, "The language of God". I knew that he was an evolutionist along the lines of Ken Miller. As I read portions of it last night, it had some interesting things, but its tired support of evolution and sloppy arguments against creation and design discouraged my initial enthusiasm.

    Snake oil salesmen didn't go extinct, they became Darwinists instead.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Neal:
    Geocentrism had a number of evidences in its favor, but also several unknown's that were attempted to be patched with buzz words that actually didn't explain anything.

    If you're referring to epicyles, they were not just "buzz words". They actually worked to provide a predictive model for planetary motions. It wasn't until the introduction of elliptical orbits by Kepler that the heliocentric model was able to provide simpler and more accurate predictions of planetary motion. Until then heliocentric models had assumed that orbits were perfectly circular (a plantonic hang-over) and actually didn't work as well as the complex geocentric model.

    The history of geocentrism serves as a remarkable reminder that when things don't fit and you see some annoying contradictions (despite mountains of favorable evidence), take heed... it could be evidence that the very foundation of the theory itself is faulty.

    Well of course it could be, but the bigger point your example makes is that, until such time as a better theory is devised, there is no reason to abandon a theory that works well. At this moment in history evolutionary theory is not only working very well but is by far the best theory we have to explain the diversity of life.

    So Neal, if you're looking for a new Copernican revolution, you better come up with something a lot better than ID because not only is it not a good theory, it's not even a theory.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well, in the case of geocentrism it turned out that another natural explanation replaced the original one. In this example there was no need to invoke gods as a better explanation, as CH and others are implying or suggesting for evolution. For geocentrism "mere" science turned out to be more than adequate.

    Yes, perhaps the theory of evolution is faulty. Certainly what we will know in years to come will likely be different from what we know today. We can say that about every branch of science.

    Maybe we only have just the beginning inklings of how evolution works, but there is no tangible reason as yet to abandon natural explanations in favor of supernatural ones. Unless of course we have empirical evidence that such a supernatural realm truly exists (and, sorry, saying you have a relationship with God does not constitute the kind of evidence that would be considered reliable and necessary in this case).

    ReplyDelete
  18. Neal Tedford said...

    The books should have been moved over to the nearby shelves where they stored the books on reading tarot cards.

    ============================

    Yes you can also add the bible there as well!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Childress:

    "Evolution is false" ≠ "Magic Creation is true"

    What is it with evolutionists and magic? Does Christianity claim that the species were created by magic or is this just the belief of some Christians and the majority of clueless evolutionists? Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that God uses magic to do anything, AFAIK.

    Does not scripture teach that the world was created by wisdom and understanding? I think so. But don't take my word for it. Look it up. The fact that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (by lees advanced folks like us) does not mean that it's magic. What magic are these Darwinists referring to?

    Cornelius is right. Evolutionist do believe in a magical, hocus-pocus God.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Lois Savain: "What is it with evolutionists and magic? Does Christianity claim that the species were created by magic or is this just the belief of some Christians and the majority of clueless evolutionists? Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that God uses magic to do anything, AFAIK."

    Yes, Christianity does claim that the species were created by magic:

    magic |ˈmajik|
    noun
    •the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
    • mysterious tricks, such as making things disappear and appear again, performed as entertainment.


    The core claim of Genesis is that at one point there was no life and then, by supernatural intervention (slow or fast) there was, with no natural 'cause', life.

    So 'magic' is an appropriate term when referring to supernatural ex-nihilo creation of species; it is also an appropriate term when referring to a supernatural intervention in creation. The only Christians who don't hold that species were created by magic are ones who accept neo-darwinian evolution as a plausible explanation. (a tiny minority I assure you; I've only met one in person. A criticized minority as well, judging by the Christian reaction to the BioLogos Foundation)

    Either you're reading a different Bible than everyone else, or you didn't know what magic meant.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Neal: "Troy, I was actually looking forward to buying the new book by Collins, "The language of God". I knew that he was an evolutionist along the lines of Ken Miller. As I read portions of it last night, it had some interesting things, but its tired support of evolution and sloppy arguments against creation and design discouraged my initial enthusiasm."

    Tell you what, I'll donate that one to your church library instead if you prefer. Take your pick. The only condition is that you have to actually read it. Which 'sloppy arguments' stood out at you?

    Neal: "Snake oil salesmen didn't go extinct, they became Darwinists instead."

    Let's see: Head of the Human Genome Project for many years; now head of the NIH; one of the most respected geneticists in the world; and most notably, probably by far the most well known evangelical Christian scientist of our time. Snake-oil salesman? Tomato, tomahto.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Troy, Dr Collins is changing his view on junk dna... so give it time and he may change his view on evolution too. It's hard to kick against reality.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Dr Collins is changing his view on junk dna."

    Curious, I don't recall such a statement from him. Link?

    Junk DNA was a dubious term at best, coined after scientists knew well of functions for non-protein coding DNA, and coincident with suggestions of function for it. Some junk DNA remains functionless junk-indeed some may be harming your health right now.

    Other non-coding DNA has been exposed as having function.

    And the ID crowd goes wild because?

    Was it that some IDer said something about junk DNA being designed in the 2004-2006 range, well after mainstream scientists were publishing reviews titled "the demise of junk DNA?" Many years after I had "Is Junk DNA aptly named-defend your answer with specific definitions and examples"-as a final exam answer question.

    So tell me, is this a design hypothesis, or following the evolutionary leader?

    Indeed, evolutionary hypotheses were critical in realizing function for conserved non-coding RNA. Conservation suggests function, so scientists went looking (see above). Hypothesis supported (though Cornelius insists on calling this another 'falsification'). Revisionism.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Louis the Fruit Loop said...

    Childress obviously has never read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" in which he showed that scientific paradigms go through sudden disruptive changes that displace them in favor of new paradigms. Ptolemaic epicycles gave way to the Copernican revolution. The flat earth hypothesis gave way to the idea that earth is like a sphere, etc.


    Big problem for you Fruit Loop is that every time one paradigm disappeared it was replaced by a better one, one that explained the empirical data better, made better predictions, was more consilient. All you IDCers are offering up as a replacement is *poof*. That's not gonna cut it.

    Multiple inheritance (non-nested hierarchies) is, of course, 100% consistent with designed genomes but the evolutionists will have none of it.

    LOL! Tell us Fruit Loop, what observation would be inconsistent with 'design', something an omnipotent designer couldn't do? We know you won't give an example, but it's fun watching you bluster out a non-answer anyway.

    They now claim, get this, that entire genes can be duplicated independently via convergence (non-falsifiable crap, of course) or that the genetic code was duplicated via lateral gene transfers (more non-falsifiable crap). Imagine, if you can, whales and bats exchanging echolocation genes via lateral transfers.

    I thought you were going to do that big comprehensive study of mammalian genomes and determine the number of nested vs. non-nested amino acids before declaring victory. Are you done already? When can we expect your results to be published? Looks like just more Fruit Loop bluster.

    evolution is a falsifiable scientific theory but, I hate to break it to y'all, it has been falsified many times over.

    In your tiny unbalanced Fruit Loop mind I'm sure it has.

    ReplyDelete
  27. CH: There is no escaping the religion of evolution. Without it atheists would have to face the specter there is a God.

    Which is, of course, a false dilemma. Why might Cornelius present such a dualistic position?

    Apocalyptic theodicy claims we all take sides in a dualistic battle between cosmic forces of Good and Evil. Even if we don't know it or won't admit it. We all supposedly know we're sinners and that God exists.

    There are no other options, such as intervention by an highly advanced alien species, because none of the heavenly secrets that make sense out of earthly realities included aliens.

    This is classic Apocalyptic theodicy at work.

    CH: And theists would have to face the specter there is the wrong kind of God. Better to believe the world spontaneously arose all by itself. Religion drives science, and it matters.

    Theists disagree on where the boundary where human reasoning an problem solving falls.

    You wroteThis and other passages do not give hints that creations arose in spite of the creator’s wishes.

    Again, if the terms goodness, power, knowledge and design in the case of God cannot cannot be used to explain God's behavior, or lack there of, then exactly what does the term design tell us, if anything, about the end results?

    Things turned out the way God wanted?

    But who's to say that design, in the case of God, means things actually turned out the way God wanted at all? After all, If the term goodness in the case of God tells us nothing about what God would or would not do, then how can the term 'design' in the case of God tell us anything about the biological complexity we observe?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Scott, here's a recent article that I would recommend to you and others that relates to some of the things you've said recently.

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html

    It's called A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design


    Anyway its worth a read to see the opposing view. Have a nice weekend

    ReplyDelete
  29. Tedford the idiot said...

    Scott, here's a recent article that I would recommend to you and others that relates to some of the things you've said recently.

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html

    It's called A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design


    LOL! That's the same crappy list that Casey "attack gerbil" Luskin of the DI has been pushing for years. Not a single 'prediction' that list is positive evidence for ID. Let's look at them:

    (1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).

    That is not a prediction, it's a postdiction. Those things were already observed and explained (with supporting evidence) by evolutionary theory. They are not things exclusive to ID. FAIL.

    (2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.

    So vague as to be worthless. What is 'novel' information, how long is 'suddenly', how similar do 'similar precursors' have to be? FAIL.

    (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.

    Another postdiction not exclusive to ID, along with the typical weaseling. How far removed from a last common ancestor do species have to be to be considered 'unrelated'? Science knows of some genetic sequences that have been preserved across lineages for 500+ million years. FAIL.

    (4) Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions.

    Another postdiction not exclusive to ID. The IDiots may as well have predicted "ID says the sky will be blue". FAIL.

    There you have it Tedford. The professional liars at the Discovery Institute gulled you again.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Neal,

    Did you actually read my comment?

    From the article..

    So by observing human intelligent agents, there is a lot we can know and understand about intelligent designers. These observations can then be converted into hypotheses and predictions about what we should find if an object was designed. This makes intelligent design a scientific theory capable of generating testable predictions, as seen in Table 2 below:

    This is the very assumption which I'm questioning.

    Again, if the terms goodness, power, knowledge in the case of God cannot cannot be used to explain God's behavior, or lack there of, then exactly how can the term design tell us, if anything, about what God would create?

    That's just what God must have wanted?

    While I can see why you might *want* to have your cake and eat it too, this doesn't mean that such a desire does not represent a contradiction on your part.

    So, perhaps you can enlighten us as to why this isn't a contradiction?

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I'm starting to wonder whether Louis S and Joe G share the same basement.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Louis the Fruit Loop said...

    Yo, Thortonista. I realize that you are mentally challenged but listen carefully and read this over and over again until you get it:

    The number one rule in intelligent design is this: reuse previously tested and successful designs as much as possible. This is why the tree of life must consist of both nested and non-nested hierarchies. If a thorough examination of so-called convergent species at the molecular level does not reveal non-nested hierarchies (multiple genetic inheritance), consider the design evolution hypothesis falsified. ahahaha...


    Tell us nut job - why couldn't an omnipotent Designer use nothing but completely nested hierarchies if It so chose?

    ReplyDelete
  34. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Louis the Fruit Loop said...

    T: Tell us nut job - why couldn't an omnipotent Designer use nothing but completely nested hierarchies if It so chose?

    Because, vermin breath, an omnipotent designer is a religious invention of your own making.


    You didn't answer the question nut job. You claim discovering nothing but nested hierarchies will falsify ID. I'll ask again

    Why couldn't an omnipotent Designer use nothing but completely nested hierarchies if It so chose?

    ReplyDelete
  36. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Louis the Fruit Loop said...

    T: Why couldn't an omnipotent Designer use nothing but completely nested hierarchies if It so chose?

    ahahaha... Because, vermin breath, an omnipotent Designer is not just a religious invention of your own making, it cannot possibly exist due to trivial logic that I'm sure will go over your dead vermin head if I were to explain it to you.


    You didn't answer the question again Fruit Loop. Here I'll rephrase and take away your cowardly weaseling escape route:

    Why couldn't an extremely powerful and extremely clever Designer use nothing but completely nested hierarchies if It so chose?

    The answer is such a designer easily could, which kills your "how to falsify ID" stupidity. The simple fact is that there's no possible piece of evidence that could falsify ID. That's one reason it's not science.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Louis the drug addled Fruit Loop said...

    T: Why couldn't an extremely powerful and extremely clever Designer use nothing but completely nested hierarchies if It so chose?

    ahahahaha... How lame and how typical of the retarded mindset of the evolutionistas. The answer, vermin breath, is simple but I'm sure it will go over your head like the last one. The difference between an intelligent designer and a non-intelligent designer is that the former uses inheritance wherever possible so as not to reinvent the wheel while the latter (e.g., absolute idiots like you, Charles Darwin, PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins, etc. ahahaha...) reinvents the wheel at every opportunity. Reinventing the wheel is a stupid thing that only a dumb evolutionist like you would do. ahahaha..


    You again failed to answer the question Fruit Loop. Not why wouldn't a Designed do things a certain way, but why couldn't it. We both know the answer I provided is correct, and we both know why you're too much of a coward to answer.

    But that's OK, no one expects anything from you in your perpetual drugged out stupor. Maybe you did steroids. That would explain your childish temper tantrums as well as your shriveled and useless nads.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Louis the drugged out Fruit Loop said...

    Thortonista: You again failed to answer the question Fruit Loop. Not why wouldn't a Designed do things a certain way, but why couldn't it. We both know the answer I provided is correct, and we both know why you're too much of a coward to answer.

    ahahahaha... HAYSOOS Martinez! It just occurred to me why Thorton is having such a hard time with my answer to his dumb question (unless he/she is just a complete idiot, ahahaha...). Thorton does not realize that he's dealing with the hypothesis, not the prediction that follows from it. Look moron. This is not about whether this or some other intelligent designers could or could not refrain from using multiple inheritance. Although I'm sure this will go over the idiot's head, here is the theory in plain language for those who really care:


    Then your claim that finding nothing but nested hierarchies wouldn't falsify the Design hypothesis. It wouldn't even falsify your stupid hand-wave below that these were "Intelligent" Designers, because you have no idea what an Intelligence capable of creating life on a whole planet could or would do. All your experiment would falsify is the idea that the Intelligent Designers used non-nested inheritances. It wouldn't falsify that a Designer was involved.

    Sorry Looie, but you're a crackpot and a moron. Stick to your drugs.

    ReplyDelete
  42. CH: Without [evolution] atheists would have to face the specter there is a God.

    Athiests are frequently characterized as fearful of God. That he is a looming spectre that they try to hide from at all costs, which drives them to evolution. This couldn't be more wrong.

    I'd take the prospect of a chance for an everlasting life of peace in heaven. I would play by God's rules if that would get me in. By most accounts, I do anyway. On the other hand, the thoughts that my time is severely limited and that there is no greater purpose are some of the most frightning and discuraging thoughts that I have felt.

    For this reason, the basic premise of darwins-god is severly flawed. Coping with a final, inevetable end to life is one of the hardest things most people will ever have to deal with. Knowing that their thoughts and actions are cosmicly arbitrary can be fatally depressing. There is no solice in a lack of God.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

    Alright, that does it. Now that it's clear that Cornelius Hunter has no more backbone than the gutless evolutionists that he rails against, I conclude that I'm wasting my time here. You win, Thorton, but rest assured that this has been but a minor skirmish. Now excuse me while I ...

    ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

    ReplyDelete
  45. Louis Savain said...

    This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

    Alright, that does it. Now that it's clear that Cornelius Hunter has no more backbone than the gutless evolutionists that he rails against, I conclude that I'm wasting my time here. You win, Thorton, but rest assured that this has been but a minor skirmish. Now excuse me while I ...


    Cornelius lets dissenting views be posted here without censorship. In my book that puts him head and shoulders above all other Creationist blogs in the backbone department. As you seem to be too slow to catch on, what he doesn't allow are obscenities from either side.

    Don't let the doorknob hit you in the backside on the way out.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Louis Savain:

    ===
    Alright, that does it. Now that it's clear that Cornelius Hunter has no more backbone than the gutless evolutionists that he rails against, I conclude that I'm wasting my time here.
    ===

    Yes, evolution and evolutionists can be frustrating. But what they need is forgiveness, not anger or judgment.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Cornelius Hunter:

    Yes, evolution and evolutionists can be frustrating. But what they need is forgiveness, not anger or judgment.

    I disagree. What they need is a butt whipping and widespread public humiliation. Not because they are bad (their moral motives are not important) but because the world would be a better place afterwards. The butt whipping and the humiliation will come soon enough, mark my words.

    Besides, you have neither the authority nor the righteousness to forgive anybody. That's God's department. You can only forgive a personal offense if you so choose and that's about it. Anything else is self-righteousness.

    I bet if you had been David, you would have walked up to Goliath and kiss him on the cheek, wouldn't you? I can no longer support your efforts, Cornelius. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Louis Savain:

    ===
    Besides, you have neither the authority nor the righteousness to forgive anybody. That's God's department. You can only forgive a personal offense if you so choose and that's about it.
    ===

    Did I say otherwise?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Louis Savain:

    "I disagree. What they need is a butt whipping and widespread public humiliation. Not because they are bad (their moral motives are not important) but because the world would be a better place afterwards. The butt whipping and the humiliation will come soon enough, mark my words."
    ===

    When you spar off with a marginal type of human being like a Thorton who's sole purpose here is NOT debating science, but baiting you to slime down on her level, then you give her what she wants. You say you're a Christain and take from that model that Jesus never lowered himself to the level of his opposers. In fact he was steadfast in his core standards, principles and beliefs. Never once did he lower these standards or principles to accommodate others.

    The philosophy of Evolutionism exists ONLY because of religion. If they actually had proof, they'd present it. But they don't. As exampled by Cornelius' subjects, they respond by biligerence, insults, filth, etc. When they do that everytime, then you know they have nothing. If they actually do respond to one of Cornelius' examples, the best they can come up with is Faith-Based Statement making. When backed into a corner on these, the best they can do is religiously dogmatically defend it. Ultimately they have nothing. That alone should be satisfying and build up your faith and confidence all the more.

    They ultimately have the right to ridicule and act as animalistic as they possibly choose. They are simply following in the footsteps of their Father, as even Jesus stated to those religious leaders of his day. In fact, when you look at the references to all of Satan's arguements in Genesis chap 3, Job chap 1 & 2 , and Matt chap 4, it's actually uncanny of how similiar the same exact accusations are. But that is their right and you can't fault them for that since they are presently allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Louis the Fruit Loop said...

    Cornelius Hunter: Yes, evolution and evolutionists can be frustrating. But what they need is forgiveness, not anger or judgment.

    I disagree. What they need is a butt whipping and widespread public humiliation. Not because they are bad (their moral motives are not important) but because the world would be a better place afterwards. The butt whipping and the humiliation will come soon enough, mark my words.


    Oooh! The return of Internet Tough Guy!

    Funny how the ones who talk the most crap are the ones least capable of backing up the bluster, either scientifically or physically. See Savain, Joe G, Eocene, Gary as prime examples.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Eocene:

    But that is their right and you can't fault them for that since they are presently allowed.

    Yeah, but they got a major butt whipping coming just the same. We must not give them, as Cornelius is doing here, an outlet to spread their crap. Cornelius is worried about filthy language when the real filth is not language but the river of blatant, in-your-face lies that are causing the sheep to go astray. It's almost as if Cornelius feels that he somehow needs the lying jackasses or that he's on a mission to save souls. This is weak, in my opinion. What is needed is boldness and confidence, not sheepish behavior.

    The only criterion for commenting here should be truth, honesty and sincerity. If you lie, you should get your butt whipped and kicked out unceremoniously. No filthy bums should be allowed to consort with the bride of Yahweh. They are not invited. That's the way I see it.

    ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

    ReplyDelete
  52. Eocene, I must take issue with something you wrote above:

    You say you're a Christain and take from that model that Jesus never lowered himself to the level of his opposers. In fact he was steadfast in his core standards, principles and beliefs. Never once did he lower these standards or principles to accommodate others.

    IMO, this is self-righteous nonsense, sorry. I don't believe in any of it. Jesus lowered himself more than any human being has ever been lowered. He did it only out of obedience to and love for the Father and his chosen bride. He was not the weak Mr. Goody-two-shoes that most Christians portray him to be. He insulted the Pharisees in their faces by calling them snakes. This is worse than calling somebody an a-hole, in those days. This is not unlike the way American Indians used the metaphor of "speaking with a forked tongue" to insult those who lie.

    Jesus also called pharisees hypocrites and compared them to sepulchers that are white and clean on the outside but filthy and foul on the inside (like so many so-called Christians are). At one point, he even got physical and kicked a bunch of a-holes out of the Temple.

    Furthermore, the Bible, especially the old testament, has been filtered by various translations that tried to hide the very blunt original language, starting with the Septuagint, the Vulgate and the King James Bibles. Phrases like "Adam knew his wife" or Noah's son "uncovered his nakedness" are just the tip of the iceberg of instances where the translators were completely off the mark out of puritanical self-righteousness.

    To conclude, let me say that modern Christians need to wake up and really get to know what kind of God they're dealing with. They're in for a surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  53. One of Intelligent Design's claims that blind, undirected chemical processes cannot account for living organisms nor the systems they contain.

    Therefor to refute Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate those processes are capable.

    The design inference persists in part becaue of the total failure of the anti-IDists to support the claims of their position. That is clear from their frothing-at-the-mouth attacks and their obvious dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
  54. JoeTard said...

    One of Intelligent Design's claims that blind, undirected chemical processes cannot account for living organisms nor the systems they contain.

    Therefor to refute Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate those processes are capable.


    It is not necessary to refute speculative ideas whose veracity has never been demonstrated in the first place.

    Reference "The Dragon In My Garage" by Carl Sagan.

    ReplyDelete
  55. tardtard:
    It is not necessary to refute speculative ideas whose veracity has never been demonstrated in the first place.

    So we don't have to refute your nonsensical position as there is nothing to refute.

    Carl Sagan was a moron....

    ReplyDelete
  56. The design inference persists in part becaue of the total failure of the anti-IDists to support the claims of their position. That is clear from their frothing-at-the-mouth attacks and their obvious dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
  57. tardtard:
    Funny how the ones who talk the most crap are the ones least capable of backing up the bluster, either scientifically or physically.

    Yes it is funny how much crap you talk and then you prove that you are scientifically illiterate. All you can do is attack, attack, attack.

    Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  58. tardtard:
    Cornelius lets dissenting views be posted here without censorship.

    Yes and he also lets your ignorant trash-talking be posted too.

    Go figure...

    ReplyDelete
  59. Joe G: Carl Sagan was a moron....

    Carl Sagan wrote voluminous scientific papers, including important work on planets of the Solar System. He was professor and director of planetary studies at Cornell, and an advisor to NASA. He won two Emmys, Hugo, Pulitzer and Peabody awards. Oh, and Isaac Asimov considered Sagan to be one of only two people smarter than himself.

    So it must depend on what you mean by "moron".

    ReplyDelete
  60. Did he ever produce a testable hypothesis for his position? If yes could you produce it here for us?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Without said testable hypothesis-

    It is not necessary to refute speculative ideas whose veracity has never been demonstrated in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  62. JoeG:

    "Did he ever produce a testable hypothesis for his position? If yes could you produce it here for us?"
    ===

    To be honest, he wasn't always pimping evolutionism as you find with many of the prosyletizers here. One thing I appreciate about Carl Sagan was his ability to communicate and illustrate beautifully much about the cosmos which to most folks would have been otherwise boring subject and not a word on evolution. So for that I admire some of his abilities as a teacher and instructor to try and reach people's hearts and create interest in the subject.

    One of the best pieces I remember him narating was on the differences between "Astronomy and Astrology".

    Carl Sagan on Astrology

    For example the opening line quite well illustrates how faith plays a major part numerous pseudo-scientific endeavours like even evolution. Carl Sagan said:

    "The are two ways to view the Stars. The way they really are or the way we wish them to be."

    The above beautifully illustrates how much of the faith-based statements are given life by those who'd gladly pimp such things by calling them facts when they are clearly nothing of the sort. Astrology is a pseudo-science by those who believe stars reveal coded messages in them and then proceed to lable it information.

    ReplyDelete
  63. One "Sagonite" was Guillermo Gonzalez, who has gone on to refute almost everything Sagan stood for.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Zachriel farts and darts, go figure...

    ReplyDelete
  65. Joe G: Zachriel farts and darts, go figure...

    In other words, you cast an unjustified and indefensible aspersion.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I defended it by the fact neither Sagan nor yourself can produce a testable hypothesis for your position.

    IOW like you Saga was just talking out of his arse- morons do that.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Joe G: I defended it by the fact neither Sagan nor yourself can produce a testable hypothesis for your position.

    You do realize that you undermine any credibility you might have had by calling obviously intelligent scientists, such as Sagan, "morons".

    ReplyDelete
  68. You do realize that you undermine any credibility you might have had by not producing any of Sagan's proposed hypotheses supporting his position.

    But you don't care as you don't have any credibility to speak of...

    ReplyDelete
  69. It also undermines the credibility of the ID Community when they appear to countenance your 'arguments'.

    ReplyDelete
  70. By that "logic" you undermine the credibility of theory of evolution and the evolutionary community.

    Nice job...

    ReplyDelete
  71. Oh, and thank you for helping me support my claim.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Zachriel:

    "You do realize that you undermine any credibility you might have had by calling obviously intelligent scientists, such as Sagan, "morons"."

    and

    "It also undermines the credibility of the ID Community when they appear to countenance your 'arguments'."
    ===

    Tell me, why is there always this hypocritical double standard with you ??? I have no problem with Sagan as I am on record mentioning that at times I've enjoyed some of his narratives and yes perhaps it's not classy to name call such an individual as Joe perhaps has done. But correcting JoeG would carry more wait if you were balanced in correcting the dirt on your side like the foul language, insults, vulgarities, etc, etc, etc from Thorton, Troy, Pedant, Ritchie etc. You don't have a problem with the trash talk and filth so much, as you find it extremely irritating that JoeG is doing it for the wrong side. Had he spewded and puked out such against some of your imaginary right-wing opposers, we'd hear nothing but the hypocritical roar of your deafening silence. Start calling it both ways from now on. Your credibility stinks as well.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Eocene,

    I would be hailed all over the world- freaking king evotard- if I was with "them" arguing, the way I do, against ID and Creation.

    The strange part is I owe my style to those very evotards I so adamantly detest. Fight fire with fire and let someone else sort it out.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Eocene: But correcting Joe G would carry more wait if you were balanced in correcting the dirt on your side like the foul language, insults, vulgarities, etc, etc, etc from Thorton, Troy, Pedant, Ritchie etc.

    We typically ignore gratuitous insults and vulgarities. Our disagreement with Joe G concerned an easily refuted factual claim.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Then why haven't you refuted it?

    I defended it by the fact neither Sagan nor yourself can produce a testable hypothesis for your position.

    Still waiting for you.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Joe G: I defended it by the fact neither Sagan nor yourself can produce a testable hypothesis for your position.

    Constantly saying "Is not!" doesn't make an argument.

    Please be specific. Which position? Sagan was very active in many areas of science. You may want to quote the claim.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Zachriel:

    "We typically ignore gratuitous insults and vulgarities. Our disagreement with Joe G concerned an easily refuted factual claim."
    ===

    You know, I do get the use of that looking down your intellectual nose condescending Avatar which is meant to illustrate to others your enlightened superiority, but what's with this continued use of speaking in the 3rd person ???

    So you're not opposed to insults, filth and vulgarities, just as long as it's done for the politically correct worldview ??? Nice.
    ===

    Zachriel:

    "Please be specific. Which position? Sagan was very active in many areas of science. You may want to quote the claim."
    ===

    That doesn't sound promising. Jack of all Trades, Master of none ??? While I have stated that I have in the past enjoyed and appreciated Carl Sagan's narratives and communitive ability to make an otherwise boring subject interesting[something most intellects fail miserably at] to the average human being, your continued poking the stick at what you think is nothing more than a mad dog in a cage isn't going to be very productive unless it's purpose has nothing more than some perverted entertainment value. You really need to get out more often and experience life in the real world outside of computers and bedrooms.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Eocene: I do get the use of that looking down your intellectual nose condescending Avatar which is meant to illustrate to others your enlightened superiority, but what's with this continued use of speaking in the 3rd person ???

    Civ3, Dude.
    http://www.zachriel.com/gotm.asp

    Eocene: your continued poking the stick at what you think is nothing more than a mad dog in a cage isn't going to be very productive unless it's purpose has nothing more than some perverted entertainment value.

    You seem to be suggesting Joe G is full of bluster and lacking in all substance. The question gives Joe G the benefit of the doubt. If he does think that Sagan makes unsupported claims, then he should quote the exact claim so that we can take a look.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I defended it by the fact neither Sagan nor yourself can produce a testable hypothesis for your position.

    Zachriel:
    Constantly saying "Is not!" doesn't make an argument.

    I didn't say tht you liar.

    However it is obvious that you constantly fail to produce what is requested of you. You are an intellectual coward.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Zachriel:
    Please be specific. Which position? Sagan was very active in many areas of science. You may want to quote the claim.

    The claim that the earth and solar system is the accidental result of multiple cosmic collisions.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Joe G: The claim that the earth and solar system is the accidental result of multiple cosmic collisions.

    Citation? Just so we can read the claim in context.

    By the way, do the gas molecules you breathe have a stochastic component to their motion?

    ReplyDelete
  82. The claim that the earth and solar system is the accidental result of multiple cosmic collisions.

    Zachriel:
    Citation? Just so we can read the claim in context

    A citation for the obvious? Or are you saying that Sagan disagreed wuith LaPlace and all the other cosmologists?

    Or are you just being the obtuse prick we all know you for?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Joe G: A citation for the obvious?

    In other words, you refuse to provide a citation.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Or are you saying that Sagan disagreed with LaPlace and all the other cosmologists?

    Or are you just being the obtuse prick we all know you for?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Zachriel:

    "Civ3, Dude.
    http://www.zachriel.com/gotm.asp"
    ===

    Well, other than illustrating that you waste valuable amounts of productive time in a virtual NetherWorld of online gaming sites, what does this have to do with this constantly speaking in the 3rd Person ???
    ---

    Zachriel:

    "You seem to be suggesting Joe G is full of bluster and lacking in all substance."
    ===

    You'd love for it to be so. In these instances I find it tough to understand why individuals who spend so much supposedly important time on the promoting yourselves as the world's elites when it comes to Genius, that you'd waste that time diliberately trying to torment and drive crazy someone who simply disagrees with your point of view by even going to his site and spewing out the same exact fluff you insist he does.

    Don't you all have some secret lab somewhere, where you're working on Nobel Prize winning research to save the world from itself ???
    ---

    Zachriel:

    "The question gives Joe G the benefit of the doubt. If he does think that Sagan makes unsupported claims, then he should quote the exact claim so that we can take a look."
    ===

    Well of course, but that's his choice. I don't doubt that there are some evolutionary thoughts that are Carl's own that he disagrees with, but this constant diliberate intellectual game playing eventually makes these boards worthless. Of course maybe that's the purpose here.

    *eyes rolling*

    ReplyDelete
  86. Joe G: Or are you saying that Sagan disagreed with LaPlace and all the other cosmologists?

    You made a claim about Sagan and won't support it.

    Eocene: *eyes rolling*

    {snip}

    ReplyDelete
  87. Joe G: The claim that the earth and solar system is the accidental result of multiple cosmic collisions.

    Thought gravity had something to do with it.

    Anyway, do the gas molecules you breathe have a stochastic component to their motion?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Or are you saying that Sagan disagreed with LaPlace and all the other cosmologists?

    Zachriel:
    You made a claim about Sagan and won't support it.

    I see that you are too much of an intellectual coward to answer the very relevant question.

    Thank you for helping me support my claim.

    ReplyDelete
  89. The claim that the earth and solar system is the accidental result of multiple cosmic collisions.

    Zachriel:
    Thought gravity had something to do with it.

    1- We wouldn't have a cosmos without it

    2- Your position's "explanation" for gravity is "it just is (they way it is)" LoL

    3- Even with gravity your position's explanation for the solar system is the accidental result of multiple cosmic collisions.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Zachriel:
    Anyway, do the gas molecules you breathe have a stochastic component to their motion?

    Yes and they cannot create solar sytems. What's your point?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Joe G: Or are you saying that Sagan disagreed with LaPlace and all the other cosmologists?

    LaPlace proposed that planets were formed by the gravitational collapse of a nebula, but modern planetology has advanced somewhat since then.

    Zachriel: Anyway, do the gas molecules you breathe have a stochastic component to their motion?

    Joe G: Yes and they cannot create solar sytems. What's your point?

    The regular respiration of lunged organisms depends on the stochastic motion of air molecules.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Joe G, did you ever find a specific claim by Sagan?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Zachriel:
    LaPlace proposed that planets were formed by the gravitational collapse of a nebula, but modern planetology has advanced somewhat since then.

    Advanced to the point of multiple cosmic collisions. And that is where Sagan comes in.


    Zachriel:
    The regular respiration of lunged organisms depends on the stochastic motion of air molecules.

    So if the motion is not stochastic we couldn't breath?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Joe G: So if the motion is not stochastic we couldn't breath?

    In fact, the motion is stochastic, and you can reliably breathe in the normal atmosphere.

    Joe G: Advanced to the point of multiple cosmic collisions.

    Just like the air you breathe.

    ReplyDelete
  95. So if the motion is not stochastic we couldn't breath?

    Zachriel:
    In fact, the motion is stochastic, and you can reliably breathe in the normal atmosphere.

    So if the motion is not stochastic we couldn't breath. Any evidence for that claim?

    Advanced to the point of multiple cosmic collisions.

    Zachriel:
    Just like the air you breathe.

    And the air I breath has absolutely no chance of forming a planet, never mind a planetary system.

    Thank you for helping me support my claim about Sagan.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Zachriel:

    "{snip}"
    ===

    Fascinating, not one word explaining the purpose or reasons for speaking in the 3rd person. This is just too funny.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Joe G: So if the motion is not stochastic we couldn't breath.

    Didn't say that, of course. What we said was that the motion is stochastic, and you can breathe. Reliably in a normal atmosphere. So, please try to address the point.

    ReplyDelete
  98. So if the motion is not stochastic we couldn't breath.

    Zachriel:
    Didn't say that, of course.

    Then answer the question and stop being such a dick:

    So if the motion is not stochastic we couldn't breath?

    ReplyDelete
  99. Joe G: So if the motion is not stochastic we couldn't breath?

    It would depend on the motion. For instance, if angels collect the molecules and move them into your lungs, then you could.

    But again, that's not the point. Can you even remember the point? The motion of air molecules has a stochastic component, yet you can reliably breathe air. Do you understand this basic principle?

    ReplyDelete
  100. So if the motion is not stochastic we couldn't breath?

    Zachriel:
    It would depend on the motion.

    In what way would it depend on their motion?

    Zachriel:
    For instance, if angels collect the molecules and move them into your lungs, then you could.

    What if I just have a respirator/ inhalator?

    Zachriel:
    The motion of air molecules has a stochastic component, yet you can reliably breathe air.

    Umm we were talking about Sagan and his inability to support his position.

    IOW your "basic principle" is to divert attention away from the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Zachriel:
    Just like the air you breathe.

    And the air I breath has absolutely no chance of forming a planet, never mind a planetary system.

    Thank you for helping me support my claim about Sagan.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Zachriel:

    "What *"WE"* said was that the motion is stochastic, and you can breathe."
    ===

    Again with the speaking in the 3rd person.
    ---

    Zachriel:

    "So, please try to address the point."
    ===

    Interesting, why should he submit to your condescending demands if you go and pull the same stunt you claim he does ??? Just answer the question, why is speaking in the 3rd person such an important tactic to many self promoting elitist ??? Is this some type of mysterious intellectual cultish practice used to elevate oneself over a perceived opponant in a public debate forum for the kinky enjoyment of the invisible Peers who may be lurking on in the darkness ???

    Just answer the question and you can go back to your perverted tormenting of JoeG and making yourself the grown up bigger boy you're trying to portray here.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Joe G: What if I just have a respirator/ inhalator?

    The air from an inhalator also depends on the stochastic motion of gas molecules. You seem to have trouble grasping this point.

    Joe G: And the air I breath has absolutely no chance of forming a planet, never mind a planetary system.

    The science indicates that the planets formed by the gravitational collapse of the solar nebula. This process also included a stochastic element. We can observe other stellar nebula in various stages of the process of forming their own stellar systems, so we have some good idea how this occurs.

    ReplyDelete
  104. What if I just have a respirator/ inhalator?

    Zachriel:
    The air from an inhalator also depends on the stochastic motion of gas molecules.

    Prove it. The air FROM an inhalator is directed.

    And the air I breath has absolutely no chance of forming a planet, never mind a planetary system.

    Zachriel:
    The science indicates that the planets formed by the gravitational collapse of the solar nebula.

    What science? What is the testable hypothesis for such a claim?

    Zachriel:
    We can observe other stellar nebula in various stages of the process of forming their own stellar systems, so we have some good idea how this occurs.

    Actually we don't know and only speculate that is what we are observing.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Zachriel: The air from an inhalator also depends on the stochastic motion of gas molecules.

    Joe G: Prove it.

    Seriously?

    It's called the kinetic theory. Though you can't see them, gases are composed of molecules which are in constant, random motion. Gas pressure and other macroscopic properties of gases are due to random collisions between molecules.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Joe G: Actually we don't know and only speculate that is what we are observing.

    As stellar nebula are composed of matter and energy, we can model their behavior. We also can observe stellar nebula at various stages of their collapse.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Still waiting for that testable hypothesis.

    Why is Zachriel being such an intellectual coward?

    Zachriel:
    As stellar nebula are composed of matter and energy, we can model their behavior.

    Yet you cannot provide a testable hypothesis.

    Zachriel:
    We also can observe stellar nebula at various stages of their collapse.

    Actually we don't know and only speculate that is what we are observing.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Prove it. The air FROM an inhalator is directed.

    Zachriel:
    Seriously?

    Seriously the air from an inhalator is directed. That is the purpose of the inhalator.

    ReplyDelete
  109. JoeG:

    "Why is Zachriel being such an intellectual coward?"
    ===

    Because this whole thing on these boards has zero to do with the truth of a matter and more to do with game playing for the purpose of entertaining his buddies lurking out in the darkness of cyber places. You didn't actually think he was serious did you ??? He refuses to answer a simple question of the purpose of intellectual game playing by use of 3rd Person Speak.

    Seriously, this is no more than a game with these clowns.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Joe G: Seriously the air from an inhalator is directed.

    Yes, and it turns out that its operation depends on the stochastic motion of molecules.

    Eocene: ...

    {snip off-topic}

    ReplyDelete
  111. Eocene said...

    Seriously, this is no more than a game


    Hey, Eocene finally got one right!

    Watching you idiots scream and yell and spew spittle trying to hand wave away probably the most well supported theory in all of science is a hoot! The only thing better is making blustering blowhards like JoeTard dance like a trained monkey.

    Dance JoeTard, dance!

    ReplyDelete
  112. Zachriel:

    "{snip off-topic}"
    ===

    Not a chance, answer the question!!! Or do you need your girlfriend to come over now and bully me ??? This is becoming beyond pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Thorton:

    "The only thing better is making blustering blowhards like JoeTard dance like a trained monkey."
    ===

    And you and the rest of the monkeys run over to his blog and make bigger Apes of yourselves. Where's the superiority Madam ???

    ReplyDelete
  114. tardtard:
    Watching you idiots scream and yell and spew spittle trying to hand wave away probably the most well supported theory in all of science is a hoot!

    Which theory would that be?

    ReplyDelete
  115. Eocene,

    You should show a bit more respect to the long lost missing links. :)

    ReplyDelete