Saturday, October 22, 2011

NT Wright Versus Karl Giberson

NT Wright has cogently argued that evolutionary thinking did not begin in 1859 and Darwin was not an intellectual revolutionary who single-handedly illuminated a new truth. In fact, the evolutionary foundation and framework were already in place “long before Darwin got in a boat and went anywhere.”

Wright is keenly aware that the origins debate and the greater science-religion landscape holds much more than the caricatured positions often presented. In the video below, Wright gives this solemn warning at the 3:04 mark:

Let’s put this thing on a broader canvas and let’s lighten up and have the proper discussion, instead of assuming that we already know, as soon as anyone mentions any scientific evidence for anything, “oh, they’re a Darwinian, they’re a liberal, they’re this that and the other.” Or, when somebody says they believe in God, “Oh, well you must be anti science then.” These are both trivial—actually childish reactions and we need to grow up.



Compare Wright’s wise cautionary words with Karl Giberson’s stereotypical attack on “Evangelicals” from the New York Times op-ed this week.

The rejection of science seems to be part of a politically monolithic red-state fundamentalism, textbook evidence of an unyielding ignorance on the part of the religious.

For Giberson, those who question the metaphysically-laden theory of evolution are guilty of a “rejection of science.” But Giberson sees hope, which in his world means some of those anti-intellectual fundamentalists are coming around to his position:

There are signs of change. Within the evangelical world, tensions have emerged between those who deny secular knowledge, and those who have kept up with it and integrated it with their faith. Almost all evangelical colleges employ faculty members with degrees from major research universities — a conduit for knowledge from the larger world. …

Scholars like Dr. Collins and Mr. Noll, and publications like Books & Culture, Sojourners and The Christian Century, offer an alternative to the self-anointed leaders. They recognize that the Bible does not condemn evolution and says next to nothing about gay marriage. They understand that Christian theology can incorporate Darwin’s insights and flourish in a pluralistic society.

Secular knowledge? For Giberson there is this thing called secular knowledge. It is a neutral, objective source of truth, free of metaphysical influence. It gives us things like “Darwin’s insights.” Then there is religious belief which must accommodate that “secular knowledge.” And of course to question evolution is to “deny secular knowledge.”

Giberson’s caricatures stand in stark contrast to Wright’s plea for more understanding. Ironically the Wright video above was produced by Giberson’s Biologos organization. Perhaps Giberson should watch it.

72 comments:

  1. And of course your attacks on science/scientists/science supporters/Darwinists/Darwin/evolutionists/evolutionary theory/materialists/naturalists/reality/etc., and the same kind of attacks by other IDiots, aren't "stereotypical", are they CH?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Religious knowledge? For IDiots there is this thing called religious knowledge. It is a supernatural, objective source of truth, free of physical influence. It gives us things like “God's insights.” Then there is reality acceptance which must accommodate that “supernatural knowledge.” And of course to question religious beliefs is to “deny God given knowledge.”

    Fixed that for you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Evangelical Christians and creationists generally are of the middle classes.
    We are not opposed to science and do not see ourselves opposed to science.
    We oppose some conclusions in origin subjects.

    Yes we, some of us, start from presumptions from christianity but we do nor argue with bible verses. We argue against evidences brought up by evolutionism etc.

    YEC creationism says origin issues are not scientific. ID says evolutionism is poor science. I say there is nbo such thing as science.
    YEt the world does.

    Therefore the best that can be said is that SCIENCE is a high standard of investigation that can DEMAND confidence in its conclusions.
    Ordinary investigation(though pretty good) can't demand.

    So is origin subjects doing the scientific method in drawing conclusions?
    Is creationism fighting, as they say, dumbly against high standards of investigation.?

    If evolution is based on science then it should be easy to show so.
    If it isn't it should be easy to show so.

    Its surely up to evolution to show its doing the scientific method before we get down to the evidences.

    Of coarse since I believe evolution is false I believe they don't do science in drawing their conclusions and can't show they do.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Seeing the folks over at UD trying to rationalize and justify genocide kind of puts "religious knowledge" into perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In other words, if you were doing real science you would be able to convince me so. Since I am unconvinced you must not be doing real science. Since you're not doing real science I am justified in remaining unconvinced.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cornelius,

    As I've continually pointed out, it's impossible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework. Yes, this includes what Giberson refers to as secular knowledge. However, this isn't a problem for secular knowledge, as you're attempting to imply. Rather, it's what makes secular knowledge possible in the first place.

    To illustrate this I'd again ask, what is your explanation for our relatively recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge, which has continued to grow relentlessly in an exponential fashion?

    Is it because we've extrapolated observations in a framework that assumes divine relation is a means of justifying conclusions? Is it because we've solved the problem of induction by placing special communication from supernatural beings at the top of the traditional hierarchy of philosophy, induction and deduction?

    But human beings have been doing this for tens of thousands of years. How could this have made the difference?

    Or perhaps God just decided one day that human beings should start making progress as some kind of test? However, this would be just another variation of "That's just what God must have wanted. "

    If not, then how do you explain it? What made the difference?

    We no longer have Christian physics or Muslim algebra. This knowledge exists independent of any particular faith or theology. Yet, you seem to suggest explanations for concrete differences between species in the biosphere should be an exception. But why? Because it's a mere possibility we cannot rule out?

    Why this possibility over some other possibility? Why just in the case of the biosphere?

    We explain our recent and rapid increase in knowledge creation via the scientific method. And the scientific method does not assume that divine revelation is a means of justifying conclusions. Specifically, we create theories using conjecture, test these theories via observations and discard those with errors. In addition, we discard a near infinite number of theories, a priori, without even testing them. This includes un-conceived explanations and mere possibilities.

    Exactly how does divine revelation fit into this process?

    For example, despite the fact that it would remain in the sphere of natural causes, we do not appeal to alien designers as an explanation for the biological complex we observe. Rather, we discard them as we do not even know if aliens existed billions of years ago, if they had the necessary technology or exactly why and how they intervened.

    This is just one of a near infinite number of possibilities that we discard every day. As such, it's unclear why you'd expect us to not discard God for the very same reasons. We do not discard God because he's supernatural. Rather, we discard God for the same reasons we exclude aliens. Nor are either necessarily logically impossible. We simply lack a good explanation as to why in both cases.

    Your objections, despite this fact, suggest that divine revelation plays a specific role in your explanatory framework, which is absent from secular knowledge. Otherwise, it's unclear why God should be an exception.

    So, while it's true that science excludes supernatural causes, it does so because they represent just another mere possibility in the absence of accepting divine revelation or wishful thinking. We have no better explanation as to how God "did it" than how eating a square meter of grass every day for a week could cure the common cold. As such, we reject both of them as mere possibilities.

    In other words, do we explain our recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge by accepting divine revelation as a means of justifying conclusions. Rather, we explain our rapid and recent increase in the creation of knowledge by extrapolation observations using a secular framework. This is secular knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Scott:

    Rather, we discard God for the same reasons we exclude aliens. Nor are either necessarily logically impossible. We simply lack a good explanation as to why in both cases.

    If evolutionists lack this information, then how could they make their religious claims?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cornelius Hunter said...

    Scott: Rather, we discard God for the same reasons we exclude aliens. Nor are either necessarily logically impossible. We simply lack a good explanation as to why in both cases.

    If evolutionists lack this information, then how could they make their religious claims?


    Easy. They don't.

    ReplyDelete
  9. CH: If evolutionists lack this information, then how could they make their religious claims?

    Why are you attempting to misrepresent what I wrote?

    While all explanations are information, not all information represents an explanation. I'm specifically referring to explanations as to why God would take specific actions that would result in the biosphere we observe, despite the fact that he'd have a near infinite number of alternative options since he's supposedly all powerful and all knowing.

    This is in contrast to having information about what other people consider true divine revelation.

    Second, I've directly asked you on multiple occasions how you differentiate between criticizing what other people claim represents divine revelation and actually believing that divine revelation is a valid means to justify theories. You have yet to respond.

    Yet, here you are making the same ambiguous claim as if this never occurred. Why is this?

    Again, I'm suggesting that secular knowledge is that which does not assume that any particular divine revelation is true. However, this doesn't necessarily exclude anyone from pointing out what others claim represents divine revelation appears to be contradictory and even arbitrary, in addition to the lack of an explanation.

    For example, if one suggests that people would recognize Clark Kent as Superman since he's merely wearing glasses, does this necessitate a belief that Superman actually exists? Of course not. One doesn't have to believe in Superman to point out no expiation is given as to why others do not see though this disguise.

    We overlook it because it makes for a good narrative, but it's absurd none the less because no explanation is provided. Nor does secular knowledge assume that a good narrative is any more of a criteria than divine revelation.

    In other words, you seem to be trying to conflate criticism of how people identify God's supposed actions, or lack there of, as appearing incoherent with actually believing that God exists or that he takes actions in the world.

    For example, Robert Wright has pointed out that our earliest known conception of gods did NOT even remotely include a moral comment. Rather they were explanations as to why good thinks happen to some people but not others. This component only gradually appeared as our concept of God evolved, along with aspects, such as monotheism.

    I do not believe that God exists, let alone that he has a moral component. However, this doesn't prevent me from pointing out that Biblical deceptions of God in the Bible (which some people claim to represent divine relation) appears morally contradictory. Nor would having done so somehow *necessarily* prevent me from contributing to secular knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "...but we do nor argue with bible verses."

    Um, you might want to tell that to bornagain77, kairosfocus, and all the other IDiots who regularly argue with bible verses.

    "I say there is nbo such thing as science."

    LOL

    "Is creationism fighting, as they say, dumbly against high standards of investigation.?"

    Yes.

    "If evolution is based on science then it should be easy to show so.
    If it isn't it should be easy to show so."

    Actually, "evolution" isn't based on science, but evolutionary theory is. It's obvious to anyone with a clue that evolutionary theory is based on science but many religious people would rather believe in ridiculous fairy tales.

    If the so-called ID 'hypothesis/theory' is based on science it should be easy for IDiots to show so, but they can't. It IS easy to show that ID is actually just a religious and political agenda.

    "Its surely up to evolution to show its doing the scientific method before we get down to the evidences."

    I'd like to see how "evolution" could possibly do such a thing. Evolutionary theory does abide by the "scientific method". Science, scientists, and the ToE aren't perfect but at least people who want to know the facts are actually looking for and studying real evidence. IDiots, on the other hand, are arrogantly denying the evidence, spewing religious dogma, and attacking science and evolutionary theory because they see them as a threat to exposing even further how non-evidential and asinine their religious beliefs are.

    It's surely up to IDiots to show that they are "doing the scientific method" and to produce some actual evidence before any scientist or science supporter takes them seriously. Asserting that god-did-it and complaining about science isn't the scientific method.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The whole truth.

    Creationism doesn't argue on bible verses save in presumptions.
    It argues using the natural worlds processes and data.

    I say there is no such thing as science because I see no actual segregation of investigation processes. "science' is just people thinking about things.
    The being very careful about drawing conclusions is not different enough from other investigative processes to justify the existence of the species called science.

    If evolutionary biology does 'science" then why is its evidence based on fossils based on presumptions of geology?
    They invoke fossils as the greater weight of evidence and yet fossil data is not applicable to biological study. They are just casts of former biological entities and often just the special of the leasy biological elements in bodies. Bones and teeth.

    One can not falsify biology by biological crirticisms if its actually geology that is the substance of the evidence

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1.1.1
    Eocene
    October 23, 2011 at 11:50 pm

    paragwinn

    “Americans and Indians are not the same species?”
    ====

    That’s very white of you!

    And this is why the world will never unite under the present pseudo-intellects guidance. When evolutionists call other human beings different species as if some are considered lower forms of life(sub-human), then expect the continued failed pursuit of world peace and security. Generally when you hear this kind labling of humans as being different species, it usually originates with folks who are caucasian. Nothing seems to have changed since centuries past. So-called modern enlightenment is apparently still just an illusion.

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

    Hey eocene, it was robert byers, one of your fellow IDiots, who asserted that "indians" and "Americans" are not the same species. You're obviously WAY too stupid to have noticed that paraqwinn was QUESTIONING that assertion. There's a QUESTION MARK at the end of paragwinn's QUESTION, you illiterate piece of god zombie trash! In your zeal to attack anyone who doesn't worship you and your imaginary god, you have accused the WRONG person! That's par for the course with you IDiots.

    ReplyDelete
  13. byers, you're a two-faced, ignorant, dishonest, racist moron. A great example of an IDiot.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This is what byers said, NOT paragwinn:

    "These indians were not Americans They merely walked on land now possessed by Americans. They are not the same people.
    Get the species right."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Scott said...
    “To illustrate this I'd again ask, what is your explanation for our relatively recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge, which has continued to grow relentlessly in an exponential fashion?

    Is it because we've extrapolated observations in a framework that assumes divine relation is a means of justifying conclusions? Is it because we've solved the problem of induction by placing special communication from supernatural beings at the top of the traditional hierarchy of philosophy, induction and deduction? 

    But human beings have been doing this for tens of thousands of years. How could this have made the difference?

    Or perhaps God just decided one day that human beings should start making progress as some kind of test? However, this would be just another variation of "That's just what God must have wanted. "

    If not, then how do you explain it? What made the difference?”


    17 hundreds years ago became predominant in the wenstern civilization a religion that believes in only one God , creator of all the universe that care of human beens. This God rules the universe trough eternal laws. This laws can be understand be human beens a reveals the loves of God. Since then religious people have been studyng the Universe and searching for the laws of God. That explain the “ relatively recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge, which has continued to grow relentlessly in an exponential fashion”.


    "We explain our recent and rapid increase in knowledge creation via the scientific method."

    Scintific method assumes exits physical laws that are constant before and after the observation and that it is not demostrable scientifically.

    "Exactly how does divine revelation fit into this process?"

    Divine Revelation gives the framework that allows the existance of physical laws, the possibility and utilitie to know that laws, and the limit that the knoledge of that laws has. That knoledge will be provisional and limited to the assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Blas: 17 hundreds years ago became predominant in the wenstern civilization a religion that believes in only one God , creator of all the universe that care of human beens.

    When I say relatively recent, I'm referring to roughly 300 years ago, not seventeen hundred years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Scott said...

    When I say relatively recent, I'm referring to roughly 300 years ago, not seventeen hundred years ago.

    Well then you should study history of science.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Blas: "Scintific method assumes exits physical laws that are constant before and after the observation and that it is not demostrable scientifically.

    Divine Revelation gives the framework that allows the existance of physical laws, the possibility and utilitie to know that laws, and the limit that the knoledge of that laws has. That knoledge will be provisional and limited to the assumptions."

    Blas, it sounds as if you agree with one of the options I provided. Namely…

    because we've solved the problem of induction by placing special communication from supernatural beings at the top of the traditional hierarchy of philosophy, induction and deduction

    However, I'd point out that you claim we had been operating under this assumption for over fourteen hundred years before the enlightenment occurred. So, again, it's unclear how this brought about our relatedly recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge.

    For example, Galileo was tried for heresy by the inquisition in 1633 for suggesting the sun is the center of the solar system. Where was this supposed assumption that these laws could be understood by human beings?

    Furthermore, we no longer assume that divine revelation is a means of justifying conclusions. That would be religion, not science. Apparently, you want a return to what is essentially natural theology or theological naturalism.
    Blas, it sounds as if you agree with one of the options I provided. Namely…

    because we've solved the problem of induction by placing special communication from supernatural beings at the top of the traditional hierarchy of philosophy, induction and deduction

    However, I'd point out that you claim we had been operating under this assumption for over fourteen hundred years before the enlightenment occurred. So, again, it's unclear how this brought about our relatedly recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge.

    For example, Galileo was tried for heresy by the inquisition in 1633 for suggesting that the sun is the center of the solar system. Where was this supposed assumption that these laws could be understood by human beings?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Scott: When I say relatively recent, I'm referring to roughly 300 years ago, not seventeen hundred years ago.

    Blas: Well then you should study history of science.

    Blas,

    I'm quite aware of the history of science. In fact, that's why I'm asking you to explain what changed that caused the dramatic increase in our creation of knowledge roughly 300 years ago.

    While people might have wanted to create progress seventeen hundred years ago, something happened fourteen hundred years later, which allowed that progress to me made. This is what I'm asking you to explain.

    Did God just decide that he was going to allow us to make progress fourteen hundred years later later? Why not 500 years later, or eighteen hundred years later? Why did God wait tens of thousands of years before revealing there was only one God to hominids like ourselves?

    That's just what God must have wanted?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Looks like I didn't "select all" before pasting the contents of my earlier comment. Please ignore the duplicate content.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "limited to the assumptions"

    Yep, you religious types are limited to your assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Scott said...
    Scott: When I say relatively recent, I'm referring to roughly 300 years ago, not seventeen hundred years ago.


    I'm quite aware of the history of science. In fact, that's why I'm asking you to explain what changed that caused the dramatic increase in our creation of knowledge roughly 300 years ago.

    While people might have wanted to create progress seventeen hundred years ago, something happened fourteen hundred years later, which allowed that progress to me made. This is what I'm asking you to explain."

    Scott you are confusing science with tecnology, three hundredd years ago what started was the industrial revolution, that was a consecuence of economic freedom what produced an exponential increase of goods and welfare, what allowed to put more resources in every aspect of the life including science.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Blas,

    Technology represents the creation of knowledge. Science is the means by which that knowledge was created.

    Again, I'm asking how you explain this relatively recent increase in the creation of knowledge.

    You seem to claim we "solved" the problem of induction seventeen hundred years ago by justifying conclusions by putting what you consider true divine revelation above deduction, induction and philosophy.

    But it's unclear how you can determine what is True divine revelation, or if there is such a thing at all, without also falling prey to the problem of induction.

    Again, I'm suggesting our explanation for our recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge is twofold. I've also given a number of real world examples.

    - We create theories via conjecture, test those theories via observations and discard those with errors.

    - We look for long chains of good explanations, which are deep and hard to vary, rather than bad explanations, which are shallow and easy to vary.

    For example, it's unlikely that anyone has performed research to determine if eating a square meter of grass each day for a week would cure the common cold. Why is this? Is it because it's logically impossible? No. Is it because it's unfalsifiable? No, this would be trivial to test. Is it because it's a non-natural? No.

    Why then is it unlikely to be the subject of research? Because we lack an expiation as to how and why eating a square meter of grass each day for a week would cure the common cold. As such, we discard it, a priori, before we even test it.

    I'm suggesting this is a key part of our explanation for the recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "I'm suggesting this is a key part of our explanation for the recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge."

    And according to you mankind reach this knowledge 300 years ago?

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  25. Blas: And according to you mankind reach this knowledge 300 years ago?

    You're confusing an explanation for why something occurred in the past with understanding why it occurred while it was occurring. Nor am I suggesting that this happened over night exactly 300 years ago.

    For example, while the variants of falsification and fallibilism had been around for decades, it was Karl Popper who is attributed to formalizing how we use it in practice and making it part of mainstream science. David Deutsch then expanded on Popper's ideas by formalizing how we differentiate between good and bad explanations.

    In other words, both Popper and Deutsch provided explanations for something that started roughly 300 years ago. Formal identification and adaptations of these changes occurred over time.

    Furthermore, explanations themselves are part of the creation of knowledge. Among others, Popper and Deutsch created explanations as to how knowledge is created. It's an explanation as to how and why we create explanations, what role they play in science, etc.

    An introduction of Deutsch's explanation can be found in his 2009 TED talk : A new way to explain explanations.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The whole truth said, "Yep, you religious types are limited to your assumptions. "

    --

    The evolutionists here are limited to rationalism. You've assumed evolution to be a fact. That is the starting point. Throw in a couple trivial examples of nondirectional change like bird beaks and peppered moths and you have all the evidence you need to justify your agenda and foregone conclusion.

    That's why finding a herd of elephants or flamingoes in the cambrian fossil layer would not be allowed to challenge the "fact of evolution".

    Evolutionists have all the evidence they need to justify what they want to and contradictory evidence does nothing to challenge their rationalist dogma.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Tedford the idiot said...

    The evolutionists here are limited to rationalism. You've assumed evolution to be a fact. That is the starting point.


    Of course that's not what science did in the case of evolution. I wonder if you've told that porker so many times you're starting to believe your own lie.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Neal Tedford: "The evolutionists here are limited to rationalism."

    Unlike Neal, who is 'free' to be as irrational as he likes; who is not 'bound' by constraints like facts, data, evidence, etc.

    What a charge.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Oh, and Neal, to refresh your memory on a question I previously asked you that I never received an reply to - You mentioned that you've seen and/or heard about miraculous healings that are accompanied by evidence. My question is: What kind of evidence?

    Now, I'm not asking for personal details about the healings, and I'm not even going to ask you to present the evidence if you don't want to, I'm just asking what you consider to be evidence.

    The reason I ask is that after relaying a story of a seemingly miraculous resurrection, you were asked for evidence of this extraordinary claim, and you provided a youtube link to someone telling the story. I'm just trying to figure out if you think that someone saying a miracle happened is evidence that a miracle happened.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Scott, you said at one point that life was made to look *as if* it evolved.

    I replied that the *as if* view only comes from the perspective of being in the mind sucking Darwinian Vortex.

    Also, consider that Richard Dawkins said in the Blind watchmaker " biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose".

    Francis Crick said, "biologists must CONSTANTLY keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved".

    Kind of like those who pick up the habit of smoking. It tastes nasty at first, the coughing, etc... but the smell and smoke become pleasurable after awhile and hard to quit...

    Keep telling yourself that what looks designed isn't, using rationalism, and the dellusion becomes its own compelling reality (the mind sucking Darwinian Vortex).

    ReplyDelete
  31. Derick, Jeff Arnold is not a stranger so I find what he said credible. If I didn't know him, I wouldn't have put it there for you.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Derrick, how's your research on the sea squirt going? Prior confident morphology classification contradicts genetic data. There is not single objective classification of the sea squirt.


    By the way. Did you hear about the possible phasing out of the Ipod shuffle? Blog editor Victor Agreda, Jr. notes "The shuffle is basically the same form factor as the nano, minus a screen."

    http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-28/tech/tech_mobile_ipod-discontinued-rumor_1_ipod-apple-plans-iphone?_s=PM:TECH


    Classification into a nested hierarchy depends on selection criteria. The objective perspective of evolutionists is just a view from the mind sucking Darwinian vortex.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Neal: The evolutionists here are limited to rationalism.

    Which, again, suggests a fundamental misunderstanding about science. Theories are tested by empirical observations, not derived from them. You've got it backwards. Apparently, you refuse to recognize that science is no longer based on natural theology.

    Furthermore, I'd again ask, what is your explanation for our recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge, mere empiricism? How exactly does that work given the problem of induction? Please be specific.

    Again, we discard a near infinite number of mere possibilities *in practice*. It happens each and every day, *in practice*.

    To return to my example, do we only discard eating a square foot of grass for a week as a cure for the common cold because someone actually ate a square foot of grass for a week we never observed it didn't cure someones cold? That would be induction. Rather, we discard this possibility, a priori, because we lack an explanation as to how eating a square foot of grass for a week would cure for the common cold. It never makes it to the testing phase.

    Is this not rationalism? Do you deny this occurs on a regular basis in each and every field of science?

    Again, why is the mere possibility of "that's just what God must have wanted" any different?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Neal: You've assumed evolution to be a fact. That is the starting point. Throw in a couple trivial examples of nondirectional change like bird beaks and peppered moths and you have all the evidence you need to justify your agenda and foregone conclusion.

    Neal: mind sucking vortex...

    Perhaps you can explain to us how it's possible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework? Please be specific.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Neal Tedford: "Derick, Jeff Arnold is not a stranger so I find what he said credible. If I didn't know him, I wouldn't have put it there for you."

    Wow. So you base someone's credibility on whether you know them or not? Now, is that a binary proposition, where if people you know tell you they saw a miracle, you believe them, and people you don't know tell you they saw a miracle, you're a bit more skeptical? Or does a person become more credible the more familiar you are with them? Perhaps then Kevin Bacon is 1/7th as reliable a witness as your neighbor?

    I can't tell if you answered my question. Is your answer "Yes, an account of a miracle is evidence for a miracle?" My question was specifically to other instances of miraculous healings you were familiar with besides Jeff's that you said there actually was real evidence for.

    Neal Tedford "blah blah blah blah sea squirt blah blah ipod bla blah nested hierarcy."

    You crack me up. I never made any claims about a sea squirt. In fact, I never got around to making any claims about classifying life in that conversation, because you couldn't demonstrate that you had even the most rudimentary understanding of what a best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits even was. You made the claim that you could easily arrange the iPod lineup in a best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits, a claim that I completely eviscerated in fine detail. I'm kind of surprised you'd even bring it up again. If you wish, I'd be more than happy to repost some of the highlights...

    ReplyDelete
  36. Neal: "Classification into a nested hierarchy depends on selection criteria."

    Not to beat a decomposed horse, but the selection criteria was: best fit based on a panoply of traits. You couldn't even decide what traits were important or not. (you tried to but changed your mind every time I questioned you on it) and you* produced completely different hierarchies depending on which trait you picked.

    *I say 'you' loosely, because you actually refused to do any work. I made hierarchies for you based on your criteria, going so far as to illustrate them.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Derick, the genome of the sea squirt contradicts its prior classification based on panoply of traits (morphology). The reason the "panoply of traits" makes it appear objective to you is that you didn't bother to dig into the details of those traits... something that you painfully did with the Ipods. Rationalism in action. Cherry pick what you want to support your preconceived conclusion. But, dig into the details of the genome of the sea squirt, take those and all the panoply of traits based on morphology and see what best fit you get. Your "best fit" breaks down. It's all about specific selection criteria like many other designed systems. "Best fit" only works from the perspective of the half blinded mind sucking Darwinian Vortex.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Correction…

    To return to my example, do we discard eating a square foot of grass every day for a week as a cure for the common cold because we've never observed someone's cold being cured after eating a square foot of grass per day for a week? That would be induction. Rather, we discard this possibility, a priori, because we lack an explanation as to how eating a square foot of grass for a week would cure for the common cold. It never makes it to the testing phase.

    Is this not critical rationalism in action? Do you deny this occurs each and every day in each and every field of science?

    Again, why is the mere possibility of "that's just what God must have wanted" any different?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Scott, since you enjoy analogies, here's one.

    If a hypothetical UFO crashed and upon investigation it was found to be made of materials completely foreign to us with technology that was so complex as to leave our brightest scientists baffled... would you conclude that we couldn't determine if the UFO was designed because you had to no explanation of how it worked or where it came from or why it crashed or its purpose?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Neal

    I'm just curious, what exactly do you think is meant by the phrase "panoply of traits?"

    ReplyDelete
  41. Neal, what is with your odd obsession with the sea squirt? Whenever I mention your absurd claim about iPods, you chirp back with "Sea squirts, sea squirts, sea squirts!" When have I ever made any claim about sea squirts?

    Do you simply do that to distract from the fact that you aren't answering the clear, direct questions that you are asked? Or do you genuinely not realize you're responding to a point that wasn't made?

    I know asking you clear, direct questions and expecting an an answer is a fool's errand, but here goes again:

    When you say you have 'evidence' to back up a claim of a miraculous healing, what are you considering evidence? X-Rays? Medical records? Video recordings?

    And can you please clarify If I've understood your previous statement correctly: Do you actually believe that the reliability of someone who claims to have witnessed a miracle depends on how well you know them?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Neal: Scott, since you enjoy analogies, here's one.

    It seems that you're trying to avoiding yet another direct question, which is a clear response to your claim about rationalism.

    What I described was not an analogy for critical rationalism. It was a *concrete example* of critical rationalism being applied, in practice. it's a criteria we apply it in science all the time.

    So, again, it would seems you have two choices. Either deny somehow deny that we, *a priori*, discard an near infinite number of mere possibilities each and every day, before testing even occurs, or give an detailed explanation as to how discarding these possibilities does not represent rationalism. Which is it?

    Of course, this would require you to actually have a firm grasp of scientific methodology, various forms of epistemology, etc., rather than parrot what you've heard elsewhere.

    Furthermore, I'd unclear why you'd expect me to answer your questions when you refuse to answer mine.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  45. Neal Tedford: "The reason the "panoply of traits" makes it appear objective to you is that you didn't bother to dig into the details of those traits... something that you painfully did with the Ipods...Cherry pick what you want to support your preconceived conclusion."

    Neal, you've made this absurd accusation before, and I've explained how ridiculous it is several times now. You say that I'm being too hard on your hierarchy. (poor widdle Neal) You say that I'm not applying my thoroughness evenly. Well, here we go. We're trading places. Now, it's my turn to make the claim that I can list 4 items, then organize them into an objective, best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits. Then, I want you to be as thorough in analyzing/debunking my claim as I was about demolishing yours. Actually, scratch that. I don't want you to be as harsh on my hierarchy as I was on yours, I want you to be twice, thrice, or a hundred times more harsh. You list any reason my hierarchy fails, and I'll defend it either directly by doing the research myself, or indirectly by referencing experts who are more qualified than I. (Unlike many creationists though, I will not post links to material that I haven't taken the time to understand - or, like in the case of natschuster, haven't taken the time to even read.) If you can list a quarter as many valid objections to my list as I did for yours, you'll be set. So here goes. The bottom of this picture shows images representing four different species: a cat, a dolphin, a penguin, and we'll say a trout. The one labeled # 4 is the best fit nested hierarchy, based on a panoply of traits.

    I'm giving you a chance to finally put your money where your mouth is. You think I unfairly trashed your iPod hierarchy while blindly agreeing with every taxonomist when they conclude that dolphins are more similar to cats than to fish; fine, do your worst.

    Or else shut up about it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Venture Free said, "I'm just curious, what exactly do you think is meant by the phrase "panoply of traits?"

    --

    I believe this is a phrase that Zachriel mentioned months ago, so I started using it in discussions with him and Derick. It's sometimes used by some scientists who classify organisms into various hierarchies. In the past it was used mainly to refer to morphology before genetic sequencing was possible.

    The expectation of evolutionists was that genetics would fit nicely with the hierarchy based on the old rules of classification by morphology. What is being discovered is that genetics is a mosaic.

    Of course, evolution is an assumed fact and whatever is found has to be accommodated by whatever sounds logical (rationalism), not necessarily by much empirical evidence.

    A typology of organisms with a mosaic of genes appears to be the best representative picture of life, rather than a tree. Evolutionist say that no one expected there to not be some exceptions, etc, etc. This is rationalism trying to accommodate another failed prediction of what the genetic sequencing didn't confirm.

    Rationalism, of course, only needs logic and a tad of confirmation in order to claim victory and deny contradictory evidence.

    Evolution is saturated in rationalism, but genuine science actively tries to find contradictions to shoot holes in the theory being studied. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is a fine example. How often in the news do we hear how it is being tested by new or more accurate tools and methods? Often. While physicists would definitely be careful about knocking out Einstein's theory, they are not philosophically opposed to it.

    Evolutionists are philosophically opposed to skeptism about the fact of evolution.

    From my background in IT, the testing phase is critical before a system goes into production. The goal of good testing is often to try to break the system... not treat it with kid gloves and make excuses. If there are potential problems, it's better to find them during testing, not when they are in production.

    Evolutionists rationalize in order to keep their "fact" on "artifical life support".

    Evolutionary just-story stories are esteemed by evolutionists. That is why, when Richard Dawkins gives his silly box-eye evolution illustration, evolutionists can't understand why anyone would be skeptical. If it's logical and you can give me a couple examples their good to go.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Venture Free, to Neal: "I'm just curious, what exactly do you think is meant by the phrase "panoply of traits?"

    Neal, it's amazing how it still takes you 370 words to not answer a question.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Scott, as quoted before...

    "Also, consider that Richard Dawkins said in the Blind watchmaker " biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose".

    Francis Crick said, "biologists must CONSTANTLY keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved".

    --

    The onus is on the evolutionists to show why something that looks designed isn't. That's fair. No need to bring up bizarre comparisons about eating turf to cure the common cold. Design is not some obsure notion, but as even hardened atheists Dawkins and Crick say, life has the appearance of design.

    The problem is that evolutionists think their rationalism, under the guise of science, shouldn't be criticized. Huge problems regarding protein evolution are brushed aside without serious consideration. Rationalizing their foregone conclusion trumpts math, the fossil record, and scientific observation. Rationalism seeks to cherry pick and present the happy face. Like a used car salesmen showing you how great the tires and interior of a car are but being evasive about problems under the hood.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Venture free,

    "I believe this is a phrase that Zachriel mentioned months ago, so I started using it in discussions with him and Derick. It's sometimes used by some scientists who classify organisms into various hierarchies. In the past it was used mainly to refer to morphology before genetic sequencing was possible"

    I'm assuming you have some understanding of how organisms are classified, but perhaps not.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Neal, are you under the impression that you answered the question?

    "I believe this is a phrase that Zachriel mentioned months ago, so I started using it in discussions with him and Derick. "

    This does not answer the question.

    "It's sometimes used by some scientists who classify organisms into various hierarchies."

    This does not answer the question.

    "In the past it was used mainly to refer to morphology before genetic sequencing was possible"

    This does not answer the question. "In the past?" It's not used anymore? "..mainly to refer to morphology?" What does that mean? It refers to morphology how, exactly? (that was the question) "before genetic sequencing was possible." You mean, it's not a relevant criteria, now that we have genetic testing? Oh, do explain

    Imagine if someone asked me to explain what a transmission flush was, and I responded:

    "I believe this is a phrase that my mechanic mentioned months ago, so I started using it in discussions with him. It's sometimes used by some mechanics who maintain and repair automobiles. In the past it was used mainly to refer to fixing cars before electronic diagnosis was possible."

    Neal, you give Miss South Carolina a run for her money in regard to incoherent answers. (when you actually make the attempt)

    ReplyDelete
  51. Derick, panoply of traits is your and Zachriel's baby. How do you want to use it today? Go for it.

    When you and Zachriel used it, it probably wasn't referring to DNA because it blows your SINGLE "best fit" hogwash theory out of the water.


    You can dance around arguing about the definition of terms or we can discuss how genetics often contradicts the best fit classifications based on morphology. I brought forth the example of the sea squirt because it is one example of how your classifications break down in the real world.

    http://willapse.hubpages.com/hub/Charles-Darwin-and-Evolution-Genetic-Science-uproots-the-Tree-of-Life

    Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts—also known as tunicates—are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. “Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another,” Syvanen says.

    Of course, the felling of the Darwinian tree is not allowed to touch the fact of evolution, but rationalism only allows evolution.

    So, what is the "best fit" for classifying the sea squirt?

    Is that a problem for you Derick?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Neal: "Derick, panoply of traits is your and Zachriel's baby. How do you want to use it today? Go for it.

    Neal, you could have simply said "I have no idea what 'based on a panoply of traits' means," in the first place and saved us a lot of combing through your dribble. I'm flattered that you seem to think that either Zachriel or I coined or control that phrase in some way, but alas, it does have a specific meaning which appears to still elude you. We use those two words 'today' in the same way that english speakers have for centuries. (I do confess that we've been hiding the meanings from you in a dictionary)

    Neal: "...probably wasn't referring to DNA because it blows your SINGLE "best fit" hogwash theory out of the water."

    Ok, Neal. Please explain to me why 'DNA' blows my best fit nested heirarchy shown in #4 in this image out of the water.

    Neal: "I brought forth the example of the sea squirt because it is one example of how your classifications break down in the real world...So, what is the "best fit" for classifying the sea squirt?

    For Pete's sake Neal, I'VE NEVER MADE ANY CLAIM ABOUT HOW A SEA SQUIRT FITS INTO A NESTED HIERARCHY! For that matter, I've never made a claim about how any organisms are classified, except for the aforementioned cat, fish, dolphin, and penguin. Boy, I hate using italic bold caps, but I don't know a better way to make it clear. I've pointed this out to you several times now, and I don't see how even the most shriveled, defective brain could so consistently fail to grasp it. I never moved on past iPods with you because you repeatedly demonstrated that you didn't understand best fit nested hierarchies; why should I listen to your claim that you've solved Fermat's Last Theorem when you can't tell me what 5 times 7 is? Perhaps I need to just return the favor: "Hey Neal, remember your claim that the talking snake in the Garden of Eden was actually a time traveling robot from medieval France? How's that research going?"

    To make things simpler for you, I'll number the questions that you've failed to answer thus far:

    1: You've previously claimed to have 'real evidence' to back up claims of a miraculous healing. What type thing are you considering evidence?

    2. You previously said: "Jeff Arnold is not a stranger so I find what he said credible. If I didn't know him, I wouldn't have put it there for you," in reference to a link you posted in response to a request for evidence for a story you told, indicating that you believe credibility of a miracle claim is contingent on how well you know the person making the claim. Is this correct? Do you stand by this statement? Do you wish to clarify or amend it?

    3. You accuse me of being 'too harsh' on your iPod nested hierarchies, which is why you never seem to have given a final answer to that question. (you changed your mind at least 3 times, if I recall correctly) Please be equally, or more, thorough and 'nitpicky' in explaining to us why #4 in this image is not the best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits. (and by 'us' I mean not only readers of this blog, but the entirety of the scientific community)

    ReplyDelete
  53. Derick, the topic under discussion months ago was around the topic of nested hierarchies. Specifically, evolutionists (including Zachriel) said that human designed objects are not classified into an objective nested hierarchies. This parrots what Theobald has said on his evolution website. Darwin considered the nested hierarchy a critical piece in his theory.

    My point in the beginning of this months ago was that this distinction between organisms and human designed objects just depends on the arrangement of selection criteria in order to support evolution. I brought up the sea squirt as an example of why Zachriel's argument is flawed in the details. His argument encompasses all of life since he believes in universal common descent and is not limited to broad classifications of cats and trout, etc. The view from 30,000 feet is helpful for evolutionists, but it fails in the details.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Neal,
    Curious. Is this the problem with sea squirts?
    To the delight of creationists and fans of intelligent design, the presence of similar relaxin sequences in pigs and sea squirts–species separated by 500 million years–has been used to cast genomic doubt on Darwinian evolution

    Are there more apparently designed features of the sea squirt?

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  57. Neal Tedford: "evolutionists (including Zachriel) said that human designed objects are not classified into an objective nested hierarchies."

    No we did not, you lying sack of crap. We've explained to you over and over again that there is absolutely no reason a human designer could not create objects that can be objectively classified into a best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits if they so desired, but creating things that way creates a useless constraint on the designer, so most human created artifacts don't fit into single, best fit nested hierarchies. Any time there is mixing and matching of components, there is no possibility for a single objective nested hierarchy. I'm absolutely speechless that you've misrepresented this single point so many times, after we've clearly explained countless times that we're expressly not saying no designed objects could form a nested hierarchy. I'm appalled at your flagrant disregard for honest discourse here; we've corrected you at least a dozen times on this point yet you still continue to distort what we're saying. It's incredible. Have you no shame? Have you no integrity?

    And for the hundredth time, if you cannot understand why the 2010 family of iPods cannot be grouped into a single, objective, best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits, then you have nothing of value to say about anything else related to nested hierarchies. We will not waste time discussing trigonometry with you until you can demonstrate that you understand addition.

    continued below:

    ReplyDelete
  58. ..continued from above:

    Neal Tedford: "this distinction between organisms and human designed objects just depends on the arrangement of selection criteria in order to support evolution".

    Listen here ignoramus, how you manage to pack so much stupidity into so few words constantly staggers me. Wether or not something can be grouped into a nested hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with evolution! How many dozens of times do we have to explain that grouping objects into a nested hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with evolution? How many times have we pointed out that the biological classification system we have today was pioneered by a creationist, a century before Darwin wrote Origin of Species!? I mean, holy crap: Check out this gem:

    "Linnaeus was a creationist and the founder of modern taxonomy. His classification system is a fully nested hiearchy structure. He classified life without the slightest notion of evolution in mind."

    Do you know who said that Neal? Do you know who pointed out not only is the Linnaean system a "fully nested hierarchy structure, but that it doesn't rest on any evolutionary or even hereditary assumptions? Care to take a guess who said that?

    YOU DID, you ignorant turd.

    It is becoming increasingly impossible to believe that you're not just intentionally lying about what we've said. And no, the arrangement of {fish {penguin {cat, dolphin}}} does not depend on an arbitrary pick of selection criteria, it is an objective classification. (Words can't express how much I'm hoping you'll take the bait of my challenge and try to argue that it's not objective. What fun we'll have; we can charge admission.)

    The sad thing is that I've said over and over again that the fact that you can't group iPods into such a hierarchy isn't even relevant to the conversation! It doesn't affect the argument either way. All it did was make you look stupid, and being a fellow believer at the time I was sick and tired of watching you make Christians look stupid. Now, waiting for your response is more a matter of morbid curiosity. And in much the same way as I had to start numbering the times you avoided providing a simple answer to the iPod hierarchy question (I believe we got into the low 40's before you even took your first stab at it) I'll start numbering the times you intentionally misrepresent what I've said. This is at least the 4th time (possibly much higher) that you've accused us of saying you can't arrange anything that's designed into a nested hierarchy.

    Don't forget the numbered questions from above. 50 bucks says I ask those simple, straightforward questions at least 10 more times before you attempt to answer. It's seldom anything more than hand-waving, hemming, and hawing from you.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Yet another gem:

    Neal Tedford: "If it had not been for Linnaeus and like minded creationists the whole concept of fully nested hiearchical with Ranking of life into categories probably would not have been developed. "

    With that, and:

    Neal Tedford: "Linnaeus was a creationist and the founder of modern taxonomy. His classification system is a fully nested hiearchy structure. He classified life without the slightest notion of evolution in mind."

    ...You seem to have demolished your own case. Which is it Neal - does life fit into a nested hierarchy like creationists observed hundreds of years ago, or is the whole idea of classification arbitrary, depending on which selection criteria you draw out of a hat?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Derick, review Theobald at Talk Orgins... Prediction 1.2 - Nested Hierarchy of Species.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

    ReplyDelete
  61. Neal: The onus is on the evolutionists to show why something that looks designed isn't.

    But it also has the appearance of having evolved. You seem to have conveniently left this out of the equation. Nor have you provided an expiation for why this would occur, other than some vague, magical notion of "mind sucking vortex of Darwinism". You might as well say demons are clouding our mind.

    More importantly, you claim that God intentionally and intelligently designed things the way we observed. Therefore, you're essentially claiming that God decided to make it appear *as if* it evolved on purpose. However, you have no explanation for why God would do this. "That's just what God must have wanted." It's not logically impossible, but we lack an explanation for this possibility. As such we discard it.

    On the other had, evolutionary theory does have an explanation as to why things appear to have been designed.

    Neal: No need to bring up bizarre comparisons about eating turf to cure the common cold.

    You're clearly attempting to avoid the issue.

    However, calling it bizarre you're making my point for me. Why would doing this research be bizarre? Because we lack an explanation as to why eating a square meter of grass every day would cure the common cold, that's why. As such we discard it, a priori, before testing.

    Again, what is this if not rationalism at work in science? Do we not discard an near infinite number of mere possibilities via the same criteria every single day?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Neal: I brought up the sea squirt as an example of why Zachriel's argument is flawed in the details. His argument encompasses all of life since he believes in universal common descent and is not limited to broad classifications of cats and trout, etc. The view from 30,000 feet is helpful for evolutionists, but it fails in the details.

    Neal,

    You're assuming scientific predictions are prophecy. Why is this?

    We explain our recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge in that we create theories via conjecture, test them via observations and discard those with errors. Furthermore, we discard explanation-less theories a priori.

    You might assume that, should this explanation be correct, then we should always *experience* continued and accelerated progress in the future. However, this would clearly be a mistake. This is because predictions are made under the assumption that all things remain even.

    For example, it could be that terrorists could hijack our missile defense system and cause a full nuclear exchange. This would likely destroy a great deal of our existing knowledge as recorded in people, books, computers, etc. As such, it's likely we would need to re-create knowledge, we already had and at a greatly reduced rate.

    We would not *experience* rapid increase in knowledge.

    However, this doesn't mean that the underlying expiation given above was false. All things did not remain even. Science does not take into account an near infinite number of possibilities when making predictions. In fact, it's unclear why you expect science to do this, or why you'd think it's even possible.

    There could be some completely unrelated cause that we simply haven't conceived of yet, which could change what we experience, as would a full nuclear exchange, while still not falsifying our explanation for our rapid and recent creation of knowledge. We cannot possibly know something will remain even if we haven't connived of it yet.

    So, I'll again ask, how is this even possible? Please be specific.

    There is little difference between having a divine revelation-shaped hole in one's scheme of things and believing that divine revelation is a means to justify concussions.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Neal "Derick, review Theobald at Talk Orgins... Prediction 1.2 - Nested Hierarchy of Species."
    What is it that makes you think you can just post a link to an article in leu of actually answering a question? You can't even quote the relevant part of the four thousand word article? Why should we waste our time wading through links that you post if you don't even mention what's relevant about them? And what does it have to do with anything? Do you think that Zachriel wrote that article? Do you think that I did? Both Zachriel and myself have explained to you repeatedly for almost an entire year that we are not arguing that artifacts couldn't be designed to fit into a nested hierarchy. I am not making the same argument Theobald is; I'm not talking about evolution and If I were, I would have worded what he says more clearly. He merely said: "The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes." He does not say "designed artifacts cannot be grouped into a best fit nested hierarchy." If a human designer were to set out to design a group of objects that could be classified into a best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits, we would mimic an evolutionary process by creating one object, modifying it slightly for the next object, modifying that copy, in a parent-offspring type pattern, making sure never to mix an match parts across 'lineages'. (and it's funny that in all this time, youstill haven't been able to name an example of human-designed objects that can be arranged this way)

    I said: "Don't forget the numbered questions from above. 50 bucks says I ask those simple, straightforward questions at least 10 more times before you attempt to answer. It's seldom anything more than hand-waving, hemming, and hawing from you."

    [1]

    1: You've previously claimed to have 'real evidence' to back up claims of a miraculous healing. What type thing are you considering evidence? [or do you wish to retract this claim?]
    2. You previously said: "Jeff Arnold is not a stranger so I find what he said credible. If I didn't know him, I wouldn't have put it there for you," in reference to a link you posted in response to a request for evidence for a story you told, indicating that you believe credibility of a miracle claim is contingent on how well you know the person making the claim. Is this correct? Do you stand by this statement? Do you wish to clarify or amend it? [or retract it?]
    3. You accuse me of being 'too harsh' on your iPod nested hierarchies, which is why you never seem to have given a final answer to that question. (you changed your mind at least 3 times, if I recall correctly) Please be equally, or more, thorough and 'nitpicky' in explaining to us why #4 in this image is not the best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits. (and by 'us' I mean not only readers of this blog, but the entirety of the scientific community) [or do you wish to retract this claim?]

    ReplyDelete
  64. Derick said, "we would mimic an evolutionary process by creating one object, modifying it slightly for the next object, modifying that copy, in a parent-offspring type pattern, making sure never to mix an match parts across 'lineages'"

    ---

    How does the sea squirt fit into the failed Darwinian pattern "making sure never to mix an match parts across lineages'???

    http://willapse.hubpages.com/hub/Charles-Darwin-and-Evolution-Genetic-Science-uproots-the-Tree-of-Life

    Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts—also known as tunicates—are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. “Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another,” Syvanen says.

    This does not fit the evolutionist just so story. Details are wonderful, just like life.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Neal Tedford: "How does the sea squirt fit into the failed Darwinian pattern "making sure never to mix an match parts across lineages'???"


    Hey Neal, remember your claim that the talking snake in the Garden of Eden was actually a time traveling robot from medieval France? How's that research going?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Neal, if you have a genuine, diagnosed learning disability, please let me know now so I can stop wasting my time trying to explain the simplest of concepts to you. As I've pointed out many, many, many times before (In bold, uppercase caps, no less) I haven't made any claim regarding sea squirts. Your infatuation with this has gone beyond odd.

    Please, for sanity's sake, start responding to the arguments that have actually been made, and not arguments that only exist in that stuttering little brain of yours.

    I said: "Don't forget the numbered questions from above. 50 bucks says I ask those simple, straightforward questions at least 10 more times before you attempt to answer. It's seldom anything more than hand-waving, hemming, and hawing from you."

    [2]

    1: You've previously claimed to have 'real evidence' to back up claims of a miraculous healing. What type thing are you considering evidence? [or do you wish to retract this claim?]
    2. You previously said: "Jeff Arnold is not a stranger so I find what he said credible. If I didn't know him, I wouldn't have put it there for you," in reference to a link you posted in response to a request for evidence for a story you told, indicating that you believe credibility of a miracle claim is contingent on how well you know the person making the claim. Is this correct? Do you stand by this statement? Do you wish to clarify or amend it? [or retract it?]
    3. You accuse me of being 'too harsh' on your iPod nested hierarchies, which is why you never seem to have given a final answer to that question. (you changed your mind at least 3 times, if I recall correctly) Please be equally, or more, thorough and 'nitpicky' in explaining to us why #4 in this image is not the best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits. (and by 'us' I mean not only readers of this blog, but the entirety of the scientific community) [or do you wish to retract this claim?]

    As an addendum, I'l wager 50 bucks more that you'll continue to argue against things that no one has said.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Derick,

    Regarding sea squirts, you are missing the whole boat here. I didn't say that you made any claim concerning them. Who cares? Like Zachriel, you seem to be taking the same line of pettiness in order to not answer the question. However, in your case, it is looking like you don't have any idea why the sea squirt genome is a problem with your understanding of the "best fit nested hierarchy".

    As you said just previously, "If a human designer were to set out to design a group of objects that could be classified into a best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits, WE WOULD MIMIC AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS by creating one object, modifying it slightly for the next object, modifying that copy, in a parent-offspring type pattern, making sure never to mix an match parts across 'lineages'".

    Just before you said that, you said, "I'm not talking about evolution and If I were, I would have worded what he says more clearly."

    --

    Looks like Theobald has you beat as far as clarity.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Neal Tedford: "However, in your case, it is looking like you don't have any idea why the sea squirt genome is a problem with your understanding of the "best fit nested hierarchy". (emphasis mine)

    Neal, for the billionth time,sea squirt genomes don't have ANYTHING to do with understanding what a best fit nested hierarchy is! I don't know why you can't understand this; one doesn't have to accept evolution or to even have heard of it to understand what a nested hierarchy is or isn't; some things can be arranged this way, and some things, like iPods, can't be. I haven't made any connection between nested hierarchies and common ancestry; even in referencing the hierarchy of the cat, fish, dolphin and penguin, I made it clear that the objective classification based on a multitude of traits doesn't make any assumptions about hereditary relationships; you yourself acknowledged this when you pointed out that our modern classification system was pioneered by a creationist centuries before Darwin. Moving along in the discussion would be pointless because you haven't demonstrated that you understand what is meant by a best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits. I say this again: If you think that iPods can be arranged this way, you don't understand the concept. Zachriel did start talking about how the concept of a nested hierarchy relates to common descent, but I feel that he was a bit premature in doing so, that he was talking waaaay over your head. In any event, that is a conversation you can take up with him. I, however, am merely talking about classification at this point. It wouldn't matter if you couldn't classify a single living organism into a nested hierarchy; That wouldn't change the fact that you simply cannot classify iPods into an objective best fit hierarchy. Again, until you realize why iPods can't be grouped into an objective, best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits, and why a dolphin, fish, penguin, and cat can, you don't understand the concept.

    Perhaps you're right that I was unclear in what I said about Theobald's article; let me revise what I said to make it shorter. I must divide this into two distinct points: (1)Theobald does not say that designed objects could not be grouped into an objective best fit hierarchy if they were designed with that goal in mind, and (2) it wouldn't matter if he had said that, because that's not what I'M saying.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I said: "Don't forget the numbered questions from above. 50 bucks says I ask those simple, straightforward questions at least 10 more times before you attempt to answer. It's seldom anything more than hand-waving, hemming, and hawing from you."

    [3]

    1: You've previously claimed to have 'real evidence' to back up claims of a miraculous healing. What type thing are you considering evidence? [or do you wish to retract this claim?]

    2. You previously said: "Jeff Arnold is not a stranger so I find what he said credible. If I didn't know him, I wouldn't have put it there for you," in reference to a link you posted in response to a request for evidence for a story you told, indicating that you believe credibility of a miracle claim is contingent on how well you know the person making the claim. Is this correct? Do you stand by this statement? Do you wish to clarify or amend it? [or retract it?]

    3. You accuse me of being 'too harsh' on your iPod nested hierarchies, which is why you never seem to have given a final answer to that question. (you changed your mind at least 3 times, if I recall correctly) Please be equally, or more, thorough and 'nitpicky' in explaining to us why #4 in this image is not the best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits. (and by 'us' I mean not only readers of this blog, but the entirety of the scientific community) [or do you wish to retract this claim?]

    ReplyDelete
  70. Neal has learned that refusing to answer a direct question makes him look silly. As a corollary he has also learned that asking you a direct question allows him to accuse you of refusing to answer it, presumably making you look just as silly. Therefore every time you ask him about the Nested Hierarchy and subsequently point out that he has yet to actually answer your questions, he will ask about the Sea Squirt and claim that actually it's you who is not answering his questions. Yeah it ends up making him look even sillier to everyone else, but all that really matters is that he thinks that you look just as silly and that's what's really important.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Venture Free: "Neal has learned that refusing to answer a direct question makes him look silly."

    I'm not sure that's the case. I think Neal's problem is that nothing makes him feel silly; nothing embarrasses him. He has no shame. He's not embarrassed to have something he says turn out to be demonstrably false. And then he's not ashamed to keep saying that same thing over and over. It's like water off a duck's back. It may even be worse than that; it may be that he seeks out scorn and ridicule because it's another jewel in his crown or whatever. If there's anything he's averse to, it' not being wrong, but admitting to being wrong. That's why it took me around 4 or 5 months to get him to retract his unfounded assertion that many theologians hundreds of years before modern geology had an old-earth interpretation of Genesis, or why it took almost as many months to actually get him to present an iPod nested hierarchy that he said would be "simple" and "straightforward" to make. I think he knows full well he's wrong on the topic, but all those months at seminary removed his ability to admit it in public.

    Perhaps he the more ridiculous his beliefs, the more his credulity will be rewarded in the afterlife.

    ReplyDelete