Thursday, July 7, 2011

Response to Comments: The Problem With Miracles

Imagine if a police detective was told his theory had to be strictly natural. The evidence at the crime scene was obvious, but the boss wants no criminals indicted. The cause of the crime must be limited to the wind, rain, earthquakes, polar shifts, whatever. Absurd you say? Welcome to evolution.

Evolutionists say we must be limited to strictly natural explanations, and they then turn around and says they’ve figured out how all of life arose—by mutations and the like. They’re not exactly sure how those mutations could possibly produce the brain and everything else, but they are sure that’s how it happened. After all, we must limit ourselves to strictly natural explanations. Those explanations may not work very well, but they are all we have insist the evolutionists.

Of course this makes no sense, but when you point this out, as I did here, evolutionists just become even more sure of themselves. Here is what one evolutionist in the know said:

Cornelius -- please tell us your method for detecting/testing/refuting miracles, or else scientists have no reason to listen to you.

His point is that in science we just can’t deal with miracles. We can’t detect them, test for them, refute them, and so forth. So no matter what the evidence, evolutionists will forever continue to restrict their answer to naturalism. Show them a code, a machine or a molecular repair kit, it won’t matter.

No matter how badly evolution fares—most of its fundamental predictions have turned out false—evolutionists will always continue to insist it is a fact. This is not science, it is dogma.

In fact, if the evolutionist’s concern is simply that science can’t deal with miracles, then fine. Don’t deal with them. You can limit science to those problems where science works well, as Francis Bacon advocated. Or you can drop the “fact” claim, as did Rene Descartes.

But of course this isn’t the concern at all. We all know what is really going on here. We all know, because evolutionists have written and talked about this ad nauseam. The problem is not that they cannot discern any miracles—the problem is that they do not want to discern any miracles.

From theology (e.g., Christian Wolff), to philosophy (e.g., David Hume), to astronomy (e.g., Gottfried Leibniz), to geology (e.g., Charles Lyell) to biology (e.g., Charles Darwin), evolutionary thinkers have filled libraries with why there shouldn’t be any miracles.

Let’s admit it, science is done by people, and people have biases. Evolutionists pretend they have discovered an important new finding—the world just happened to happen, they proclaim.

Balderdash, people have been saying that ever since there were people. And the idea is contradicted today by high-tech science just as much as it was eons ago by simpler science. The idea is beyond ridiculous—it isn’t even wrong.

In fact, when evolutionists are not busy making their bogus warnings about miracles and claims about facts, they are hard at work attempting to refute the non strictly naturalistic Intelligent Design idea. Evolutionists know perfectly well how to deal with miracles when they think it suits their needs.

Let’s drop the game-playing, silly maneuvering and ridiculous truth claims, and instead deal honestly with the data.

147 comments:

  1. Imagine if a police detective was told his theory had to be strictly natural. The evidence at the crime scene was obvious, but the boss wants no criminals indicted. The cause of the crime must be limited to the wind, rain, earthquakes, polar shifts, whatever. Absurd you say? Welcome to evolution

    Er CH, criminals as humans are part of the natural world.

    My goodness but you come up with some amazingly dumb analogies.

    But of course this isn’t the concern at all. We all know what is really going on here. We all know, because evolutionists have written and talked about this ad nauseam. The problem is not that they cannot discern any miracles—the problem is that they do not want to discern any miracles.

    I'd ask you how we're suppose to test and verify supernatural miracles but I know backing up this silly bluster isn't your thing

    ReplyDelete
  2. Contrary to the title of this post, it contains no response to that particular comment. Surprise!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let’s drop the game-playing, silly maneuvering and ridiculous truth claims, and instead deal honestly with the data.

    Sounds good -- intelligent design creationism is already a failed movement, let's make it official!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sad. This article was just painful to read.

    "Imagine if a police detective was told his theory had to be strictly natural."

    Guess what Cornelius, criminals are natural entities. They leave fingerprints, footprints, hair, blood, skin, and other physical traces that can be investigated.

    All police detectives are told their theories have to be strictly natural. If their theories involve agents, which they often do, the proposed agents have to be verifiable in some way. Humans make good suspects in a murder case. Fairies do not.

    You still haven't answered the question posed to you: What method would you use to detect/test/refute a miracle?

    "In fact, if the evolutionist’s concern is simply that science can’t deal with miracles, then fine. Don’t deal with them. You can limit science to those problems where science works well..."

    How exactly does one go about determining which problems science will work on? Is science the right tool for investigating physics? Why or why not? Is science the right tool for investigating medicine? Why or why not? Is science the right tool for investigating biology, specifically life history? Why or why not?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The problem is not that [evolutionists] cannot discern any miracles—the problem is that they do not want to discern any miracles."

    Bzzzt. Wrong. I for one would love to be able to discern miracles, if not only for selfish motivations. Setting aside the satisfaction it would bring me to accomplish something no other human had managed to figure out, Think of all the money that would flow in from just the book deals alone. Millions of dollars, waiting to be spent.

    The only problem (and I don't seem to be alone in this) is that I can't think of a reliable way to discern a miracle.

    Despite your pontificating, I don't think you have either.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Derick Childress

    Is science the right tool for investigating biology, specifically life history? Why or why not?

    Why should anyone assume it is? By what standard is success determined?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bevets said...

    Derick Childress: "Is science the right tool for investigating biology, specifically life history? Why or why not?"

    Why should anyone assume it is? By what standard is success determined?


    To paraphrase Winston Churchill,

    "Science is the worst form of biology/life history investigative tool, except for all the others ever tried."

    :) :) :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cornelius,

    The cause of the crime must be limited to the wind, rain, earthquakes, polar shifts, whatever.

    Yeah, imagine if we had to exclude possible casues that we KNOW exist. Honestly, there is little doubt that there are humans and that humans commit crimes. That was one crappy analogy, Cornelius.

    Try this instead, Cornelius:

    Imagine if a police detective was told his theory did not have to be strictly natural. The cause of the crime could be anything: wind, rain, earthquakes, polar shifts, humans, fairies, sadfjksadhfs, the god of the bible, leprechaus, gremlins, deviant chakras, Neo from the Matrix etc. Absurd you say? Welcome to Cornelius world.

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

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bevets: "Why should anyone assume it is [the right tool for investigating biology, specifically life history]? By what standard is success determined?"

    Good question. For starters, before we can compare tools to figure out which one is the 'right' or 'best' one, we have to inventory the tools that are available. So, besides science, what other tools/methods are there for acquiring new knowledge?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Derick Childress said...

    Bevet: "Why should anyone assume it is [the right tool for investigating biology, specifically life history]? By what standard is success determined?"

    Good question. For starters, before we can compare tools to figure out which one is the 'right' or 'best' one, we have to inventory the tools that are available. So, besides science, what other tools/methods are there for acquiring new knowledge?


    Creationist: "Read the Bible."

    Oops, the track record of that one isn't too good, now is it?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Derick Childress

    Is science the right tool for investigating biology, specifically life history? Why or why not?

    Bevets

    Why should anyone assume it is? By what standard is success determined?

    Thorton

    "Science is the worst form of biology/life history investigative tool, except for all the others ever tried."

    You have offered a bare assertion. Please put some clothes on it. How do you have a standard without knowing some ultimate reality before applying the standard?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bevets said...

    Thorton: "Science is the worst form of biology/life history investigative tool, except for all the others ever tried."

    You have offered a bare assertion. Please put some clothes on it. How do you have a standard without knowing some ultimate reality before applying the standard?


    My comment was meant as humorous but it does contain a good deal of truth. I don't need to know an ultimate reality to be able to assess the relative merits of different approaches. Different systems for explaining the natural world have been tried - alchemy, astronomy, reading entrails, Ouija boards, etc. The scientific method won out because it produces the best, most consistent results by miles.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thorton

    I don't need to know an ultimate reality to be able to assess the relative merits of different approaches. Different systems for explaining the natural world have been tried - alchemy, astronomy, reading entrails, Ouija boards, etc. The scientific method [sic] won out because it produces the best, most consistent results by miles.

    Your question begging merely begs the question. Is there any historical assertion that will not be overturned after 50,000 years of investigation? If it is wrong 50,000 years in the future it is wrong today (no matter how confident you are). The only way to make a claim that a system is 'best' or superior to 'all' other systems is to be privy to Ultimate Reality. You can not claim X is 'more red' than Y, unless you KNOW what red is. What is Ultimate Reality? and how have you acquired access to it?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thorton

    I don't need to know an ultimate reality to be able to assess the relative merits of different approaches. Different systems for explaining the natural world have been tried - alchemy, astronomy, reading entrails, Ouija boards, etc. The scientific method [sic] won out because it produces the best, most consistent results by miles.

    Your question begging merely begs the question. Is there any historical assertion that will not be overturned after 50,000 years of investigation? If it is wrong 50,000 years in the future it is wrong today (no matter how confident you are). The only way to make a claim that a system is 'best' or superior to 'all' other systems is to be privy to Ultimate Reality. You can not claim X is 'more red' than Y, unless you KNOW what red is. What is Ultimate Reality? and how have you acquired access to it?


    Again, I don't need to know ultimate reality. All I'm concerned with is relative reality. The scientific method is the best thing we have now relative to the other ways we currently have as an investigative tool. Maybe tomorrow someone will think up a new method that will blow the doors off the SM and change everything we know. But for now we go with what works best now.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Childress: "The only problem (and I don't seem to be alone in this) is that I can't think of a reliable way to discern a miracle."

    You seem a bit late to the party then. Darwin, Dawkins and the Vatican have long made filthy lucre writing on just such. You're only having difficulty here due to your privilege.

    Check your privilege.

    (Seriously, I've just been looking for an excuse to say that since everyone started trying to get Dawkins to agree with the proposition that an elevator is, in fact, a rape-chamber.)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Bevets,

    The only way to make a claim that a system is 'best' or superior to 'all' other systems is to be privy to Ultimate Reality.

    If I want to light a fire in fireplace, I could:

    Action 1: strike a match.
    Action 2: drop to my knees and pray.

    How much do I need to know about "Ultimate Reality" in order to find out which action is the best? You might complain that I certainly did not try ALL possible actions above (which is true), but what you have to realise is that "best" means "best" in a certain context. The context here is a fireplace with dry wood. Action 1 would be no better than action 2 if the fireplace was submerged in water (with some exceptions, obviously) or if it is a gas fireplace with the gas turned off.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Derick Childress

    Is science the right tool for investigating biology, specifically life history? Why or why not?

    Bevets

    Why should anyone assume it is? By what standard is success determined?

    Bevets

    Your question begging merely begs the question. Is there any historical assertion that will not be overturned after 50,000 years of investigation? If it is wrong 50,000 years in the future it is wrong today (no matter how confident you are). The only way to make a claim that a system is 'best' or superior to 'all' other systems is to be privy to Ultimate Reality. You can not claim X is 'more red' than Y, unless you KNOW what red is. What is Ultimate Reality? and how have you acquired access to it?

    Hawks

    If I want to light a fire in fireplace, I could:

    Action 1: strike a match.
    Action 2: drop to my knees and pray


    This experiment can be performed and confirmed in real time. Please explain how this relates to prehistoric assertions.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bevets,

    This experiment can be performed and confirmed in real time. Please explain how this relates to prehistoric assertions.

    Moving the goal posts, are we? You were the one who claimed that one had to be privy to Ultimate Reality in order to say what is best. I answered that assertion.

    And yes, I can claim that red is more red than blue, simply because there are conventions for what constitues red and blue. I can also claim that Roger Federer is a better tennis player than me, even though I've never played tennis with the guy. I can claim that an iPad is better than a Vic-20. I can claim that Coke tastes better than Pepsi.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Bevets said...

    Hawks: "If I want to light a fire in fireplace, I could:

    Action 1: strike a match.
    Action 2: drop to my knees and pray"

    This experiment can be performed and confirmed in real time. Please explain how this relates to prehistoric assertions.


    Experiments using the scientific method to examine/test the physical evidence left by prehistoric events are done in real time too.

    Action1: make comparative measurements of various fossils (say fossil jaw bones) dated across deep time to see if they exhibit discernible patterns of change.

    Action2: Pray to God for divine guidance to explain the fossils.

    Which will yield more useful results?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Er CH, criminals as humans are part of the natural world."

    This is, of course, true. Funny, though, that if I killed someone we wouldn't say they died of natural causes.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bevets: "This experiment can be performed and confirmed in real time. Please explain how this relates to prehistoric assertions."

    Your handle, if not yourself, is storied lore of the internet as an epic conflagration of crazy and I was sorely hoping someone else would tackle you on this. The only manner you're going to get MegaTruth is to be an observer completely outside and separate from the system under observation. Or, going by net lore, you'd prefer the answer God. But only God, not revelation from Him as that's a personal affair. Now one can always object and point to singular miracles with multiple witnesses, but those don't work either as they're one-shot affairs. You could, perhaps, send God a text: "Plz make monkeys, kthxbye." Then if a hoard of bonobos and a fire engine materialized to put out the shrubbery then you'd have a point; so long as you could do it on command reliably.

    Otherwise the best will always be logic and demonstration. This is so far from being terribly difficult to sort out that it was largely settled by a bunch of Bronze-Age Mediterranean pederasts. That this got cocked up by all comers until Aquinas put his foot down is neither here nor there. That the same occurred again until Descartes and Bacon put their feet down is neither here nor there. That this has once again come about as a prominent problem since the dawn of the Philosopher Kings in the late 19th century is neither here nor there.

    Point of fact your best evidence for a plausible historical narrative that we're descended of monkeys is that we absolutely must be monkeys if we keep failing to keep up with the intellectual chops of those backwater savages with their Helots and City-States. Since only an absolute moron would put forward that we can demonstrate the past absent time machines. Pushing that sort of question forward on Hawks is simply an insult to his character.

    Now let me apologize in advance if I've got you wrongly or have been shorter with you than necessary due your reputation. If I have then by penance I'll do the same by wandering into a Gyno-studies forum with the nick 'OJ.'

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thorton: "... dated across deep time to see if they exhibit discernible patterns of change."

    Ah, so you have a time machine.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Jquip: "You seem a bit late to the party then. Darwin, Dawkins and the Vatican have long made filthy lucre writing on just such. You're only having difficulty here due to your privilege.

    Check your privilege."


    I'm not sure what you mean by this. How am I having difficulty discerning 'due to my privilege'?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thorton: "Action1: make comparative measurements of various fossils (say fossil jaw bones) dated across deep time to see if they exhibit discernible patterns of change."

    Jquip: "Ah, so you have a time machine."

    No time machine is needed to reasonably conclude that deeper strata is older than shallower strata and that likewise, fossils found in bottom layers died longer ago than fossils in upper layers.

    Or are you channeling Ken Ham with the "Were you there?" nonsense?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Fil: "This is, of course, true. Funny, though, that if I killed someone we wouldn't say they died of natural causes."

    We also wouldn't say they died of supernatural causes. Wordgames do not an argument make.

    ReplyDelete
  27. My understanding is that a miracle is a violation of th elaws of nature that we are familiar with. I also understand that subatomic particles can behave differently than the classical laws of physics we are familiar with. Does this mean that sub-atomic particles are miraculous?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Derick Childress said...

    Thorton: "Action1: make comparative measurements of various fossils (say fossil jaw bones) dated across deep time to see if they exhibit discernible patterns of change."

    Jquip: "Ah, so you have a time machine."

    No time machine is needed to reasonably conclude that deeper strata is older than shallower strata and that likewise, fossils found in bottom layers died longer ago than fossils in upper layers.

    Or are you channeling Ken Ham with the "Were you there?" nonsense?


    I was going to explain about radiometric dating but then I thought, why bother? He's a clown out on a troll who doesn't care anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Childress: "I'm not sure what you mean by this. How am I having difficulty discerning 'due to my privilege'?"

    Loosely it just means that you have things that you aren't aware you have. Such as the capability to write 'The Blind Watchmaker.' Just roll with it.

    "No time machine is needed to reasonably conclude that deeper strata is older than shallower strata and that likewise, fossils found in bottom layers died longer ago than fossils in upper layers."

    Sure, but we're not talking about strata. 'Reasonable' fits to a degree. What's reasonable is what fits with our prior biases but that has about nothing to do with the matter. For example, it's completely unreasonable for light to be a particle and a wave; but there you have it. On demand every time you want.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thornton: "Er CH, criminals as humans are part of the natural world."

    Me: This is, of course, true. Funny, though, that if I killed someone we wouldn't say they died of natural causes.

    Derek:"We also wouldn't say they died of supernatural causes. Wordgames do not an argument make."

    I would agree. Still, I found it humorous.

    Also, Derek. A question. Do you believe any of the miracles of the bible actually happened as a supernatural event? If I remember correctly you say you are a Christian who believes in evolution so I was just curious.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thorton,

    "Amazingly dumb analogies."

    Thorton, I'm afraid it is you and your cohorts who are amazingly dumb. Look up the definition of analogy and you will see CH's analogy is sound. Yes, humans are a part of nature, but that fact is irrelevant to the analogy. God and humans are analogous as intelligent agents. In CH's analogy intelligent agents are to be left out as possible explanations. God as the source of life, and humans as the source of the crime. In both cases their exclusion limits the possible explanations in an illogical manner.

    Really Thorton, if you're going to engage in these debates you must really do some work on your critical thinking and analytic skills.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Me: "I'm not sure what you mean by this. How am I having difficulty discerning 'due to my privilege'?"

    Jquip: "Loosely it just means that you have things that you aren't aware you have. Such as the capability to write 'The Blind Watchmaker.' Just roll with it."

    If you're a communications major, I suggest you demand a refund. 'Just roll' with what? I'm simply asking you to restate your word soup. How does 'privilege' impede one's ability to discern miracles? How are you privy to my self-awareness of my own capabilities? I assure you, I'm quite aware of my capability to write, though if you think I had anything to do with penning 'The Blind Watchmaker,' you must have me confused with someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Gerry said...

    Thorton,

    "Amazingly dumb analogies."

    Thorton, I'm afraid it is you and your cohorts who are amazingly dumb. Look up the definition of analogy and you will see CH's analogy is sound. Yes, humans are a part of nature, but that fact is irrelevant to the analogy. God and humans are analogous as intelligent agents. In CH's analogy intelligent agents are to be left out as possible explanations.


    But that's not what CH said. He specifically said the solution had to be strictly natural, which normal people take to mean not supernatural. Others beside me have commented on CH's brain cramp. Take it up with him that he wrote something different from what you wanted him to mean.

    BTW, how are you coming with that non-Biblical corroborating evidence for your Biblical 'miracles'? You seem to have forgotten all about that.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It seems to me that Cornelius' point is that we can all tell the difference between the acts of an agent and the acts of the wind or earthquakes etc. When a detective comes upon a body with a knife sticking out of it, he thinks of an agent, not a windstorm. Of course a windstorm could do such a thing, but evidence would point in that direction.
    The big bang looks like a miracle. Life looks designed. A naturalistic scientific explanation has not been found for either.
    Now one may believe that such an explanation may be forthcoming, but that is an act of faith, not based on scientific data. It is just as much an act of faith as the creationist's act in believing that God created the earth in 6 days. One can argue about the strength of the evidence, but it is an act of faith nevertheless. Allen Shepherd, MD

    ReplyDelete
  35. Gerry: "Look up the definition of analogy and you will see CH's analogy is sound. Yes, humans are a part of nature, but that fact is irrelevant to the analogy. God and humans are analogous as intelligent agents. In CH's analogy intelligent agents are to be left out as possible explanations. God as the source of life, and humans as the source of the crime. In both cases their exclusion limits the possible explanations in an illogical manner."

    You are incredibly mistaken; there is almost no part of CH's analogy that is apt.

    "In CH's analogy intelligent agents are to be left out as possible explanations."

    This is the part that seems insurmountably difficult for creationists to understand. In science, intelligent agents aren't left out as possible explanations; unverifiable agents are. Especially unverifiable agents working through unverifiable means for inexplicable motives. Agency is never off the table as an explanation, as long as there is some way to independently verify that the proposed agents actually exist. (Or at least some reason to think they might.)

    "In both cases their exclusion limits the possible explanations in an illogical manner."

    In the case of all science, not just evolutionary biology, excluding things that can't be empirically verified, or tested in any way, even in principle is not illogical, it is necessary.

    And Cornelius, proper etiquette when you quote someone is to provide a link to the quotation with proper attribution (especially when said quote comes from your own blog) so that readers may view the conversation in context if they wish.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Childress: "If you're a communications major, I suggest you demand a refund. 'Just roll' with what?"

    Then it's fortunate I never wasted money on sheepskin to formalize my academic achievement in interpersonal and cultural communications. Though it seems you are entirely unschooled or you would have recognized the colloquialism of 'Just roll with it' as a common bit of communication in a number of American subcultures. Don't fret though, I hardly blame you for your insular existence and lack of exposure to the wonders of multiculturalism. You might be French for all I know.

    "How does 'privilege' impede one's ability to discern miracles? How are you privy to my self-awareness of my own capabilities?"

    As I said you are obviously immune to academia. By definition -- and I really wish I were making this up -- you are completely unaware of your own privilege and only those around you of a differing class can point this out for you. But the point was not in discerning Miracles, which should be obvious, but your ability to capitalize on them.

    Like I said: Just roll with it.

    "I assure you, I'm quite aware of my capability to write ..."

    To write, not have written. These are all simple grammatical rules that refer to time. Some present, some future. And most under contention the things we can state about the past.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Shepdog said...

    It seems to me that Cornelius' point is that we can all tell the difference between the acts of an agent and the acts of the wind or earthquakes etc. When a detective comes upon a body with a knife sticking out of it, he thinks of an agent, not a windstorm. Of course a windstorm could do such a thing, but evidence would point in that direction.


    Problem is we can only recognize the act of an agent when we have prior knowledge of what the agent can do and how it has behaved in the past. We all have a set of mental templates we carry around, and the tendency is to try and match any new experiences with something we're familiar with. Sadly, that process is very susceptible to false positives. We see animals in clouds, and the face of the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich.

    Same thing happens with DNA. In some ways it resembles human designed computer code, but in more critical ways it doesn't. People who desperately want to believe in a Designer (which always happens to be their personal Deity for some reason) only trumpet the similarities and ignore the falsifying differences.

    The only way to be certain that an object is from an Intelligent Agency requires knowledge outside and beyond the object itself. This simple fact is lost on ID proponents, who still insist on false matching their very human internal templates and declaring victory.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thorton: "But that's not what CH said. He specifically said the solution had to be strictly natural, which normal people take to mean not supernatural."

    I agree completely that the initial portion of this post wasn't the best argumentation I've seen. However, when you start globbing up "normal people" into some monolithic group you ought perhaps pause for consideration. If your group of normal people were lawyers then, as others have mentioned, the contrary to natural would be agency. If your group of normal people were Atheists then your statement is, from personal anecdote, a correct one. If your group of normal people is Christians... who knows. I've seen as many call God natural as I have supernatural. What CH meant is perfectly obvious however. All you have to do is understand his position; whether for privilege or because you're savvy enough to have boned up on Sun Tzu.

    Shepdog: Thank you.

    Childress: "In the case of all science, not just evolutionary biology, excluding things that can't be empirically verified, or tested in any way, even in principle is not illogical, it is necessary."

    So, assuming the validity of cladistics, since it is impossible to sequence DNA from fossils you would say then hold that...

    Hint: We already know homology is a terribly wrong and illogical way to go about things.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Thorton: "Problem is we can only recognize the act of an agent when we have prior knowledge of what the agent can do and how it has behaved in the past."

    Neolithic toolkits.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Jquip said...

    Thorton: "Problem is we can only recognize the act of an agent when we have prior knowledge of what the agent can do and how it has behaved in the past."

    Neolithic toolkits


    Identified by outside knowledge: outside knowledge of how humans work stone, outside knowledge of what wear marks on human produced stone tools look like, and outside knowledge of the marks / trace evidence left by flint knapping. That's how archaeologists tell them from geofacts.

    Give it up clown, you're in way over your head here. You're not near as clever as you think you are.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Thorton: "Identified by outside knowledge: outside knowledge of how humans work stone,"

    Exactly right. Of course -- you are paying attention, yes? -- we did not begin with that outside knowledge. It was, in the early days, a very contentious subject over items not as obvious as Solutrean points. Precisely because we did not have that knowledge and could not create those toolkits at whim. It is only after folks got into the nitty-gritty of flint-knapping[1] and recreated the art such that the toolkits could be created on demand as a demonstration that these were accepted as artifacts of agency.

    Or, precisely what Childress is saying science must do by requirement. Nothing fancy there as it was all largely worked out by Bronze-age Mediterranean pederasts.

    [1] If you haven't done flint-knapping it requires a ridiculous amount of skill to get glass to fracture by your demand and intention. It's very rewarding to get your first blade-ish object out of the bottom of a beer bottle. I highly recommend it and safety glasses.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Jquip said...

    Thorton: "Identified by outside knowledge: outside knowledge of how humans work stone,"

    Exactly right. Of course -- you are paying attention, yes? -- we did not begin with that outside knowledge.


    Which has exactly nothing to do with the discussion or my previous post. Damn but you're a pompous windbag. I bet you just love the sound of your own voice. It's the only one you listen to.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Thorton: "Which has exactly nothing to do with the discussion or my previous post."

    Of course it does. We only gained prior knowledge by recreating that prior knowledge and then demonstrating that we had done so. Optionally we can posit that we have this time machine...

    Be it as it may, you should probably choose to be all warm and fuzzy as the point about Neolithic toolkits is a point against ID.

    "It's the only one you listen to."

    Well, yeh. I did mention I was divorced.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Derick said "This is the part that seems insurmountably difficult for creationists to understand. In science, intelligent agents aren't left out as possible explanations; unverifiable agents are. Especially unverifiable agents working through unverifiable means for inexplicable motives. Agency is never off the table as an explanation, as long as there is some way to independently verify that the proposed agents actually exist. (Or at least some reason to think they might.)"

    --

    Evolutionists are in a mental prison of their own making. They would rather imagine unlikely scenario's and attribute unrealistic powers to Darwinian mechanisms than be open to origins by a creator. If everything had sprung into being in an instant and the creator was still "unverifiable" according to you, would you still hold to this narrow prison window viewpoint?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Tedford the idiot said...

    Evolutionists are in a mental prison of their own making. They would rather imagine unlikely scenario's and attribute unrealistic powers to Darwinian mechanisms than be open to origins by a creator.


    Yeah, not likely scenarios and realistic things like a 6000 year old Earth created in 6 days, a talking snake, a world destroying Flood, a split-second scrambling of all language.

    BTW science is perfectly open to the idea of a creator. Got any positive evidence for one? No? Come back when you do.

    If everything had sprung into being in an instant and the creator was still "unverifiable" according to you, would you still hold to this narrow prison window viewpoint?

    Have it happen first dummy, then ask us.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Here's an excellent article on how Darwinism managed to get credibility and continues to hold onto its cultural armor dispite being an unscientific theory.

    Interesting that most of biology doesn't actually give a hoot about it and when they do it is usually about uncontroversial micro-evolution. It seems like the majority of those that are so passionate about the full blown evolutionary story are atheists with an axe to grind. A visit to the bookstore illustrates this perfectly, since most of the evolutionary books on the shelves are written by these over the top atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Here's the link:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/07/darwinian_evolution_a_scientif048161.html

    ReplyDelete
  48. Thorton,

    "Had to be strictly natural...,"

    Let's try this just one more time, very slowly. For the purposes of the analogy human involvement in the crime IS supernatural involvement. Therefore the analogy is very sound. No amount of semantic gymnastics will change that. Try as you might you can't win this argument. Though I'm sure you will continue to hold your ground and convince yourself you're right. C'est la vie.

    Your apparent inability to comprehend this simple analogy leads me to suggest you cease referring to Tedford as "the idiot."

    As for extra-biblical evidence for miracles, you can't refute what I have presented so why would you need more. And for your information simply rejecting that which is biblical simply because it is biblical does not qualify as refutation.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Tedford the idiot said...

    Interesting that most of biology doesn't actually give a hoot about it and when they do it is usually about uncontroversial micro-evolution. It seems like the majority of those that are so passionate about the full blown evolutionary story are atheists with an axe to grind. A visit to the bookstore illustrates this perfectly, since most of the evolutionary books on the shelves are written by these over the top atheists.


    Barnes & Noble best selling books: Science: Evolution link

    1. Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body - Neil Shubin nope

    2. The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology - Ray Kurzweil nope

    3. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution - Richard Dawkins

    4. Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality - Christopher Ryan nope

    5. How Sex Works: Why We Look, Smell, Taste, Feel, and Act the Way We Do - Sharon Moalem nope

    6. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, New Edition - Jared Diamond nope

    7. Survival of the Sickest: The Surprising Connections between Disease and Longevity - Sharon Moalem nope

    8. Origin of Species (Barnes & Noble Classics Series) - Charles Darwin nope

    9. The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins

    10. Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain - Antonio Damasio nope

    Gee Tedford, only one 'over the top' Atheist in the top 10 sellers. Looks like you're full of it again.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Gerry said...

    Thorton,

    "Had to be strictly natural...,"

    Let's try this just one more time, very slowly. For the purposes of the analogy human involvement in the crime IS supernatural involvement.


    LOL! No, humans aren't supernatural, unless you want to introduce Casper the friendly ghost as evidence.

    Therefore the analogy is very sound. No amount of semantic gymnastics will change that. Try as you might you can't win this argument. Though I'm sure you will continue to hold your ground and convince yourself you're right. C'est la vie.

    I wonder how many people you convince that humans are supernatural. Go on, give it a try!

    As for extra-biblical evidence for miracles, you can't refute what I have presented so why would you need more.

    LOLx2! "The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true!"

    And for your information simply rejecting that which is biblical simply because it is biblical does not qualify as refutation

    I didn't reject it merely because it is Biblical. I reject it because you can provide no corroborating evidence. There's quite a difference there you see.

    Then tell me why I shouldn't also accept as true the Norse Edda story of Odin, and the Aztec story of Quetzalcoatl? They're written down in books too.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thorton: "Yeah, not likely scenarios and realistic things like..."

    Light being a particle and a wave.

    "Come back when you do."

    True true. If only I had this time machine...

    "Have it happen first dummy, then ask us."

    Your bias is showing. Perhaps some new clothes?

    Gerry: "No amount of semantic gymnastics will change that."

    Eh. It was a bad analogy and no amount of semantic gymnastics will change that. I understand CH's point and I presume you do as well; but it is not that way for your opponent.

    "And for your information simply rejecting that which is biblical simply because it is biblical does not qualify as refutation."

    Yeh, it does. Divine inspiration or no it's still witness testimony. Which is good in law but not so much in science -- where we presumptively model things. Assuming much of your faith I shouldn't need mention more than Fallen to make the point.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Jquip said...

    Thorton: "Yeah, not likely scenarios and realistic things like..."

    Light being a particle and a wave.


    Particle/wave duality can be empirically demonstrated. See the double slit experiment.

    "Come back when you do."

    True true. If only I had this time machine...


    Time machines aren't necessary to present empirical evidence.

    "Have it happen first dummy, then ask us."

    Your bias is showing. Perhaps some new clothes?


    I do have a bias for physical reality over religious mythology, especially for what is being taught in science classes. So sue me.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Thorton: "See the double slit experiment."

    See doing the same thing with a single human hair and no slits at all. Hardly interesting if your knowledge is anywhere within 400 years up to date. Now, you're perfectly free to stand upon the backs of those that couldn't conceive that Edison would make a taliking doll. But I wouldn't crow about it.

    "Time machines aren't necessary to present empirical evidence."

    True true. Then you've found the empirical evidence you've so far failed to produce.

    "I do have a bias for physical reality over religious mythology"

    That's entirely false. Or you wouldn't have dipped Copenhagen on the duality of light. A particle in a sea of paricles has an interference pattern. Which is obvious is you're doing science qua naturalism and completely out if your grovelling before men better than yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Jquip is going the Deepak Chopra route. "If you can't dazzle them will brilliance, baffle them with [steer poopy]."

    ReplyDelete
  55. Venture Free said...

    Jquip is going the Deepak Chopra route. "If you can't dazzle them will brilliance, baffle them with [steer poopy]."


    True dat. Jquip hasn't shown the faintest clue about the technical topics that have popped up, but he does seem to be a BS artist extraordinaire. Pretty full of himself while pegging the Dunning-Kruger meter too. Lucky us to have him here.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Derek, are you planning to answer my question?
    As a christian, do you believe the miracles, or supernatural events, described in the bible actually took place?

    ReplyDelete
  57. From the above mentioned link,

    "When University of Warwick sociologist Steve Fuller updated the 1994 survey conducted by Nicolas Rasmussen, he found that of 1,273,417 articles indexed in the two main online biology databases from 1960 to 2005, only 12 percent contained the term "evolution" and its variants in associated keywords and abstracts. "Natural selection" was even scarcer, appearing in only 0.4 percent of the entries. (See his Science vs Religion?: Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution, pp. 131-132) . In many cases, Fuller notes, the term "evolution" is used in a noncontroversial microevolutionary sense. These findings have caused Fuller to conclude, "The neo-Darwinian synthesis consists largely of an extended promissory note to the effect that these two senses of 'evolution' are ultimately the same."

    So most biologists don't give a hoot on a practical basis about full blown evolution. Perhaps we should call evolution the 12% theory. Of course, that would be too generous given that most of the 12% is uncontroversial variation type stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Fil asked: "Derek, are you planning to answer my question?
    As a christian, do you believe the miracles, or supernatural events, described in the bible actually took place?"

    To answer simply, no I do not think that most of the 'miraculous' events took place as described.

    To clarify a point, I have never been shy about expressing my religious views as clearly as possible, unlike many posters and/or blog administrators. Example: http://bit.ly/bhsfHc I have never misrepresented my beliefs, however, views change over time. 'Christian' is no longer a useful or accurate label for myself.

    I'd be happy to go into more detail if requested. But one thing I'd like to note is that my shift had little or nothing to do with evolution. It is possible to be a devoted Christian and to fully accept evolutionary theory as an accurate account of how the current biological diversity came to be.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Neal Tedford: only 12 percent contained the term "evolution" and its variants in associated keywords and abstracts.

    That's because much of biology concerns the study of aspects of organisms other than their evolution. Even Darwin published a large number of papers on non-evolutionary aspects of biology. Still, that's 12% of a million is huge number of papers.

    Neal Tedford: "Natural selection" was even scarcer, appearing in only 0.4 percent of the entries.

    Typically, it's called simply selection.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Gerry: "Let's try this just one more time, very slowly. For the purposes of the analogy human involvement in the crime IS supernatural involvement."

    That's why the analogy makes no sense. Science doesn't rule out the involvement of an agent by default. Science doesn't discard hypotheses that include supernatural agents because they're agents, but because they're supernatural. This is how science works. If you think that's not fair, you're more than free to invent your own method of investigation that does allow for hypotheses to include unverifiable (by principle) causes. Good luck with that.

    "Therefore the analogy is very sound. No amount of semantic gymnastics will change that. Try as you might you can't win this argument. Though I'm sure you will continue to hold your ground and convince yourself you're right. C'est la vie."

    You seem to be the only one here defending this absurd analogy. Odd.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Gerry,

    Let's try this just one more time, very slowly. For the purposes of the analogy human involvement in the crime IS supernatural involvement.

    Yes, that's the analogy.

    Therefore the analogy is very sound.

    Bzzzt. Your conclusion does not follow from the premises. Like I said previously, we already KNOW that humans exist and that they commit crimes. There is no doubt about this. Therefore, we KNOW that humans could have commited a crime at this scene.

    I also told Cornelius:

    Try this instead, Cornelius:

    Imagine if a police detective was told his theory did not have to be strictly natural. The cause of the crime could be anything: wind, rain, earthquakes, polar shifts, humans, fairies, sadfjksadhfs, the god of the bible, leprechaus, gremlins, deviant chakras, Neo from the Matrix etc. Absurd you say? Welcome to Cornelius world.


    And, perhaps, Gerry's world as well.

    No amount of semantic gymnastics will change that.

    None needed. Cornelius' analogy is crap.

    Try as you might you can't win this argument.

    Snicker.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Zachriel said, "That's because much of biology concerns the study of aspects of organisms other than their evolution. "

    Correct. I'd take it a step further. Biology would be better off if big picture evolution would disappear completely. Having loosed the straightjacket of archaic 19th century Darwinism could only be helpful. Only those that get their funding for keeping the myth alive would lose out. But everyone else wins. Perhaps even those that lose funding could go on to lead more profitable and fulfilling lives.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Thorton,

    "Humans aren't supernatural."

    This, Thorton is why I say you must stop calling others idiots. You obviously have no clue whatsoever about the nature of analogous argumentation. No, humans are not supernatural, but that is irrelevant to the analogy. However, as it is painfully obvious you cannot mentally grasp this simple concept I will leave you to wallow in your ignorance.

    "The Bible is true because it says it's true."

    Your blatant displays of childish argumentation grow tiring. The Bible is true because it has been tested on many occasions and shown to be true. In the case of Christ's resurrection John corroborates Mark and Mark corroborates Matthew and so on. I know what your response is going to be, but I will wait for it as I'm sure it will make me laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Neal -

    "Having loosed the straightjacket of archaic 19th century Darwinism could only be helpful."

    Modern biology is not stuck in 19th century Darwinism. Science adapts to new discoveries as they are made. That is the gret strength of science. The modern theory of evolution is not the same as the original idea Darwin came up with. We have added to it, modified it, tweaked it... it has, if you like, evolved.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Gerry -

    Though I am loathe to wander too far frmo the OP's point:

    "The Bible is true because it has been tested on many occasions and shown to be true."

    No it has not. It is not even internally consistent, let alone supported by historical evidence.

    "In the case of Christ's resurrection John corroborates Mark and Mark corroborates Matthew and so on."

    This is the synoptic problem. The gospels (three of them, at least) all copied directly from each other! Matthew and Luke are just slightly embellished retellings of Mark.

    Outside the Bible there is absolutely no first-hand evidence of Jesus at all. Isn't that curious for a man who allegedly routinely performed miracles to thousands? That not a single person who saw him wrote anything down about him at all? Even Saint Paul, writer of three-quarters of the New Testament never actually met Jesus (his vision on the road to Damascus notwithstanding).

    ReplyDelete
  66. Derick Childress

    Science doesn't rule out the involvement of an agent by default. Science doesn't discard hypotheses that include supernatural agents because they're agents, but because they're supernatural. This is how science works. If you think that's not fair, you're more than free to invent your own method of investigation that does allow for hypotheses to include

    But even if it were true by definition that a scientific hypothesis could involve no reference to God, nothing of much interest would follow. The Augustines and Kuypers of this world would then be obliged to concede that they had made a mistake: but the mistake would be no more than a verbal mistake. They would have to concede that they can't properly use the term 'science' in stating their view or asking their question; they would have to use some other term, such as 'sience' (pronounced like 'science'); the definition of 'sience' results from that of 'science' by deleting from the latter the clause proscribing hypotheses that include reference to God (i.e., by removing from the definition of 'science' Ruse seems to be endorsing, the clause according to which science deals only with what is natural). Their mistake would not be in what they proposed to say, but rather in how they proposed to say it. ~ Alvin Plantinga

    ReplyDelete
  67. Cornelius -

    As has been stated, this OP is just embarrassingly weak.

    It is not just 'evolution' which restricts itself to naturalistic explanations, it is THE WHOLE OF SCIENCE!!!! I can't think how many times I've pointed this out to you, and STILL you cannot grasp it.

    Why? For the love of Mary...!!!

    EVERY THEORY IN SCIENCE insists on naturalistic-only explanations. Which includes ToE. It is part of the reason that ToE IS a scientific theory.

    Seriously, why can't you grasp this? It really isn't hard.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Childress: "Science doesn't discard hypotheses that include supernatural agents because they're agents, but because they're supernatural."

    You're unnecessarily conflating supernatural and miracle here. If it's supernatural but not a miracle then it can be modeled and falls within the domain of science no matter your opinion of the matter. Unless, of course, you're to claim that all that Quantum garbage is religious claptrap.

    More to the point no new theory can come about save by wishing into existence a set of completely untested nonsense that violates what we *already* know. Every new theory is supernatural by definition with no other statements as to whether it can be modeled or not.

    If your statement is true then no new theories are allowed and we know all that we can know. Of course, you're also free to take the obscenity test to things: "I know it when I see it." But that's just the creation of a Cult of Revered Men that dispense Mystery and Revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Gerry: "The Bible is true because it has been tested on many occasions and shown to be true"

    Whoa, time out. You're mixing and matching things. The truth or evidence available within and without the Bible are all eyewitness and forensic. Now, you're free to state that this is dandy under legal standards but it has absolutely nothing to do with providing demonstrations for people and there is no manner in which to rub it in someone's face as anything *except* a plausible historical narrative. Or, precisely what's going about now with the various theories of evolution.

    Please don't double down on things by making the same error.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Jquip -

    Out of interest, can you define your use of the word 'miracle' here please.

    I use it as 'a suspension or violation of natural law (possibly at the behest of a divine agent)'.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Ritchie said, "Outside the Bible there is absolutely no first-hand evidence of Jesus at all."

    Outside of the Bible there is not first-hand evidence of very many people in Judea, period. They didn't have facebook or the media like we do today. Within a generation the city of Jerusalem had 80,000 resident Christians. Not possible for someone who did not exist. The evidence for His existence is substantial and comes right down to my life and millions of others. Those that have received the Holy Spirit have confirmation in their own lives that Jesus is real.

    Have you read Lee Strobel or C.S. Lewis or Craig?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Jquip: "[long string of nonsense]"

    Not to be unnecessarily rude, but your ramblings are well below the threshold of being worth the time or effort of responding to. They're not even wrong, just unintelligible. (wrong we can work with.)

    ReplyDelete
  73. Ritchie,

    "No first hand evidence at all..."

    You display a poor understanding of history I'm afraid. First, each of the gospels is an independent account of the events. Only those who attempt to discredit the content and historicity of the Bible hold to the arguments you put forth. There is no evidence to support such an interpretation of the documents. It violates rules of exegesis and hermeneutics. Secondly, as very little original writings survive from this period the amount we do have constitutes a vast amount of evidence. There is vastly more evidence to support the existence of Christ than there is for the existence of Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great. Or are you going to argue they too did not exist.

    "Not a single person..."

    Matthew knew him, John knew him, Peter knew him. Again you make statements which are completely contradicted by the historical facts. However, you seem to be typical of most pseudo intellectuals and simply pick and choose what is fact and what is not to suit your particular view of things. Quite sad really.

    "Road to Damascus notwithstanding.

    Only another example of your choosing to accept only what suits you.

    As for external references try Tacitus, Suetonius or Origen.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Neal -

    "Outside of the Bible there is not first-hand evidence of very many people in Judea, period. They didn't have facebook or the media like we do today."

    True. But if we are to believe the NT, Jesus was someone whom absolutely everyone around him should have taken notice of. Evidence of him is conspicuous by his absense considering the historians we have living around the time who mention nothing about him - people who SHOULD have noticed him.

    "Within a generation the city of Jerusalem had 80,000 resident Christians. Not possible for someone who did not exist."

    Nonsense. The popularity of a belief says nothing about how likely it is to be true. In 2007, the Church of Scientology claimed 3.5 million members, and that began in 1952. Is this proof of Scientology's veracity?

    "The evidence for His existence is substantial and comes right down to my life and millions of others. Those that have received the Holy Spirit have confirmation in their own lives that Jesus is real."

    Oh you FEEL him to be real? How very objective. Because no-one has ever misinterpreted a feeling or had a dearly-cherished notion turn out to be wrong, have they? Nope, if you FEEL something, if you really really really believe it, then it must be objectively true.

    "Have you read Lee Strobel or C.S. Lewis or Craig?"

    Yes, all three. And I can pick holes in all of their arguments. And I find none of them compelling.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Gerry -

    "First, each of the gospels is an independent account of the events."

    Nope, they are not independent. The synoptic problem demonstrates this. Thus, they do not corroborate each other, they are COPIED from each other.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem

    "Secondly, as very little original writings survive from this period the amount we do have constitutes a vast amount of evidence. There is vastly more evidence to support the existence of Christ than there is for the existence of Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great. Or are you going to argue they too did not exist."

    We have first-hand evidence of Julius Ceaser and Alexander. We have coins struck with their images - cities which hold their names, accounts of them written by people who lived alongside them. This is solid first-hand evidence. And it is exactly what we do not have of Jesus.

    "Matthew knew him, John knew him, Peter knew him. Again you make statements which are completely contradicted by the historical facts."

    You mean facts such as the gospels are anonymous? That their titles were added much later by people presuming them to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? That the gospels are written in the third person (odd for a personal account, wouldn't you say?)? That they describe events the supposed authors could not have been privvy to?

    "As for external references try Tacitus, Suetonius or Origen."

    Tacitus - born 56AD, and as such, cannot possibly give us first-hand evidence of Jesus. He can only be passing on hearsay.

    So where did he get his information? The most logical answer is Christians living in Rome. We know there were Christians in Rome at the time. So this amounts to second-hand account based on Christian hearsay. Not very strong.

    Suetonis - born between 69 and 75 AD, even further removed from Jesus' lifespan.

    He wrote a single passage saying "Because the Jews of Rome caused continous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from [Rome]."

    Chrestus was a legitimate Roman name. If he'd meant 'Christ' then he misspelt it (it would have been Christus). Secondly, the revolt he is talking about happened between 41 and 54 AD and it seems unlikely that Christians would have had the numbers ni Rome to revolt. Also note Suetonis calls them Jews, though he elsewhere talks about Christians, so he plainly knows the difference.

    Origen - lived 184/5–253/4. Seriously, how can he provide any evidence at all of Jesus when he was born 150 years after Jesus' death. That'd be like me providing evidence for some future historian on the existence of Napolean Bonaparte.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Zachriel: That's because much of biology concerns the study of aspects of organisms other than their evolution.

    Neal Tedford: Correct. I'd take it a step further. Biology would be better off if big picture evolution would disappear completely.

    That wasn't the point raised. You suggested that because only 12% of biological papers mentioned evolution, that this indicated a weakness in evolutionary theory's acceptance of usefulness. But that doesn't support the claim. Indeed, your own information indicates that thousands upon thousands of scientific papers in biology concern evolution.

    Zachriel: Having loosed the straightjacket of archaic 19th century Darwinism could only be helpful.

    Biology is quite different today than it was in the 19th century, or haven't you noticed?

    ReplyDelete
  77. There's a lot of fuss over "agents" by evolutionists here. There is no reason to put up artifical barriers to discovery. It has some of the symptoms of mental illness. I think it is more of an excuse and an assault on human intelligence and discovery.

    Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

    ReplyDelete
  78. Ritchie: "I use it as 'a suspension or violation of natural law (possibly at the behest of a divine agent)'."

    Under which case it is only what we considered to be a natural law that was in error. Not the act of accomplishing it. In our previous discussions we both referred to a Miracle as something that occurred to infrequently to be modelled. Which is and remains my definition of it; and includes all manner of normal and normative statistical outliers. For example

    "They're not even wrong, just unintelligible. (wrong we can work with.)" -- Childress

    Sudden Onset English Incomprehension occurs with frightening regularity when someone finds a contradiction in their thinking or is presented with an argument that shows their position to a false.

    So while it's a miraculous disease, it is rampant, and so we can start making some reasonable observations about it's progress, symptoms, and causes.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Neal -

    "There's a lot of fuss over "agents" by evolutionists here. There is no reason to put up artifical barriers to discovery. It has some of the symptoms of mental illness. I think it is more of an excuse and an assault on human intelligence and discovery."

    The point has already been made that scientists do not rule out supernatural agents on their grounds of their being agents, they are ruled out on the grounds of their being supernatural.

    And naturalism is not an artificial barrier to discovery - it is absolutely necessary for discovery. Remove this stipulation and we allow all sort of magic and miracles as explanations and no means of testing to work out the true from the false.

    "Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.""

    This is of course your problem. You go to the Bible first and foremost. Given a choice between the Bible and cold hard science you will conclude that it is science which is flawed every time.

    This is nothing more than religious fervour. It is what drives most critics of evolution. It is what makes Cornelius' accusations of 'evolutionists' being religious so deliciously ironic.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Jquip -

    "In our previous discussions we both referred to a Miracle as something that occurred to infrequently to be modelled. Which is and remains my definition of it;"

    Then that may be where we are talking at cross purposes. I do not believe miracles happen. I believe the universe is run on constant and regular forces. We may not fully understand these laws, but we can discover them through hypothesis-building and experimentation.

    This is the fundamental belief at the heart of science. Is it an assumption? Well yes. Might it be wrong? Again, yes.

    But science's sheer explanatory power suggests it is not wrong. Science has given us so much in such a short amount of time. We have cars, computers, antibiotics, we have performed heart transplants, cloned sheep, put men on the moon, and so much more. In short, science WORKS. It gets results. Which would be odd if its central tennet was false.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Zachriel, of the 12% of biological papers that mention evolution, much of it is simply token mention. Like a great scientific article describing in detail a particular animal and its habits only adding a zero-value token mention of evolution almost as a kind of homage to the Darwinian gods. The token mention adds no value. Like a math teacher during a lecture looking outside and saying, 'There's a squirrel,'.

    From the comments by evolutionists here, little has changed from 19th century Darwin other than a few more buzz words. However, Darwin would be disappointed to see that his tree of life has been thrown into the brush hog. So, maybe you do have a point, biology has indeed moved on.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Ritchie said, "And naturalism is not an artificial barrier to discovery - it is absolutely necessary for discovery. "

    That's the mantra in some circles, but it is an ungrounded one. Actually quite the opposite is found when you look back at many of the founding fathers of the modern scientific method. It was their particular belief in a Creator who was intelligent and consistent that inspired them on to discovery. It worked for them, so I say, more power to those that follow their example.


    Look, a person with an inventive and analytical type mind will perform good science even if he believes strongly in a creator. A person without such a mind will not, regardless of his beliefs.

    The rule should be to let the data lead to whatever the best explanation is. The human mind is big enough to see patterns of design without seeing its designer. It's also big enough for most people to see the agenda of scientism.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Neal -

    "That's the mantra in some circles, but it is an ungrounded one. Actually quite the opposite is found when you look back at many of the founding fathers of the modern scientific method. It was their particular belief in a Creator who was intelligent and consistent that inspired them on to discovery."

    The distinction is that you cannot use God or miracles as an explanation while you are performing science. As the saying goes, God is not allowed into the lab.

    Of course, science does not disprove God, so scientific work is not incompatible with a belief in God. Newton, for example, believed God set the constant laws of the universe in place, and thus, understanding those laws was simply understanding the handiwork of God. But he absolutely did not use 'miracle' or 'Goddidit' as a stop-gap explanation whenever he came across some data he could not explain.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Ritchie: "We may not fully understand these laws, but we can discover them through hypothesis-building and experimentation."

    We're not at cross-purposes at all. If we do not know what the laws and causes may be, and it is too infrequent to model then we must give up experimentation. There's no difference here in either of our statements today then from previously. A disgust over possible connotation perhaps; but that's a different issue entirely.

    "This is the fundamental belief at the heart of science. Is it an assumption? Well yes. Might it be wrong? Again, yes."

    Any scientist that tells you that we can know the entirety of the system while remaining within it ain't a scientist. And that's far more fundamental then the rest of it.[1]

    For the rest you sound like you're trying to convince me that the odometer hasn't been rolled back. It's the experiment that works. And it's the repetition of those experiments that gets folded in as engineering. We need not ever carry about a theory at all. They are useful in their own way, critical I'd say, but for different reasons.

    And I'm off till tomorrow. Take care, Boss.

    [1] The Mediterranean pederast quip wasn't just idle nonsense. If you have not suffered through the Organon then you ought. Nearly every statement made by both sides can be found addressed there.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Neal Tedford: Zachriel, of the 12% of biological papers that mention evolution, much of it is simply token mention.

    And other papers where it is an integral part of the paper and have far reaching and well-supported scientific conclusions.

    Neal Tedford: From the comments by evolutionists here, little has changed from 19th century Darwin other than a few more buzz words.

    That's just rhetoric. You know very well that evolutionary biology has changed dramatically, including the integration of genetics and molecular biology.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Ritchie: "But [Newton] absolutely did not use 'miracle' or 'Goddidit' as a stop-gap explanation whenever he came across some data he could not explain."

    Actually, he did- to the detriment of his science. Newton couldn't explain why the orbits of the planets remained stable over time.

    "Though Newton had privately developed the methods of calculus, all his published work used cumbersome geometric reasoning, unsuitable to account for the more subtle higher-order effects of interactions between the planets. Newton himself had doubted the possibility of a mathematical solution to the whole, even concluding that periodic divine intervention was necessary to guarantee the stability of the solar system."

    In some of Newton's religious writings (of which he had many) he once proposed that in addition to atoning for the sins of mankind, one of the purposes of the incarnation was to 'reset the levers of gravity'.

    Later, Pierre-Simon Laplace expounded on Newton's theories, and provided a framework for explaining the apparent stability. When asked by Napoleon why his work made no mention of God, Laplace simply responded: "I had no need of that hypothesis."

    Imagine what Newton could have accomplished if he had not given up inquiry on the matter by allowing supernaturalism to infect his science.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace

    ReplyDelete
  87. DC - Well there's a thing.

    And a good cautionary tale of what happens when you let God into the lab - science stops.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Tedford the idiot said...

    Zachriel, of the 12% of biological papers that mention evolution, much of it is simply token mention. Like a great scientific article describing in detail a particular animal and its habits only adding a zero-value token mention of evolution almost as a kind of homage to the Darwinian gods. The token mention adds no value. Like a math teacher during a lecture looking outside and saying, 'There's a squirrel,'.


    Or like a fat-headed idiot pastor going "Look! I just disproved evolution!!"

    Almost none of the technical papers on aviation and aircraft design published in the last two decades mention the Earth's gravity. That doesn't mean aircraft designers reject gravity or that the concept of gravity is wrong or unnecessary. It's that for the specific work the concept is superfluous - not important for the technical details being investigated.

    I will give you credit though Tedford. Your "most biological papers don't specifically mention evolution so therefore evolution isn't important" is an amazing bit of original stupidity. Do the Creationists give out a 'New Stupid Claim of the Year' prize? Because I'll gladly submit you.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Gerry said...

    Thorton,

    "Humans aren't supernatural."

    This, Thorton is why I say you must stop calling others idiots. You obviously have no clue whatsoever about the nature of analogous argumentation. No, humans are not supernatural, but that is irrelevant to the analogy. However, as it is painfully obvious you cannot mentally grasp this simple concept I will leave you to wallow in your ignorance.


    Watching you defend CH's indefensible brain fart is pretty funny! Casper the friendly ghost it is!

    T: "The Bible is true because it says it's true."

    Your blatant displays of childish argumentation grow tiring. The Bible is true because it has been tested on many occasions and shown to be true. In the case of Christ's resurrection John corroborates Mark and Mark corroborates Matthew and so on. I know what your response is going to be, but I will wait for it as I'm sure it will make me laugh.


    ...and that's even funnier! In order to disprove the idea that 'Biblical truth' is a circular argument, you cite more passages from the Bible.

    You really are having a hard time grasping the basics here, aren't you?

    Telly me Gerry, is the Tower of Babel story true? Is a literal Noah's Flood true? They're in the Bible, aren't they?

    You didn't tell me why I should disbelieve the stories about Odin and Quetzalcoatl either. Well?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Ritchie, you beat me to responding to Neal and Gerry's deliciously uninformed and absurd comments about the historical support for Christianity.

    Neal: "Have you read Lee Strobel or C.S. Lewis or Craig?"

    Yes; probably more than you have. Have you read Ehrman, Dawkins, or Hitchens?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Dawkins is a chicken. He doesn't want to debate Craig. He knows well Craig would kick his butt.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Eugen said...

    Dawkins is a chicken. He doesn't want to debate Craig. He knows well Craig would kick his butt


    Rafael Nadal is a chicken. He doesn't want to play me in tennis. I sent him an email challenging him to a match on my local municipal courts but he never responded. He knows I would kick his butt.

    That's how it works, right?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Let’s drop the game-playing, silly maneuvering and ridiculous truth claims, and instead deal honestly with the data.

    THANK YOU Dr Hunter!!!!

    If more scientists were as rational and honest as you, scientific progress would be leaps and bounds ahead of where it is today.

    ReplyDelete
  94. National Velour -

    "If more scientists were as rational and honest as you, scientific progress would be leaps and bounds ahead of where it is today."

    Oh the delicious irony...

    No, if every scientist was as 'rational and honest' as Dr Hunter then we would just slap 'Goddidit' on every mystery and scientific progress would grind to an absolute halt.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Thorton

    well you just mapped relational table between two groups a la codon table:

    Nadal=Dawkins
    Thorton=Craig

    oops!


    Is that how she werks, Mr Craig? :)

    ReplyDelete
  96. Eugen said...

    Thorton

    well you just mapped relational table between two groups a la codon table:

    Nadal=Dawkins
    Thorton=Craig

    oops!

    Is that how she werks, Mr Craig? :)


    I have just as much chance of winning against Nadal as Craig does against Dawkins.

    Nadal has as much reason to play a match against me as Dawkins has reason to debate Craig

    So yes, there are many mappings! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  97. Ritchie:

    Neal Tedford - "Having loosed the straightjacket of archaic 19th century Darwinism could only be helpful."
    ---

    Ritchie: - "Modern biology is not stuck in 19th century Darwinism. Science adapts to new discoveries as they are made. That is the gret strength of science."
    ===

    Actually this is not true. Science has clearly moved forwards in many areas of understanding, but the main articles of FAITH which were originally penned by the great bearded Prophet in the wilderness of Galapagos still hold onto the hearts of it's modern day philosophical parishioners. No other scientist in all the history of science has ever had a need to be dogmatically and viciously defended by 'Bulldogs' & 'Pitbulls' such as Darwin.
    ---

    Ritchie:

    The modern theory of evolution is not the same as the original idea Darwin came up with. We have added to it, modified it, tweaked it... it has, if you like, evolved."
    ===

    EXACTLY , kind of like "Lucy" 'Evolution by Powersaw' Forcing the square peg of Darwinism into the round hole of the reality of nature.



    *smile*

    ReplyDelete
  98. Jquip:

    "Any scientist that tells you that we can know the entirety of the system while remaining within it ain't a scientist. And that's far more fundamental then the rest of it."
    ===

    About a couple months ago I had a similiar conversation with a student from Belgium who stated that he believed in a Secularist/Scientific society which would bring about a solution to all the problems ailing mankind.[this belief system is common among most E.U. indoctrinated young people] When pressed for evidence for some of his long cherished evolutionary beliefs, he stated proudly and emphatically that though science cannot explain evolution with any cold hard facts, he believed that one day they would be able to explain and prove everything. I respectfully informed him he had just made a bold FAITH-BASED statement just as any other religious person would. Looking bewildered and confused he humbly and respectfully admitted that was correct.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Childress: "Imagine what Newton could have accomplished if he had not given up inquiry on the matter by allowing supernaturalism to infect his science."

    A closed form solution for the three-body problem? Of course Laplace failed to provide that or accuracy so I'm not really certain what point your after.

    Ritchie: "No, if every scientist was as 'rational and honest' as Dr Hunter then we would just slap 'Goddidit' on every mystery and scientific progress would grind to an absolute halt."

    I understand you've got a burr about Cornelius, but am I to understand he never bothers with the 'how' of it all? After all, Evolution is "Dice did it!" and physics is mostly about blaming harmonic oscillators.

    Eocene: "No other scientist in all the history of science has ever had a need to be dogmatically and viciously defended by 'Bulldogs' & 'Pitbulls' such as Darwin."

    Pasteur. More to the point I'll go so far as to make the claim that it isn't worthwhile science unless we're clowning Vicks and putting on dog fights. There's a very good reason to have advocacy both for and against a position.

    "Looking bewildered and confused he humbly and respectfully admitted that was correct."

    Excepting certain conditions, 'belief' in any theory is to engage in religion. The experiment works or not regardless of what personal baggage encouraged us to perform the experiment. I'll keep it short by noting Bacon and Cornelius' handy Venn diagrams again. That Belgian kid has no future in getting grant applications accepted.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Jquip:

    "Pasteur."
    ===

    Yes I've already read that. I was refering to the present day clubs and oranizations. *Wink*
    ---

    Jquip:

    "More to the point I'll go so far as to make the claim that it isn't worthwhile science unless we're clowning Vicks and putting on dog fights. There's a very good reason to have advocacy both for and against a position."
    ---

    I have no problem with the criticism of any side. The very fact that ALL sides[evo-creo-IDeo-whatever else] of these debates here are founded on religious bias demands it. For me personally, it would be preferable to have a pure form of science absent of any of these preconceived biases which commonly colour the explanations whether either side is willing to admit it or not. I'm guessing not. If science could be used simply to research, explain and show practical application of what has been discovered without attaching any lables, that would be ideal, but we'll never get a world like that here.

    The Evo side of things which controls academia presently is shackled by monsterous egos which are shackled by the same imperfect qualities of pride, predjudice, envy, jealousy, hatreds, etc, etc, etc, tho you'll never get any such admissions found in a combat forum venue such as this one. The same problem exists from the other Kamps. Which IDist or Creationist take would be allowed in as the official belief system and whose beliefs would be rejected ??? Though I favour an intelligence side of things, Job chapters 38-41 illustrate the impossiblity for OOL explanations, as evidenced by the lack of understanding by the fine example of Job.
    ---

    Jquip:

    "Evolution is "Dice did it!" and physics is mostly about blaming harmonic oscillators."
    ===

    Oooooooooooo, I like that one. Can I borrow that in the future = "Dice Theory" ???

    *wink*

    ReplyDelete
  101. Eocene: "I was refering to the present day clubs and organizations."

    Ah. Short list: Just about every NGO out there.

    Longer answer: You can find such in anything that intersects politics, as well as a healthy chunk of number theory. There's no modern rockstars like Huxley since it's now so rampant as to be a mere statistic. Nothing queer about that, the modern method of inquiry is for the scientific serfs to beg audience on the single-patron plantation. Research that isn't funded doesn't get done.

    "I'm guessing not."

    Pretty much. Humans have this infuriating habit of acting like people.

    "... without attaching any lables, that would be ideal, ..."

    See, I'm a fan of the theory side of things. Not solely for the absinthe fueled science fiction, but also as it provides a useful manner to gain ad-hoc cooperation in attacking NP, and up, scale problems.

    "I like that one."

    Knock yourself out, it's just a corruption of what Einstein said to Born.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Thorton:

    Nadal stands to gain nothing by playing you. If he wins, it proves nothing. If he loses, it will make him look very bad.

    On the other hand, if Dawkins defeats Craig, he will make all those IDers/Creationsist look stupid. That is his life's work. If he loses, he can do what Krauss did, and say Craig cheated. Either way, he can view this as a teaching opportunity. I would expect an educator and popularizer of science to welcome such an opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  103. squid ink schuster said...
    Thorton:

    Nadal stands to gain nothing by playing you. If he wins, it proves nothing. If he loses, it will make him look very bad.

    On the other hand, if Dawkins defeats Craig, he will make all those IDers/Creationsist look stupid.


    All those IDers/Creationist already look stupid, just as I look stupid at tennis. Further demonstration of the point doesn't tell us anything new but it would give some most undeserved legitimacy to their anti-science whining. Why give them (or me) an audience we didn't earn?

    ReplyDelete
  104. They might look stupid, but they have a growing following. Lots of people question evolution. I would expect Dawkins to do something about it. He should be willing to give the ID's an audience if it means showing the world how stupid they are. That's his job, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  105. I understand that Dawkins debated Rabbi Shmuley Boteach circa 1995. He later denied the debates ever happened. When he was shown videos, he claimed he forgot, then compared Rabbi Boteach to Hitler. Why did he give Boteach a forum? Why did he give him that credibility?

    ReplyDelete
  106. squid oil schuster said...

    They might look stupid, but they have a growing following.


    LOL! You need to get out more. After Kitzmiller v. Dover the IDiot movement went down faster than Linda Lovelace on the Titanic. All that's left are a few ghost town web sites like UncommomlyDense and the Discovery Institute, and a handful of hanger-ons too stupid to know the party's over. Biblical Creationists still make the occasional attempt to sneak their crap into public science classes, and they get beaten down as necessary.

    He should be willing to give the ID's an audience if it means showing the world how stupid they are.

    The IDiots could get their own audience by doing some scientific research themselves and presenting the positive evidence to mainstream scientific journals. Do you ever wonder why, if ID is so strong, the IDiots never tried to gain acceptance the same way the rest of science does? It's pretty easy with this Internet thingie to get new, useful ideas out there. But you have to have the goods first, a point that the IDiots always forget.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Thorton: "Do you ever wonder why, if ID is so strong, the IDiots never tried to gain acceptance the same way the rest of science does?"

    Well, the Design set is doing things the same way as the Dice set. I'm not sure why either camp thought that approach was a good plan.

    ReplyDelete
  108. According to some polls, more people believe in ghosts than believe in evolution. Evolution might be doing well in academia, but out among the laypeople, I'm not so sure. Dawkins title use to be popularizer of science. That means it was hisjob to enlighten the masses about evolution. I would expect him to accept this opportunity.

    Now, ID, proponents are doing research. I would imagine that they would even more, but they aren't given resources, and might even be afraid for their jobs. There is bias in the science community, y'know.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Derek: To answer simply, no I do not think that most of the 'miraculous' events took place as described.

    Most? So you believe in a few of them. Could you provide an example of one you believe to be true/accurate?

    ReplyDelete
  110. Jquip said...

    Thorton: "Do you ever wonder why, if ID is so strong, the IDiots never tried to gain acceptance the same way the rest of science does?"

    Well, the Design set is doing things the same way as the Dice set. I'm not sure why either camp thought that approach was a good plan.


    Since the Dice set consists solely of dimbulb Creationists who like to flaunt their ignorance with the stupid strawman "evolution says everything arose by chance alone!!", for once I agree with you. The IDiots and the Creationists both approach science the same way - they avoid any contact with it.

    ReplyDelete
  111. squid ink schuster said...

    According to some polls, more people believe in ghosts than believe in evolution. Evolution might be doing well in academia, but out among the laypeople, I'm not so sure.


    Here's a free clue squiddy - the validity of a scientific theory doesn't depend on how much lay people understand about it. Knowledgeable people in science and industry use it because it produces results, it works. That's the real bottom line.

    Figure out a way for ID to be more practical and/or more useful than ToE and industry would jump on it in a second. Money talks squiddy, BS walks.

    Now, ID, proponents are doing research.

    (chuckle) you mean like at the Origin-of-Life top rated research lab?

    I would imagine that they would even more, but they aren't given resources, and might even be afraid for their jobs. There is bias in the science community, y'know.

    Yeah yeah, we know - you'll be EXPELLED and all that crap. I bet if you paid Ben Stein enough money he'd even make a dishonest lie-filled propaganda movie about it.

    ReplyDelete
  112. But isn't Dawkins suppose to be doing something about the fact that so many laypeople don't believe in evolution? That's was his job title.

    ReplyDelete
  113. squid ink schuster said...

    But isn't Dawkins suppose to be doing something about the fact that so many laypeople don't believe in evolution? That's was his job title.


    He's got two best-selling books in the Barnes&Noble Science Top 10. Seems to me he's doing plenty.

    Stooping to 'debate' crank IDCers who haven't earned the right to debate won't help anyone but the cranks. The head of NASA doesn't debate Geocentrists either.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Thorton: "Since the Dice set consists solely of dimbulb Creationists who like to flaunt their ignorance with the stupid strawman "evolution says everything arose by chance alone!!", for once I agree with you."

    ... I was about to correct you. But on second though I figure your Darwin Entendre ought be memorialized.

    ReplyDelete
  115. IF more people believe in UFO's than evolution, then Dawkins is not doing enough. How many common people actually read science books? Defeating a ID'er/Creationist/Theist would generate lots of PR for his cause. Who cares if his opponents didn't earn the right. He has to get the word out any way he can. Since he claims that evolution deniers are evil people, he has a moral obligation to do whatever he can to get the word out.

    I and do believe that there are very few Geocentrists out there nowaday. Evolution deniers, pleny.

    ReplyDelete
  116. natschuster: "On the other hand, if Dawkins defeats Craig, he will make all those IDers/Creationsist look stupid."

    Don't need a debate for that. Just letting them talk long enough usually does the job.

    "That is his life's work."

    No, he is a biologist who is also a science popularizer. Saying that his life work is making creationists look stupid is like saying Stephen Hawking's life work is making flat-earthers look stupid.

    "If he loses, he can do what Krauss did, and say Craig cheated."

    Then what's the point? Dawkin's goal when debating is to persuade people of his position. Craig's goal is to reassure the faithful. Very little productive conversation can come out of such disparate aims.

    ReplyDelete
  117. natschuster: According to some polls, more people believe in ghosts than believe in evolution.

    You're amazingly good at answering your own questions. Should Dawkins have a formal debate with Sylvia Browne on the existence of spooks?

    ReplyDelete
  118. I understand that Dawkins title was "Popularizer of Science." His job was to spread the word to the masses. He also has a moral obligation to do so, since he thinks questioning evolution is evil.

    While there are lots of "faithful" I would imagine that there are also lots of people who aren't sure, lots of fence sitters. People do swtich sides. I would imagine that if Dawkins made Craig look silly, it would influence a lot of those people. And even if Craig looks good, Dawkins can score points by saying he cheated, or reminds him of Hitler. Euither way he wins. Doesn't he have a moral obligation to win as many people as he can to his side? Think of the children.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Me: "To answer simply, no I do not think that most of the 'miraculous' events took place as described."

    Fil: "Most? So you believe in a few of them. Could you provide an example of one you believe to be true/accurate?"

    It depends on where the event falls on the spectrum of 'miraculous'. There are many coincidences of circumstance that are attributed to divine action. Most of those seem plausible. The actual description of the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus (not the cinematic version) seems somewhat plausible: A strong wind blew over the course of an entire night and dried up a shallow waterway. However, the Exodus itself has scant historical support. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there almost* certainly was no worldwide flood, and he sun certainly didn't stop in the sky for Joshua.

    *I try to make a habit of never saying 'certainly' without a qualifier of some sort, lest the conversation devolve into arguments about solipsism. That there wasn't a global flood in the past 20,000 years is as certain as just about anything else in science.

    ReplyDelete
  120. natschuster: "Dawkins can score points by saying he cheated, or reminds him of Hitler. Euither way he wins. "

    You know as much about debating as you do about biology. You don't 'win' a debate by saying your opponent cheated or by comparing them to Hitler. (How does one 'cheat' in a debate, by the way?)

    ReplyDelete
  121. I guess I wasn't clear enough. Even if Dawkins loses a Debate, he could still win converts to hos side by saying that Craig only won by cheating. Or he can alienate people from his opponent by saying that he is like Hitler. He should do it for the children.

    And I'm not sure how one cheats in a debate, but Krauss said that about Graig. Something about how he didn't know the rules before the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Eocene -

    "Actually this is not true. Science has clearly moved forwards in many areas of understanding, but the main articles of FAITH which were originally penned by the great bearded Prophet in the wilderness of Galapagos still hold onto the hearts of it's modern day philosophical parishioners. No other scientist in all the history of science has ever had a need to be dogmatically and viciously defended by 'Bulldogs' & 'Pitbulls' such as Darwin."

    You speak scathingly of religion. But it does not matter. Because it is just a hollow accusation. Saying it does not make it so. Science is not religion. The fact that you are confusing the two counts for nothing in the real world.


    "EXACTLY , kind of like "Lucy" 'Evolution by Powersaw' Forcing the square peg of Darwinism into the round hole of the reality of nature."

    Again, no idea what you're talking about here. What is evolution by powersaw and how was Lucy an example of a square peg and round hole? Lucy is a brilliant example of ToE absolutely vindicated. She stands with two fingers fully upraised to those who insist humans do not share a common ancestor with apes.

    ReplyDelete
  123. nat -

    I believe Dawkin's chief reason for not debating Craig is that he does not want to give the Creationists the oxygen of publicity.

    We could argue that this is rather pointless anyway since the Creationists and ID-ers certainly have a wide influence base from which to pedal their nonsense. But what they seriously lack is scientific credibility - exactly the sort of thing they would get from a debate with REAL scientists.

    Part of the ID campaign is 'teach the controversy', insisting schoolchildren are taught 'both sides of the debate'. This of course is a total fallacy. The evolution/ID debate is not a scientific one. It is not a legitimate one. And debating would only add fuel to the fire that it is.

    Dawkins has clearly laid out his case - not only his views on God, but also the abundant evidence on ToE. To do more is to feed this ridiculous idea that ID holds a legitimate counter-argument to ToE. It does not. It should be paid no more attention than someone insisting the Roman Empire never existed because his holy book tells him the world was created last Thursday.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Ritchie said:"It should be paid no more attention than someone insisting the Roman Empire never existed because his holy book tells him the world was created last Thursday."

    This is an example of bad use of strict hypothetico-deduction method and confusing science with history.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Blas -

    "This is an example of bad use of strict hypothetico-deduction method and confusing science with history."

    The metaphor holds.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Blas: This is an example of bad use of strict hypothetico-deduction method and confusing science with history.

    History has scientific aspects, and should be consistent with scientific findings. In any case, did you define what you mean by "hypothetico-deduction"?

    ReplyDelete
  127. Ritchie:

    Dawkins could make all those points public in a debate. A debate would be the perfect forum to educate the masses about the fact that ID is not science.

    ReplyDelete
  128. squid ink schuster said...

    Ritchie:

    Dawkins could make all those points public in a debate.


    Indeed he could. Problem is, he gives up way more in allowing unwarranted credibility to an undeserving anti-science scoundrel pushing a political position, not a scientific one.

    The math should be simple enough for even you squiddy. Since the loss would be more than the gain, it's not worth it.

    ReplyDelete
  129. On the one hand, he could make the point clear in a public forum, that ID is not science. He will make an ID proponent look silly in public. On the other hand, people will say "If Dawkins is debating someone, it must be because that person really has something to say, even thoigh Dawkins says he doesn't and proved it by trouncing him." Nah. Doesn't balance.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Nat -

    Dawkins HAS expressed in public the reason he does not debate Creationists/ID-ers. Why should he do so IN A DEBATE with them?

    ReplyDelete
  131. Yes, let’s drop the game-playing, silly maneuvering and ridiculous truth claims, and instead deal honestly with the data.

    Cornelius, you were asked for "your method for detecting/testing/refuting miracles". YOUR METHOD.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Ritche,

    "Nope. The synoptic problem..."

    Sorry it took so long to reply, I've been very busy with work the last few days.

    I must say I find your 'nope', rather arrogant as you proceed to demonstrate you know less than nothing about the historicity or origin of the gospel records, nor the origin or nature of the criticisms you present to support your argument.

    All you've presented is the long refuted arguments of the higher critical school of thought as to the reliability of the gospels. These critics suffer from the same problem as evolutionists in that they a priori reject the possibility of supernatural events. As such they are forced to reach the conclusions they do regards the gospels.

    The fact you provide wikipedia as a source for your information makes me laugh, but also makes me realize what an amateur you really are in this area. Wikipedia, are you serious?

    As for the evidence you supply for the existence of Alexander and Caesar I would be interested to know the first hand evidence of their existence you claim to have. The vast majority of our knowledge of Caesar comes from Caesar's Gallic Wars, of which the oldest known copy is 1,000 years after the events it describes. Also the oldest known reference to Alexander is 350 years after his death.

    As for images on coins, that is hardly sound proof for existence of an individual as Australia recently minted coins with the images of Transformers. Are we to accept that as evidence of their existence?

    You claim cities were named after Caesar and Alexander and you're right. However, do you seriously believe there are NOT cities named after Christ or the apostles. If having a city named after you is proof of your existence then Christ and the apostles certainly existed. But in reality having a city named after you is pale in comparison to having all of recorded history divided around your birth.

    It's painfully obvious you're in way over your head in regards to this topic. Your arguments are amateurish and woefully ignorant. I do realize I will never change your mind on the subject as you truly believe you're right. Cest' la vie. As such I do not intend to pursue the topic any further as it would be a monumental waste of time. I can only suggest you search out some truly scholarly material on the subject and forget about wikipedia.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Gerry -

    Well you do an awful lot of chest-thumping and shouting down, but unless you have actual evidence it's only so much hot air. Don't just TELL me I'm wrong, SHOW me I'm wrong.

    "I must say I find your 'nope', rather arrogant as you proceed to demonstrate you know less than nothing about the historicity or origin of the gospel records, nor the origin or nature of the criticisms you present to support your argument."

    Less than nothing? Gee, that's hard to envisage. First clue that what's coming down the tubes is a lot of verbiage and rhetoric...

    "All you've presented is the long refuted arguments of the higher critical school of thought as to the reliability of the gospels."

    Refuted where? By whom?

    Did someone suddenly discover the gospels WEREN'T anonymous? Did they suddenly find a diary of Luke saying 'PS I wrote a gospel all about Jesus, and I didn't copy any of it from Mark's one, honest'? Did someone notice that all the gospel contradictions suddenly changed so they didn't contradict any more? Did someone suddenly realise the gospels WEREN'T written in the third person?

    "These critics suffer from the same problem as evolutionists in that they a priori reject the possibility of supernatural events. As such they are forced to reach the conclusions they do regards the gospels."

    You mean these critics won't just accept 'It was a miracle' as a sound and satisfying explanation and then move on? Those foolish, blind critics...

    Let's take a supernatural event - the ones surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus. According to the gospels, when Jesus was crucified, there was an earthquake, a three-hour world-wide darkness, and according to Matthew the saints rose from their graves and walked around Jerusalem, witness by many!

    Now we have plenty of reliable and dedicated naturalists writing at the time, and the fact that NONE of them recorded any of these events is a pretty big giveaway that they didn't happen. I mean the idea of zombie saints is one thing - the idea that they went totally unremarked upon by anyone at all is quite another.

    The historians are not dismissing these miracles out of hand for being miracles, they are dismissing them for being totally unsupported. IF there were lots of records from independant and neutral scources mentioning a mysterious earthquake, three-hour darkness and zombies walking around THEN the crucifixion story might have some weight. It would, at least, be AN explanation, albeit a supernatural one. But the fact that these supposed miracles went totally unrecorded and is totally unsupported, frankly tramples all over any shred of credibility the New Testament gospels might have had.

    "The fact you provide wikipedia as a source for your information makes me laugh, but also makes me realize what an amateur you really are in this area. Wikipedia, are you serious?"

    I realise wikipedia is not to be trusted as a primary source. But really, what is with this wikipedia snobbery? It is at the very least a useful tool for getting to grips with new ideas. It provides links to sources if you want to follow up on the details.

    Did you actually have any evidence, or an argument of any kind, to address the synoptic problem? Or were you going to leave it at 'Ha ha, you quoted wikipedia - it MUST be false if it's in wikipedia!'?

    ReplyDelete
  134. (cont)

    "The vast majority of our knowledge of Caesar comes from Caesar's Gallic Wars, of which the oldest known copy is 1,000 years after the events it describes."

    Contemporary witness to Caesar:

    Cicero
    Sallust
    Nepos
    Catullus
    Asinius Pollio
    Virgil
    Ovid

    "As for the evidence you supply for the existence of Alexander and Caesar I would be interested to know the first hand evidence of their existence you claim to have.
    ...
    As for images on coins, that is hardly sound proof
    ...
    If having a city named after you is proof of your existence..."

    You clearly don't understand this whole evidence thing, do you? No, no single piece of evidence alone constitutes proof. You cannot point to any one single piece of evidence for Caesar and say 'This PROVES he existed'. Any piece of evidence, taken in isolation, could be a fake, or crafted by a person who wanted to perpetrate a myth of Caesar, or some such.

    The point is that the evidence CONVERGES. There is an abundance of evidence which all points to the same conclusion - the existence of a real man called Julius Caesar. This is EXACTLY what we do NOT have for Jesus.

    All we have for Jesus are the gospels which are totally unsupported by any historical evidence at all, despite the fact that they describe miraculous deeds and wide-reaching events - things a LOT of people really should have noticed (the idea that they went by totally unrecorded is ridiculous). Then we have an initially slow, but quickly building, stream of people who place religious faith in these gospels and reflect on them. While they may be interesting as and of themselves, they do not present unbiased, first-hand evidence for Jesus. And that's it. That's exactly the template we would expect for a myth which came to be believed, not a genuine historical figure.

    The alternative conclusion - that the gospels are religious myth, grossly exaggerated if not total fiction - is infinitely more plausible to anyone with an ounce of rationality.

    "It's painfully obvious you're in way over your head in regards to this topic. Your arguments are amateurish and woefully ignorant."

    More chest-thumping. The thing about being right is that you can't just make it so by declaring it.

    "I do not intend to pursue the topic any further as it would be a monumental waste of time."

    Translation - you fear an in-depth discussion will reveal just how flimsy and insubstancial the evidence for Jesus is. I think deep down you KNOW Jesus simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny, even if you won't admit it. So you run from it. What a very Christian thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Ritchie. Bottom line for you is miracles are impossible. Period. If there was contemporaneous evidence of the miracles of Jesus you would still dismiss it. Those points you mentioned months ago show that you will never be convinced. Even a miraculous event that was indisputable and was witnessed by millions could always potentially have another explanation for those who chose to not believe.

    I do agree that the existence of God can never be proved scientifically. If by scientifically you mean by some form of measurement. If God exists he is beyond science since he is the creator of it. Just like he would be beyond the universe as the creator of it.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Gerry: "I must say I find your 'nope', rather arrogant as you proceed to demonstrate you know less than nothing about the historicity or origin of the gospel records... blah blah blah blah blah... I can only suggest you search out some truly scholarly material on the subject and forget about wikipedia."

    As Ritchie already pointed out, your post was long on words, short on rebuttals.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Fil: "Ritchie. Bottom line for you is miracles are impossible. Period. If there was contemporaneous evidence of the miracles of Jesus you would still dismiss it. Those points you mentioned months ago show that you will never be convinced."

    I know that statement was directed at Ritchie, but I've had people tell me before that "I would not believe no matter what." I find that statement not only presumptuous and ignorant, but also insulting. When people say that to me, I point out that I once was convinced of the truth of the miracle claims, so it's nonsense to say that I can't be convinced. I obviously could, since I once waswas.

    Imagine if I told you that I owned a dozen Ferraris, and you were skeptical of my claim, citing lack of evidence. Say you asked to come over to my house and see them, or to see copies of the titles. Imagine then if my response were along the lines of: "You seem to be rejecting my claim out of hand. If you don't believe me when I tell you I have a dozen ferraris, you're certainly not going to believe just because I show you evidence."

    Your statement is no more nonsensical than the above illustration.


    The irony of your statement is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Correct me If I'm wrong, but from following your comments It seems as though you reject the miracle claims of the Koran and the Book of Mormon, even though both of those books (particularly in the case of the latter, written well after the invention of the printing press) Are vastly more reliable in terms of matching the manuscripts.

    Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  138. Fil: "Even a miraculous event that was indisputable and was witnessed by millions could always potentially have another explanation.

    Like the Fatima Miracle of 1917 that was supposedly witnessed by 30,000 to 100,000 people? Does that mean that the sun did, in fact, careen towards the Earth in a zigzag pattern? (without being noticed by anyone else on the planet, let alone destroying the solar system?)

    Or is there probably a more plausible explanation? (or 100?)

    And please define 'indisputable' in the context of eyewitness accounts of miracles. Eyewitness accounts are rarely indisputable even concerning mundane events.

    "...for those who chose to not believe."

    We do not choose not to believe in miracle accounts. (or elves, or santa, or the flying spaghetti monster) We are either convinced, or we aren't. There is nothing that I could do to make myself believe in Santa, short of intentionally impairing my mental faculties in some way. I could be convinced of Santa's existence, if I were presented with sufficient evidence. Belief is not a switch you turn on or off. You can certainly act as if you believe something. I could resume going to church, or pray the sinner's prayer, but I could not, by a sheer act of will, decide to be convinced of something I'm currently unconvinced of. (perhaps some people have that ability; it is most often referred to as 'self delusion'. It is not a good thing.)

    You (I presume) don't choose to disbelieve that eating peanut butter at 1 am on the first tuesday of the month makes you invisible, you just simply don't.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Derick: I know that statement was directed at Ritchie, but I've had people tell me before that "I would not believe no matter what."

    You are right, I could be wrong. He might believe. Unless it happens we will never know for sure will we.

    Derick: "You seem to be rejecting my claim out of hand. If you don't believe me when I tell you I have a dozen ferraris, you're certainly not going to believe just because I show you evidence."

    They could be stolen. Documents could be forged.
    A miracle seen by millions could be claimed as the work of an alien species that is so far advanced compared to us as to make us seem like ants. Point is, there is always the potential for other excuses to be made, and some will make them.

    When it come to the bible, you either believe it solely, or dismiss it. It itself makes that quite clear, although, as with anything else, some will disagree. Bible manuscript accuracy is actually excellent when you consider the length of time since it was written. Not perfect, but very good.

    Also, I feel confident Ritchie won't take offense. I have had discussions with him in the past and, although we disagree....on probably almost everything lol... he has always been polite and slow to take offense. My comments were not solely based on what I read on this page.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Also, for the record, may I say this blog is a pain in the arse to use.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Derick: And please define 'indisputable' in the context of eyewitness accounts of miracles. Eyewitness accounts are rarely indisputable even concerning mundane events.

    Which is why I say that God, and therefore miracles, can never be proven scientifically. You can believe in them being miracles but you can't measure them in some way so as to offer it up as concrete proof to others who didn't witness it. That doesn't mean they never happened or happen.

    Derick: You (I presume) don't choose to disbelieve that eating peanut butter at 1 am on the first tuesday of the month makes you invisible, you just simply don't.

    Correct. We need to have a reason to believe. Not in that example specifically though.

    Ritchie, when you get a chance, can you post your 3 reasons that would convince you of God, miracles, whatever....I forget exactly what they were. Then Derick can see where I was going.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Fil: "A miracle seen by millions could be claimed as the work of an alien species that is so far advanced compared to us as to make us seem like ants. Point is, there is always the potential for other excuses to be made, and some will make them."

    So, putting forth a more plausible explanation is now an excuse?

    There are hundreds of people in the US that you could go and visit that will give you first-hand eyewitness accounts of alien abductions. No doubt they would say the same thing if you questioned their testimonies: You don't want to believe in alien abductions, and you're making excuses so you don't have to.

    Why do you reject the miracle claims of other faiths?

    ReplyDelete
  143. Explanation...excuse... Its all semantics depending on your personal point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Fil -

    "Ritchie. Bottom line for you is miracles are impossible. Period. If there was contemporaneous evidence of the miracles of Jesus you would still dismiss it."

    Would I? I know can be a little stubborn like that, and 'we don't know - it's a mystery' does, on the face of it, seem a more rational default response than 'miracle'.

    Nevertheless, I do believe I could be convinced of the existence of supernatural forces if their existence could be reliably shown. If, say, my Christian friends could perform miracles on command before my very eyes just by praying. If angels and souls of the departed were regularly seen playing above the clouds by pilots. If, every time I prayed and asked a question, I heard a tangible voice directly answering me. If there was a huge gate somewhere in the middle east which was forever barred to humans yet through which could be glimpsed a wondrous paradise. Given all this, the claims of Christianity would be infinitely more reasonable.

    But that it not the world we live in. None of these things are the case.

    Even given the world we live in, if we DID have extra-Biblical, reliable, first-hand evidence of a historical Jesus, would I be sceptical of it still? Perhaps. But that doesn't alter the fact that there is no such evidence. And it is exactly the curious and conspicuous absence of such evidence which condemns the gospel narrative to be likely false.

    "Also, for the record, may I say this blog is a pain in the arse to use."

    Yes. Yes, you may. :)

    "Ritchie, when you get a chance, can you post your 3 reasons that would convince you of God, miracles, whatever....I forget exactly what they were. Then Derick can see where I was going."

    My list is drawn pretty much from the one listed here: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html

    EXCELLENT EVIDENCE:

    - Specific, surprising, non-self-fulfilling, independantly verifiable prophecies which came true.
    - Scripture featuring specific scientific knowledge which was not available in the time and culture the holy book arose from.
    - Solid evidence for a manifestation of the divine, or miracles - even minor ones such as prayed-for patients in hospitals reliably and consistently enjoying a better-than-average recovery rate.

    GOOD BUT NOT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE

    - A truly flawless and consistent holy book
    - A religion without internal dispute or factions
    - A religion with a consistent record of winning holy wars

    BAD EVIDENCE

    - Speaking in tongues, or 'miracles' that can be achieved by magicians, con artists or chance events (even unlikely ones)
    - The popularity of a religion or its followers' conversion stories
    - The genuine belief of others

    ReplyDelete
  145. Derek does put forward a good question in asking why you hold the miracle claims of your own religion up to a different standard of scrutiny than that you apply to the miracle claims of other faiths though...

    ReplyDelete