Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Evolutionist Accuses Others of Lying
According to evolutionist Jeffrey Martz “creationism is based on lies and misrepresentations of science.” But why isn’t Martz concerned about the “lies and misrepresentations” of evolutionists? Evolutionists say their idea is a scientific fact, on par with gravity and the round shape of the earth. Why does Martz not work to correct that tall tale? Look in any evolution textbook and you can see many more such misrepresentations. Yet evolutionists such as Martz just look the other way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It never fails. Whenever Cornelius is on a tight schedule to produce more dumb IDC propaganda for the DI, he always falls back on his standard lie and misrepresentation: equivocating between the observed fact of evolution and the theory that explains the observed fact.
ReplyDeleteAnother day, another liar for Jesus plying his trade. Ho hum.
That "liar for Jesus" trick is tired and stinks of desperation. To use such a tactic is arguing from a position of strength, innit? Tell me, how do YOU know his thoughts and intentions?
ReplyDeleteI bet you're furious that "Question Evolution Day" is coming up on Darwin's birthday, where people are tired of evolutionist lies, and show the real facts about evolution. More so than some of us are doing all along.
Cornelius, aside from the Thorny helping to prove your point, I have gone on about the same thing. The true spirit of scientific inquiry will not hide or dodge unpleasant facts or interpretations of facts. So many are simply willing to call a disbeliever in fundie evolutionist propaganda a "liar", as if this lie in itself negates the truth of what the anti-evolutionist is saying.
Desperate, and pitiful.
Storm -
DeleteI honestly had no idea what Question Evolution Day was. I had to Google it. And all I found was a Facebook group.
As for the 'true spirit of scientific inquiry', I will ask you the same question I ask most evolution-deniers which invariably sends them running for cover. Perhaps you will be the first to actually step up to the mark...?
Do you accept that science absolutely must presuppose naturalism? A mere yes or no will suffice.
Stormbringer
DeleteThat "liar for Jesus" trick is tired and stinks of desperation. To use such a tactic is arguing from a position of strength, innit? Tell me, how do YOU know his thoughts and intentions?
In this case the description is 100% accurate. CH has been corrected on this particular lie probably 20 times in the last two years but still keeps telling it. We know his thoughts and intentions from the mission statement he swore to at Biola, from his work with the Discovery Institute, and from his previous blog entries here.
I bet you're furious that "Question Evolution Day" is coming up on Darwin's birthday, where people are tired of evolutionist lies, and show the real facts about evolution. More so than some of us are doing all along.
Yeah, the science community is just shaking in its boots. :D
You willing to share some of those "real facts" with us and defend your claims? Or are you going to be just another fart-n-dart one post wonder?
Cornelius, aside from the Thorny helping to prove your point, I have gone on about the same thing. The true spirit of scientific inquiry will not hide or dodge unpleasant facts or interpretations of facts.
Then why do Creationists go out of their way to lie about and dodge the ones they can't explain?
So many are simply willing to call a disbeliever in fundie evolutionist propaganda a "liar", as if this lie in itself negates the truth of what the anti-evolutionist is saying.
Creationists aren't called liars because of their beliefs. They're called liars when they get caught lying to push those beliefs, as CH as done here.
Desperate, and pitiful.
You guys certainly are.
Stormbringer: I bet you're furious that "Question Evolution Day" is coming up on Darwin's birthday, where people are tired of evolutionist lies, and show the real facts about evolution. More so than some of us are doing all along.
DeleteI'm having difficulty following your line of logic here. However, I do not share a number of presuppositions that you apparently hold, so this comes as no surprise.
For example, you should continually question everything because everything contains inaccuracies to some degree. Specifically, we create knowledge by systematically creating explanations based on conjecture and discarding errors from these explanations. This process is infinite. That is, we will aways be at the beginning of this process, just as one's room number in an infinite hotel would always be at the beginning of the sequence of infinite room numbers.
This is in contrast to a belief that there are "true" answers that are completely error free and can never become more accurate - which, by the way, is an assumption which acts in opposition to our ability to correct errors.
In other words, while you might not realize it, your presuppositions are in direct opposition to the creation of knowledge.
In this light, it's not clear what questioning evolution has to do with being "tired of evolutionist lies". It's a non-sequitur, as far as I'm concerned.
Nor is it clear how it would even possible to have completely error free explanations in the first place.
Let me guess, divine revelation? But this presupposes that all knowledge has always existed, otherwise the source of divine revelation would have gaps in it's knowledge.
The assumption that knowledge has always existed isn't evident or an assumption made by science. However, it is an assumption held by the majority of theists.
Is this merely a coincidence?
Stormbringer: The true spirit of scientific inquiry will not hide or dodge unpleasant facts or interpretations of facts.
DeleteHow can the presuppositions that knowledge has always existed be in "The true spirit of scientific inquiry"?
Or do you deny assuming this is the case?
LOL. I question evolution every day in my work. Don't need a special day for it.
DeleteI have a feeling what you guys really mean is 'deny evolution day'.
Ritchie
DeleteFeb 2, 2012 05:03 AM
Do you accept that science absolutely must presuppose naturalism? A mere yes or no will suffice.
Yes but...
then fact are only reproducible observtions. Explanations of that facts are only theories to be confirmed.
Blas: Do you accept that science absolutely must presuppose naturalism? A mere yes or no will suffice.
DeleteThe idea that the universe consists of natural things, which are explainable and comprehensible, and supernatural things, which are unexplainable and incomprehensible, seems at odds with each other. Specifically, how could you know that supernatural things do not effect natural things in an unexplainable and incomprehensible way since you claim they are, well, unexplainable and incomprehensible?
In other words, as soon as you admit anything that is supposedly unexplainable and incomprehensible you're conceding it could effect everything else in some unexplainable and incomprehensible way. Otherwise, it wouldn't be unexplainable and incomprehensible. Right?
Or to put it another way, it's unclear how you can draw a line that divides something that supposedly unexplainable and incomprehensible from everything else.
So, before we even discuss the topic of science, it seems we a significant problem with labeling anything supernatural or natural, given the supposed nature of supernatural things.
Or perhaps I'm putting words in your mouth. Are supernatural things comprehensible and explainable?
Scott,
Delete"Stormbringer: The true spirit of scientific inquiry will not hide or dodge unpleasant facts or interpretations of facts."
What a noble sentiment. Too bad evolution is littered with fraud, bad assumptions, just-so stories, cherry-picking, discarding information that does not fit presuppositions — that this crap is put in textbooks to edjamakate.
"How can the presuppositions that knowledge has always existed be in "The true spirit of scientific inquiry"?
"Or do you deny assuming this is the case?"
Can you show me where I made such a remark? Next time you serve up red herring, I prefer it smoked, with lemon sauce.
Ritchie disingenuously stated, "I had to Google it [Question Evolution Day]. And all I found was a Facebook group."
DeleteThat would have been a start. But Google, Yahoo and Bing (the names of my attorneys, by the way) all give more results than just the Facebook group.
Scott: "Or do you deny assuming this is the case?"
DeleteStormbringer: Can you show me where I made such a remark?
What's with the evasion? Do you only have positions on subjects you've previously remarked on? It's really a simply question, to which your answer which isn't dependent on whether you've remarked on it in the past.
Imagine the following…
You: "Or do you deny that [you like ice-cream]?
Me: "Can you show me where I make such a remark?"
Regardless if I've made a remark about liking or disliking ice-cream previously, this in no way prevents me from affirming or denying that I like ice-cream.
Since that wasn't a denial, should I take that as a "No?" If so, then how do you explain how the the knowledge of how to build the biosphere *was* created?
Or perhaps you do not quite understand the implications of creationism.
To rephrase, do you think that the designer "just was", complete with all of the knowledge of how to build the biosphere, already present? If so, then you think the knowledge has always existed.
CH -
ReplyDeleteBut why isn’t Martz concerned about the “lies and misrepresentations” of evolutionists?
Because there aren't any. Evolution IS a scientific fact on par with gravity and the round shape fo the Earth. Ta-dah.
stormbringer,
ReplyDeleteDo you have a scientifically testable alternative to the ToE that is backed up by evidence?
"Do you have a scientifically testable alternative to the ToE that is backed up by evidence?"
DeleteDo you have a scientifically testable scientific theory at all? Certainly not ToE!
stormbringer, Cornelius (or is it "George"), and all the other IDCs,
ReplyDeleteThe 'liar for Darwin' accusation is tired and stinks of desperation. To use such a tactic is arguing from a position of no strength. Desperate and pitiful.
"the truth of what the anti-evolutionist is saying"
Exactly what "truth" are you referring to?
And what are "the real facts about evolution"?
Why isn’t Concerned concerned about the “lies and misrepresentations” of creationists?
ReplyDelete...
We could do this all day.
"But why isn’t Martz concerned about the “lies and misrepresentations” of evolutionists?"
ReplyDeleteEven I know the answer.
It's like Ritchie says, "There aren't any...."
For example, the drawings of Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel (February 16, 1834 – August 9, 1919) which are STILL published in textbooks is NOT a lie! And so on and so forth....
It's like all the "scientific evidence" that supports evolutionism: if it doesn't support evolutionism, a) it isn't scientific and b) it isn't evidence. Thus it has been defined and thus it is. Just as Eugenie Scott for heaven's sake, er.. whatever.
RR -
Deletethe drawings of Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel (February 16, 1834 – August 9, 1919) which are STILL published in textbooks is NOT a lie!
Errr, no, no-one uses them AS EVIDENCE for evolution. Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" hypothesis has indeed been falsified. But it was a hypothesis drawn up to explain real evidence. And every reputable science textbook clearly explains all this. No lies there.
It's like all the "scientific evidence" that supports evolutionism: if it doesn't support evolutionism, a) it isn't scientific and b) it isn't evidence.
Again, completely wrong. Evidence would not automatically be dismissed as 'not scientific' or 'not evidence' just because it didn't support evolution. But it would be dismissed as such if it wasn't scientific and wasn't evidence.
A bit like 'A magic sky man did it with magic' is not scientific. A bit like 'It's a mystery, therefore Goddidit' is not evidence.
All the evidence we have which actually IS scientific and IS evidence (and we have a lot of that), supports evolution.
I had someone admit that Haeckel's drawings are faked, but claim they're true anyway. *Facepalm*
DeleteCH: According to evolutionist Jeffrey Martz “creationism is based on lies and misrepresentations of science.”
ReplyDeleteThis is a typical out of context quote. From the actual post...
When we talk about politicians or religious leaders "losing credibility", the loss does not immediately occur when these leaders lie, cheat, or get blown in public parks. It occurs when people find out about it. Since most of the general public does not know that creationism is based on lies and misrepresentations of science in general and geology, paleontology, and biology in particular, creationism has credibility with the general public.
I've pointed out a significant number of cases where, assuming he's a reasonable competent scientist, Cornelius has knowingly posted falsehoods and / or misrepresented science.
CH: But why isn’t Martz concerned about the “lies and misrepresentations” of evolutionists?
Note that Cornelius doesn't actually deny this is the case, but attempts to deflect the issue by pointing to the same arguments which depend on known falsehoods and / or misrepresentations of science in general and geology, paleontology, and biology. Examples?
Cornelius' continued reductionists claims that "natural selection doesn't help". Cornelius' refusal to disclose his position on important aspects of science, such as what sort of empiricist he is, the particular means by which he justifies conclusions, etc.
In other words, he portrays himself as being "neutral" on the issue, while smuggling in theistic assumptions, such as the presupposition that knowledge has always existed, rather than being created, that we all subscribe to justificationism, etc. He then says we're misrepresenting science, as if we all agree on his assumptions.
Again, assuming he's a reasonable competent scientist, Cornelius would know quite well the impact these assumptions would have on his claims and that they are neither evident via observations or universally held in the scientific community.
For example, in his post More Evidence of Adaptive Mutations: Adaptation by Directed Modification Rather Than Selection, Lamarck N, Darwin 0, Cornelius either reveals his ignorance of both Darwin and Lamarck, or disingenuously misrepresents them - despite having previously pointed the underlying explanation behind both of them.
ReplyDeleteLamarck assumes the spontaneous creation of simple organisms, along with some sort of vague universal law that contains the knowledge of how to cause organisms to always become more complex. On the other hand, Darwin's underlying explanation is that the knowledge of how to build adaptations was created via a form of conjecture and refutation.
Before a cell can adapt to conditions it must contain the knowledge of when and how to do so. This ability is itself an adaptation, which requires knowledge. The question is, what is the origin of this knowledge? Did this knowledge appear spontaneously or had always existed, or was it created over time via a form or conjecture and refutation? This is the difference between Darwin and Lamarck.
Of course, this doesn't suit Cornelius' agenda, so he misrepresents the issue in hope that his target audience will buy in hook line and sinker. And since he knows his target audience consists of justificationists, Cornelius doesn't have to explicitly disclose his justificationism, in an attempt to shield it from criticism.
Furthermore, he's essentially dodged nearly every question I've ask specifically designed to clarify his position on these issues - as if he thinks by ignoring the issue will somehow maintain the illusion that he's neutral. However, his lack of a response is irrelevant. All we have to do is point his presuppositions are not universally held, coincide with fundamental theistic dogma and are not evident from observations alone. As such, his position is not neutral.
In other words, "evolutionists" only "misrepresent" Cornelius' preferred definition of science, which he conveniently refuses to explicitly disclose. Nor does he present arguments as to why his definition is to be preferred. Rather, he just presumes this is the case and that it's universally excepted.
Evolutionists have to lie about other theories to distract from the fact their own 'theory' is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
ReplyDeleteNational Velour
ReplyDeleteEvolutionists have to lie about other theories to distract from the fact their own 'theory' is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Feel free to provide your alternate 'theory' for the history of life on Earth that explains the empirical data in a more detailed and consilient manner, has better predictive power, and is better supported with positive evidence.
What's stopping you?
"Feel free to provide your alternate 'theory' for the history of life on Earth that explains the empirical data in a more detailed and consilient manner, has better predictive power, and is better supported with positive evidence."
DeleteWell, that rules out evolution.
If one wishes to discredit anything then ones accusations must be true or one discredits oneself.
ReplyDeleteThis cat says creationism is lies and bad guys generally.
On behalf of my long observation of creationism I plead NOT GUILTY.
Saying people lie is a big accusation.
Do people lie? YES.
However in origin issues most people on all sides act out of integrity.
They are not lying.
They are wrong, dumb, careless, sloppy, missing the point, passionate.
BUT not liars.
Its a poor reflection on the accuser !
Its just not true that creationists lie.
YEC and ID often are sincere Christians and attack evolution with the expectation of persuading people on the merits.
Evolutionists get beat or frustrated because they don't have a good case or make a good case.
In fact I recently rewatched a hour show by Mr Coyne who wrote a book about evolution being true.
The show demonstrated the intellectual and general failings of evolutionist defenders.
I recommend it to everyone to see the problems of defending evolutionary biology.
Robert Byers: However in origin issues most people on all sides act out of integrity. They are not lying. They are wrong, dumb, careless, sloppy, missing the point, passionate. BUT not liars.
DeleteI wrote: Again, assuming he's a [reasonably] competent scientist, Cornelius would know quite well the impact these assumptions would have on his claims and that they are neither evident via observations or universally held in the scientific community.
Are you suggesting that Cornelius isn't a competent scientist? Is he "dumb" in that he does not know his presuppositions are not universally held? Is he unaware that empiricism outdated and that, even within empiricism itself, there are a number variations that would have an impact on his arguments?
While I cannot read his mind, these are well known issues in the field of science. Yet Cornelius argues as if they are complexly uncontroversial without disclosing this assumption.
I didn't mean the boss here but what I see in the evolutionist camp and sometimes amongst creationists.
DeleteMr Hunter repeats a common accusation that evolutionists present their conclusions as settled fact when they they smell or sense they are in fact just reasonable ideas that must be true as they reject a creator and have no other ideas.
I presume Most folks are acting out of intellectual and moral integrity but not all.
Passion and desperation happens in human nature.
Does the evolutionist deliberately evade the poverty of proof for claims said to be proved.
Pschology or just plain not that sharp is a major factor in mankind.
Successful creationist thinkers bump into the most passionate evolutionists and so demographics are involved.
Robert Byers: I didn't mean the boss here but what I see in the evolutionist camp and sometimes amongst creationists.
DeleteRobert,
Of course "didn't mean the boss here". This is my point.
As a layman, you're part of Cornelius' target audience. You're not aware of the presuppositions he's making in regards to the specific version of empiricism he holds, justificationism, etc. As such, you simply assume they are universally held and accept his claims that evolutionists are lying, etc.
However, Cornelius isn't a layman. He should know better. And if he does not, then he's' not competent. So, by failing to disclose these assumptions he is knowingly presenting falsehoods.
The big basic lie about evolution is that random mutations create new information. This is easily tested, and fails the test.
ReplyDeleteDarwin wrote that without variations, natural selection has nothing to work with. Phenotypic variations can only result from changes in the genotype. These are either cyclical (shuffling alleles, no new information) or due to random mutations. We can study random mutations empirically, they do not create new information, as intelligent design hypothesis predicts. where mutations confer benefits, as in sickle cell disease, they are limited, situational, and as Mike Behe says, depend on broken and blunted genes.
No amount of sneering or personal abuse of Darwin critics can alter these biological facts.
Elwin Daniels: The big basic lie about evolution is that random mutations create new information. This is easily tested, and fails the test.
DeleteWhy don't you start out by explaining how knowledge is created, then show how evolution isn't an example of it.
It's highly unlikely Elwin will be coming back. I posted some question for him on his blog a few months back after DeNews at UD linked to it. Elwin squirmed and avoided and wouldn't answer any questions, except to post multiple paragraphs telling me how he had better things to do and was too busy to provide answers.
DeleteElwin is your basic scientifically clueless IDC proselytizer, nothing more.
Elwin Daniels
ReplyDeleteThe big basic lie about evolution is that random mutations create new information.
Please define 'information' as it pertains to evolutionary biology. Please give your objective method for measuring the information content of a genome. Please explain how you would recognize and identify 'new' information if you saw it.
This is easily tested, and fails the test.
Please present this test and describe the methodology, as well as the documented results.
Darwin wrote that without variations, natural selection has nothing to work with. Phenotypic variations can only result from changes in the genotype. These are either cyclical (shuffling alleles, no new information) or due to random mutations. We can study random mutations empirically, they do not create new information, as intelligent design hypothesis predicts. where mutations confer benefits, as in sickle cell disease, they are limited, situational, and as Mike Behe says, depend on broken and blunted genes.
You forgot a very important case: gene duplication with subsequent mutations to the duplicated segment. The first half of the duplicated segment still performs the original function while the duplicated half is free to mutate and explore the surrounding search space. That is one of the most common and well understood mechanisms for producing genetic variation in all of biology.
Gene duplication as an evolutionary event
Start with a genome segment
AGTAGT.
Duplicate it and you get
AGTAGTAGTAGT
Now one half is free to mutate to
AGTAGTAGTACC
Please explain why the new sequence with its subsequent new functionality doesn't count as new information.
No amount of sneering or personal abuse of Darwin critics can alter these biological facts.
No amount of ignorance based assertions will alter biological facts either. You really should read up on the topic before embarrassing yourself further. Your ignorance is curable, but first you have to want to learn.
According to this:
Deletehttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959440X09001249
it seems that things are not so simple. Mutations can make proteins unstable. It looks like that puts constraints on evolution of proteins.
AGTAGTAGTAGT
ReplyDeleteAGTAGTAGTACC
Just chaos, my friend.
Eugen
DeleteAGTAGTAGTAGT
AGTAGTAGTACC
Just chaos, my friend.
If so then it's chaos that contains new information my friend.
Which of these sequences has more information?
1) AGTAGT
2) AGTAGTAGTACC
Elwin Daniels
ReplyDeleteThe big basic lie about evolution is that random mutations create new information. This is easily tested, and fails the test.
I second Thorton's point. You need to define information first. I'll give you a hint, Shannon, Chaitin, and Kolmogorov cannot help you. Shannon is concerned with information transmission and the other two's theories specify that the more random a bit sequence the more information there is. So I await your argument based on specified complexity or functional information. Hopefully you have something new. More importantly, please stand by your arguments and don't just bail or make further assertions when these have been challenged.
I'd also like to point out to the Thorton detractors that Thorton does make reasoned arguments to newcomers with whom he has no history. I've seen it several times. He saves his venom for those evasive posters that would rather abandon or move on to further assertions without defending challenges to previous assertions; stubbornly say the same thing over and over again and ignore the content of challenges; or constantly appeal to authority.
T Cook
DeleteI'd also like to point out to the Thorton detractors that Thorton does make reasoned arguments to newcomers with whom he has no history. I've seen it several times. He saves his venom for those evasive posters that would rather abandon or move on to further assertions without defending challenges to previous assertions; stubbornly say the same thing over and over again and ignore the content of challenges; or constantly appeal to authority.
Pretty much. I always give new posters the benefit of the doubt and assume they're interested in honest discussion. It's only after they start in with the evasions, and falsehoods, and innuendos about how all scientists are deliberate frauds that I get my dander up.
I've made my position clear a thousand times: I don't care one fig what if any God(s) anyone personally believes in. But when someone starts with the lies and dishonesty in attacking the sciences they don't understand to push that religion the gloves come off.
True enough, as well as reasoned, factual arguments
DeleteYes, he often does. And others have been honest in their inquiries as well.
DeleteOf course,but being honest doesn't mean you are factual. It just makes you better person.
DeleteWhich leads to matters of intent and perception.
DeleteInteresting symbology you've posed. In this model, do you find (in a general sense) that we tend to pursue fact over honesty?
Is honesty the legendary Truth?
DeleteThat would depend upon one's perception of truth.
DeleteWe can study random mutations empirically, they do not create new information, as intelligent design hypothesis predicts.
ReplyDeleteHow exactly is that a prediction of Intelligent Design?
Actually do you even know what constitutes a "prediction" in science? By your claim above I'm guessing not.
It's the joint action of random mutation and natural selection that creates information. If a random mutation causes a butterfly to have better camouflaged than its conspecifics, and selection takes the mutation to fixation, then the genome contains new information about the butterfly's environment.
ReplyDeleteIf camouflage genes duplicate and diverge such that different versions of the original gene cause different camouflage patterns depending on, say, the time of the year (wet season vs. dry season with different vegetation), then the genes tell us something about the environments encountered by the butterfly. The genes contain information about the environment.
This can be formulated in terms of information theoretical concepts. The genes reduce uncertainty (Shannon information) about the environments encountered by the butterfly, leading to a higher mutual information between genes and environment.
Looks like I was wrong above when I said, "Shannon is concerned with information transmission." From the link above "Shannon's source coding theorem says (roughly) that a lossless compression scheme cannot compress messages, on average, to have more than one bit of entropy per bit of message." To paraphrase, the information from a fair coin toss is the most information possible per bit. This is precisely because of the 50/50 randomness. So, like the other two people I invoked above's theories, the more random a bit sequence the more information there is.
DeleteAgain, this shows Elwin Daniels' "The big basic lie about evolution is that random mutations create new information. This is easily tested, and fails the test." wrong under Shannon information as well.
Elwin, Eugen,
ReplyDeleteI just changed my computer login password to a string of 12 "H"s and "T"s generated from 12 coin tosses. Since this was randomly generated, there is zero information and you should have no problem guessing my password.
How do you remember it?
DeleteHenry Thoreau had twenty two tobacco hits tightly tucked tween two hearthstones.
ReplyDeletePlease don't hack me.
Impressive.
Deletevelikovsky
ReplyDelete"How do you remember it?"
LOL
-----
T.Cook
Thorton gives new IDCers a few free shots and then unleashes the force.
Thorton
1-What biological mechanism is selecting new information from chaos?
2- What protects cell’s core mechanisms from random variation?
3- Is only duplicated gene being affected by random changes and not the active one?
4-What is the physical-chemical barrier between active and duplicate gene?
Mon ami.
Blood types
DeleteEugen
DeleteThorton
1-What biological mechanism is selecting new information from chaos?
Define information as it refers to biological entities. If you mean what filters for the new functions provided by the changes then it's good old fashioned natural selection.
2- What protects cell’s core mechanisms from random variation?
What do you consider to be a cell's 'core mechanisms'? Generally speaking nothing 'protects' them. They're subject to having their function be altered by mutation and undergo selection pressure like everything else.
3- Is only duplicated gene being affected by random changes and not the active one?
Sometimes neither are, sometimes both are. But 50% of the time you'll have just one, and one is all it takes to create a new variation for selection to act on.
4-What is the physical-chemical barrier between active and duplicate gene?
I don't know of one. What barrier would that be?
Mon ami.
OK, I draw the line at the Frenchy stuff. :)
T.Cook
ReplyDeleteTony Cook, I can trust your links will not be shocking unlike somebody else's here.
You Italians can be trusted except to pilot the cruise ship.
lulz. How long have you been waiting for some pretext to pull that stinker of a joke out? Where'd you get Tony from? Or is it Cook that sounds Italian to you?
DeleteEugen
DeleteYou Italians can be trusted except to pilot the cruise ship.
There you go, exploiting poor Italian cruise ship captains just to make your cheap rhetorical points. You're in trouble now - just wait until Smith hears about this!
Yes. You know how Smith is, constantly condemning others for not following his point of view. That's when the (insert favorite sports metaphor for how serious this blog is about to get)
DeleteRitchie said:
ReplyDeleteI ask most evolution-deniers which invariably sends them running for cover. Perhaps you will be the first to actually step up to the mark...?
Do you accept that science absolutely must presuppose naturalism? A mere yes or no will suffice.
Didn't you just ask me this exact question a few threads ago? What's all this about him being the first to answer it?
BTW, I'd be curious in knowing what you thought of Stephen Hawkin's answer to that question.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletewgbutler -
DeleteDidn't you just ask me this exact question a few threads ago? What's all this about him being the first to answer it?
I did indeed ask it of you, and you did not answer it. You dodged. You told me I would have to agree to certain premises before you would even attempt an answer.
I would gladly take one from you now if you'd care to share it?
BTW, I'd be curious in knowing what you thought of Stephen Hawkin's answer to that question.
Hawking wasn't answering that question. At least, not in this link.
This appears to be an article quote-mining Stephen Hawking to make it sound like he admits a universe which began therefore needs a creator. In fact he was saying no such thing, as becomes abundantly clear when we read the quote in context.
He was in fact reminiscing on the state of physics in the 1960's:
"The big question in cosmology in the early 60s, was did the universe have a beginning? Many scientists were instinctively opposed to the idea, because they felt that a point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God to determine how the universe would start off. Two alternative scenarios were therefore put forward..."
Quote-mined extract in bold. We can see how, taken alone, it paints a vastly different picture to the one Prof Hawking is actually painting.
A deceitful, underhand and consciously duplicitous move on the part of Evolution News, it would seem...
Here's Prof Hawking's full speech, if you'd like to examine it in detail, btw. Paragraph in question about two fifths of the way down:
Deletehttp://www.hawking.org.uk/my-life-in-physics.html
He asked you, here but your response was a little too...nuanced(?) to be taken as a solid yes.
DeleteYou replied:
I understand that science can only study physical things and draw conclusions based on experiments in the physical universe. If there is some other part of reality that extends apart from the physical universe, science is unable to do any tests or make any conclusions about that.
I agree with this, Ritchie agreed with this. You went on..
Science can also detect physical phenomena that it is completely at a loss to plausibly explain
Then, as scientists, we shouldn't try to explain them.
(for example, the appearance of the big bang singularity, the fine tuning of the constants in physics, or the image on the Shroud of Turin). So it is possible to look at the scientific work and draw theistic friendly conclusions.
No. Not as a scientist its not. However, if you want to draw a theistic friendly conclusion because we don't have conclusive naturalistic evidence, then that is your intuition not science.
I do not agree that science must assert that reality only contains material things and therefore atheism must be true.
Who is saying this? I do not agree to this either. The scientific method only applies to material things. Similarly, hammers don't work as reading glasses. Science does not prove the non-existence of the supernatural. It is by any rational definition outside the pervue of science to disprove. Its like you don't get it, but then...
Since science is unable to look at anything other than natural phenonema, it is unable to make statements about metaphyics either way.
Ok you get it. You agree, science presupposes naturalism.
Ritchie,
DeleteYou dodged. You told me I would have to agree to certain premises before you would even attempt an answer....I would gladly take one from you now if you'd care to share it?
I did answer your question once you conceded that the Universe had a beginning and was fine tuned for life. Once I gave you an answer, I don't remember you complaining about it. In fact, you I believe your exact words were "well said" or something to to that effect.
A deceitful, underhand and consciously duplicitous move on the part of Evolution News, it would seem...
Hogwash. The article was not quote mining Hawking. Everyone knows he's an atheist, that's no big secret. His attempts to argue that a multiverse popped into existence out of nothing has been debunked by his fellow scientists (which measurements from the LHC are also bearing out)...
The article was discussing the Stephen Hawking event and the state of physics and used part of his speech to illustrate the fact that atheistic scientists often think about the divine, despite the supposed tabboo on the subject.
To be quite honest with you, the article does a great job of illustrating what I call the anti-God effect from atheistic scientists when they are confronted with powerful evidence of design in the Universe. As the article notes:
Dr. Jastrow was interviewed at the end of his long, productive career. Commenting on God and the Astronomers, he agreed that the expansion of the universe "is a remarkable thing, because it has a very strong theological flavor to it." He acknowledged that a beginning implies a creation. A self-avowed materialist and agnostic, though, he realized he "cannot accept that." As an agnostic, he knew that "if there was a beginning, a moment of creation of the universe, then there was a Creator. And a Creator is not compatible with agnosticism."
Jastrow then went on to say that he could not accept that the world was the product of chance, either -- just atoms and molecules. "So you see, I'm in a completely hopeless bind," he remarked, "and I've stayed there." His materialistic philosophy prompted him to believe that the universe can be completely described by material substances and the forces that act on them. "But I find that unsatisfactory," he said; "In fact, it makes me uneasy. I feel I'm missing something... but I will not find out what I'm missing within my lifetime."
At the end of the day, atheistic scientists are just really smart atheists. Their hearts are still hardened and their will refuses to submit to God. As the scriptures say:
1 Corinthians 2:14
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
BTW, since I have your attention, I'd be interested in your response to this video, since I remember you saying a few weeks ago that the New Testament gospels got the names of the apostles wrong.
wg -
DeleteI did answer your question once you conceded that the Universe had a beginning and was fine tuned for life.
Ah, my apologies, I've found it. Your words exactly:
I understand that science can only study physical things and draw conclusions based on experiments in the physical universe. If there is some other part of reality that extends apart from the physical universe, science is unable to do any tests or make any conclusions about that.
So, baring this in mind, it is not unscientific to prohibit using the supernatural as part of our scientific explanations. Again, do you agree?
Hogwash. The article was not quote mining Hawking.
That is exactly what it is doing. It is making it sound like Hawkings is saying, as a fact, that we would need to turn to religion for a creator of the universe. Put those exact words into the context in which he said them, and it is clear he is saying no such thing. This is as blatant and shameless a piece of quote-mining as I have seen.
Everyone knows he's an atheist, that's no big secret. His attempts to argue that a multiverse popped into existence out of nothing has been debunked by his fellow scientists
You are confused. It seems you think the multi-universe hypothesis is a work of atheism, perhaps drawn up to counter the fine tuning argument as evidence for a God.
But this is not the case. The multi-universe theory was drawn up from astro-physics. It was drawn up to explain the problem of matter being destroyed at the centre of black holes. It really had no religious origins.
Stephen Hawking IS an atheist. And the multi-universe hypothesis CAN BE used to counter the fine-tuning argument (as I'm sure it sometimes is) but these points are really rather incidental. Debunking it really is no blow at all against atheism.
As for it actually being debunked, again you are getting ahead of yourself. It fails as a theory because it has barely anything in the way of supporting (or contradictory) evidence. We just don't know enough to decide either way.
At the end of the day, atheistic scientists are just really smart atheists. Their hearts are still hardened and their will refuses to submit to God.
What do you mean? I am an atheist. Do you think I am just being stubborn? Do you think I am refusing to submit to a God (which, running by that logic, I must believe in) out of sheer pride/arrogance/hatred/spite/wickedness/something?
I am an atheist because I fail to see compelling evidence for any God or gods. My opinion of God is the same as your opinion of Santa Claus. A story. And possibly a way to get children to behave. That is all. How would you react if a committed Santa Claus believer told you you had just hardened your heart against Santa?
I'd be interested in your response to this video,
I'll give that a watch and get right back to you...
Right, just got through the video and I have to say it doesn't seem to amount to much at all.
DeleteWhat exactly is Williams saying here? It all seems to add up to 'the gospel writers were familiar with the places they were writing about'. Okay. That's not a concept I particularly have a problem with. But what does that show, exactly? Charles Dickens has lots of little details about London in the novel Oliver. Is this in any way suggestive that the story isn't fiction?
I don't particularly have a problem with the argument he makes. Do the gospels show a familiarity with Israel? Fair enough, perhaps they do. My problem is what this proves, exactly.
Williams seems to think the gospel authors were either absolutely reliable eye-witnesses or absolute frauds inventing a story and setting it miles away. There is a huge middle ground of possibilities between the two.
But the biggest problem with the lecture was that it in no way addressed the significant problems with the idea of the gospels being eye-witness testimony. He calls them 'high quality eye-witness testimony' on the basis of the frequency with which they refer to Jesus as such as opposed to 'Christ', but he offers no suggestion as to how they could then record scenes which no disciple was there to witness, such as Jesus being tempted in the wilderness, Judas meeting with the Jewish authoriaties, or Jesus' hours alone in Gathsemane.
Moreover, it is a large amount of evidence that at least three of the gospels copied directly from each other. No degree of correlation between two works should surprise us if one basically copied from the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels
It's quiet day at work, a form of super TGIF. I'm bored,Tim.
ReplyDeleteThornton said: Feel free to provide your alternate 'theory' for the history of life on Earth that explains the empirical data in a more detailed and consilient manner, has better predictive power, and is better supported with positive evidence.
ReplyDeleteWhat's stopping you?
It's called Intelligent Design
National Velour
ReplyDeleteThornton said: Feel free to provide your alternate 'theory' for the history of life on Earth that explains the empirical data in a more detailed and consilient manner, has better predictive power, and is better supported with positive evidence.
What's stopping you?
It's called Intelligent Design
OK, you have a placeholder name for your idea. Now all you need are those pesky details, like a mechanism, and a timeline, and some verified predictions, and a Designer.
Get busy.
"OK, you have a placeholder name for your idea. Now all you need are those pesky details, like a mechanism, and a timeline, and some verified predictions, and a Designer.
Delete"Get busy."
Some people are too busy to do your homework for you. Look it up yourself. You can start at PiltdownSuperman.com and jump from there.
Thorton
ReplyDeleteOK on 1,2,3, and 4.
"Define information as it refers to biological entities."
My definition would include meaning but kind of dont' feel like arguing for now.
Mein freund. :)
You know, I was thinking. I would like to hear a country song in German one day. That would be something.
This is your wish coming true.
DeleteHeh. And someone accused me of posting a link to shocking, inappropriate content. ;)
DeleteMay the wrath of FiFi be upon them
DeleteEugen ,you are one strange dude, in any language . Kudos
ReplyDeleteEugen
ReplyDelete"Define information as it refers to biological entities."
My definition would include meaning but kind of dont' feel like arguing for now.
Mein freund. :)
No worries amigo, I understand. As long as you understand that the information content of a sequence of characters and the meaning of a sequence are two very different things with two very different definitions in information theory. The two terms are not synonymous and not interchangeable.
You know, I was thinking. I would like to hear a country song in German one day. That would be something.
Be careful what you wish for. :)
LOL
ReplyDeleteCountry song in German is like a square circle!
Thanks to all, sorry for distractions.
Thornton, what is the alleged mechanism for evolution? Why can't evolutionists agree on it?
ReplyDeleteI.D states that life shows signs of being intelligently designed, such as DNA repair....but what does darwin's myth predict and why can't it be falsified???
National Velour
ReplyDeleteThornton, what is the alleged mechanism for evolution?
The basic mechanism is genetic variation (due to things like imperfect genetic replication, sexual recombination, neutral drift, horizontal gene transfer, etc) filtered by selection in organisms that maintain and accumulate heritable traits. The process has been ongoing for over 3 billion years, including over 600 million years with multi-celled animals.
What is the basic mechanism for ID?
Why can't evolutionists agree on it?
We do. Why can't IDCers agree on even the most fundamental things like a mechanism, or a timeline, or the degree of intervention, or even the number of designers?
I.D states that life shows signs of being intelligently designed, such as DNA repair
Why is DNA repair a necessarily sign of intelligent design? We have evidence that a degree of DNA self repair is an evolutionary adaptation to keep the amount of variation per generation at an optimum level.
....but what does darwin's myth predict and why can't it be falsified???
Evolution is very falsifiable, it just hasn't been falsified. Finding that the fossil phylogenetic tree grossly mismatches the genetic one would do it easily for example.
What possible observation would falsify intelligent design?
BTW, I notice you still can't give me any details at all about your intelligent design claims. Not a single one. So you've still just got just an empty placeholder of a name with ZERO added value.
What in the world is an empty placeholder name good for, scientifically speaking?
Thornton said: The basic mechanism is genetic variation (due to things like imperfect genetic replication, sexual recombination, neutral drift, horizontal gene transfer, etc
ReplyDeleteSo in other words, there IS no mechanism....it's really a free-for-all, anything goes type situation. That's what I thought. Lastly, how is the novel, genetic information created? Everything you mentioned is AFTER-the fact, so to speak. First you have to show how the new genetic information producing new traits is created.
Evolution is very falsifiable, it just hasn't been falsified. Finding that the fossil phylogenetic tree grossly mismatches the genetic one would do it easily for example.
Then consider the darwinian myth falsified:
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.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_1020151.html
National Velour
ReplyDeleteThornton said: The basic mechanism is genetic variation (due to things like imperfect genetic replication, sexual recombination, neutral drift, horizontal gene transfer, etc
So in other words, there IS no mechanism....it's really a free-for-all, anything goes type situation. That's what I thought.
I provided a relatively detailed mechanism, one that has been empirically observed to work both in the lab and in the field. You provided nothing at all for ID. Why do Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always?
Lastly, how is the novel, genetic information created? Everything you mentioned is AFTER-the fact, so to speak. First you have to show how the new genetic information producing new traits is created.
The process I just described creates new genetic information. The information comes from the populations' interaction with its environment. Troy's post above at Feb 3, 2012 06:33 AM does a good job describing it. Why do Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always?
Evolution is very falsifiable, it just hasn't been falsified. Finding that the fossil phylogenetic tree grossly mismatches the genetic one would do it easily for example.
Then consider the darwinian myth falsified:
I said a gross mismatch between the fossil and genetic trees, not a single known case of horizontal gene transfer that I already listed as a mechanism. You provided no way to falsify ID. Why do Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always?
Since you keep cowardly avoiding any mention of the details of your Intelligent Design Creation hypothesis such as a mechanism and a timeline I'm going to take it as an admission that you have none. You have no evidence, you have no details. That means you have no theory.
You are however providing a classic example of the "Creationist Liar-for-Jesus syndrome" we've just been discussing, so you've got that going for you.
Thornton said: I provided a relatively detailed mechanism, one that has been empirically observed to work both in the lab and in the field. You provided nothing at all for ID.
ReplyDeleteUmmmm, no you actually didn't. You mentioned a bunch of different ways evolutionists believe genetic information can be transferred, but you never said what mechanism produces this information.
I said a gross mismatch between the fossil and genetic trees, not a single known case of horizontal gene transfer that I already listed as a mechanism.
What's the difference? And who determined it wasn't a "gross" mismatch?
Like I said, your darwinian myth is UNfalsifiable.
Scott
ReplyDeleteFeb 4, 2012 09:44 AM
"The idea that the universe consists of natural things, which are explainable and comprehensible"
Natural things means, things that we can known by our senses.
What do you understand by explainable and comprehensible?
Blas: Natural things means, things that we can known by our senses.
ReplyDeleteAhh, you're a naive empiricist like Cornelius?
We do not directly sense bibles or electrons. So are bibles and electrons supernatural?
If by bibles you mean the books, we sense them, and in the absolute naturalistic science of Ritchie electrons do not exists. Electrons are explanations for events we sense. The events exist, not the explanations. The events that make Rutherford postulate his atomic model exist. The atomic model of Rutherfor not.
ReplyDeleteBlas: What do you understand by explainable and comprehensible?
ReplyDeleteWhat does it mean to say something is explainable and comprehensible?
Perhaps the following will illustrate the difference...
Evolutionary theory explains how the knowledge of how to build the biosphere was created. It's a form of conjecture and refutation.
As a creationist, how do you explain how the knowledge God supposedly used to build the biosphere was created?
I'm guessing you do not merely think this is unexplainable in practice, but that it's unexplainable in principle as God "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build the biosphere. This represents a barrier in that it's beyond human comprehension and problem solving.
Scott
ReplyDeleteFeb 6, 2012 12:51 PM
"What does it mean to say something is explainable and comprehensible?
Perhaps the following will illustrate the difference...
"Evolutionary theory explains how the knowledge of how to build the biosphere was created. It's a form of conjecture and refutation."
If you understand that ToE is just an explnation we can agree on that.
Blas: If by bibles you mean the books, we sense them...
ReplyDeleteWe know books exist because we sense them in what way? Why don't you explain how this actually occurs in detail?
Blas: If you understand that ToE is just an explnation we can agree on that.
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to what?
To a "fact".
DeleteFacts are not based on explanations?
DeleteNo facts are facts, observed with our senses.
DeleteExplanations are the way and why we think facts occurs.
Blas: No facts are facts, observed with our senses. Explanations are the way and why we think facts occurs.
DeleteThey are? For example, would you say that a specific lump of coal weights x number of pounds is a "fact" that we know through our senses?
From the Galilean Library entry on Theory Ladenness…
To return to examples, then, even a straightforward statement such as "this lump of coal weighs one kilogram" is riddled with theory. Whether we include inference from prior experience (i.e. that the heaviness from lifting pieces of coal is conserved over time); the apparatus required to derive weights; the physical theories upon which the instruments and concepts like weight and mass are based; other theories that determine the effect (if any) on weight at different locations; and so on; we are very far indeed from a "basic" proposition.
However, don't let me stop you. Why don't you explain how it's possible to observe facts though our senses. Please be specific.
You are putting me in the position of defending absolute naturalism when I almost agree with your quote(and I do not understand how you can say ToE is a fact is you agree with the quote) but I will try.
DeleteI would take the lump of coal and put it in a plate of a scale, then I would put a piece of iron that all agree to call number of pounds and I will check that the balance is equilibrated.
Blas: I would take the lump of coal and put it in a plate of a scale, then I would put a piece of iron that all agree to call number of pounds and I will check that the balance is equilibrated.
DeleteSo you can know how much a piece of iron weighs though your senses, but not a piece of coal?
For example, substitute "lump of coal" with "piece of iron".
To return to examples, then, even a straightforward statement such as "this piece of iron weighs one kilogram" is riddled with theory. Whether we include inference from prior experience (i.e. that the heaviness from lifting piece of iron is conserved over time); the apparatus required to derive weights; the physical theories upon which the instruments and concepts like weight and mass are based; other theories that determine the effect (if any) on weight at different locations; and so on; we are very far indeed from a "basic" proposition.
In other words, it's unclear how adding the weight of piece of iron, which is yet another theory laden observation, makes the weight of the coal a fact you "know" though your senses. In fact, shouldn't you conclude this just makes things worse by adding yet another explanation to the mix?
Again, why don't you start out by explaining how it's possible to observe facts though our senses in the first place. Please be specific.
In other words, it's unclear how adding the weight of piece of iron, (which is yet another theory laden observation) makes the weight of the coal a fact you "know" though your senses.
DeleteIn fact, shouldn't you conclude this just makes things worse by adding yet another explanation to the mix?
Again, why don't you start out by explaining how it's possible to observe facts though our senses in the first place. Please be specific.
Well you want me to go starting to the basics. I will try again.
I trough my eyes see a piece of coal.
I trough my eyes see a spring.
I hang the spring.
I put my inch on the spring and count how many times I need to put my inches to cover the lenght of the spring.
I hang a bottle to the spring
I fill half of the bottle with water, and count how many times I have to put my inch to cover the lenght of the spring.
I fill the bottle with different quantities of water and observe different number of inches I need to cover the lenght of the spring.
Same quantities of water, same time of inches, more water, more inches, less water less inches.
I change the bottle of water for the coal, and measure the how many inches I need to cover the lenght of the spring .
I take away the coal and hang again the bottlr. I start to fill the bottle until I need the same number of inches to cover the length of spring when the spring were with the coal.
Now I can say that the coal change the number of inches I need to cover the lenght of the spring as the quantitie of water I put in the bottle.
Is easy to say that I see the coal fall, the sun rise, the wood burn producing light and heat. All facts observed with my senses.
If it is not with senses how do you observe facts?
Blas,
DeleteHow do you know a particular arrangement of springs, water, inches, etc., will end up revealing the actual weight of the lump of coal? Do you know this through your senses? If so, how?
More specially….
- Do your know the accuracy of this arrangement of springs, water, inches, etc. will be conserved at at every location through your senses? (it previously worked here, so it will work the same over there, or everywhere else. )
- Do your know the accuracy will be conserved over time with your senses? (it worked the last n number of times, so it will work this time as well)
- Do you know that the light was not manipulated by advanced aliens or a supernatural being after it bouncing off these objects, but before in entered your eyes, so it only appears that a number of inches were covered, through your senses?
- Or perhaps the light made it to your eyes, but the electrical impulses it created were tampered with by a supernatural being before they reached your brain? Do you know this did not occur though your senses as well?
How do you know a supernatural being did not reduce the mass of the lump of coal, then change the laws of physics in just the right way so it appears that the coal weighs the same? Or a supernatural being modified the scale in some way so it appears to weigh the same? Can you know this didn't occur though your senses, or do you assume it's the case because you belief that God would only do that on special occasions, or that he doesn't concern himself with these sorts of matters?
In other words, all of these observations are based on a number of explanations that cannot be "known" to be true with our senses alone. They are theory laden.
As such, facts are based on explanations, not direct observations.
Scott
DeleteFeb 8, 2012 11:17 AM
"As such, facts are based on explanations, not direct observations."
And what is an explanation? What explain an explanation?
Blas: And what is an explanation? What explain an explanation?
DeleteExplanations represent some unseen state of affairs that explains the seen.
See the following TED talk by David Deutsch A new way to explain explanation.
Empiricism is inadequate because, well, scientific theories explain the seen in terms of the unseen. And the unseen, you have to admit, doesn't come to us through the senses. We don't see those nuclear reactions in stars. We don't see the origin of species. We don't see the curvature of space-time, and other universes. But we know about those things. How?
Well, the classic empiricist answer is induction. The unseen resembles the seen. But it doesn't. You know what the clinching evidence was that space-time is curved? It was a photograph, not of space-time, but of an eclipse, with a dot there rather than there. And the evidence for evolution? Some rocks and some finches. And parallel universes? Again: dots there, rather than there, on a screen. What we see, in all these cases, bears no resemblance to the reality that we conclude is responsible -- only a long chain of theoretical reasoning and interpretation connects them.
"Ah!" say creationists. "So you admit it's all interpretation. No one has ever seen evolution. We see rocks. You have your interpretation. We have ours. Yours comes from guesswork, ours from the Bible." But what creationist and empiricists both ignore is that, in that sense, no one has ever seen a bible either, that the eye only detects light, which we don't perceive. Brains only detect nerve impulses. And they don't perceive even those as what they really are, namely electrical crackles. So we perceive nothing as what it really is.
Our connection to reality is never just perception. It's always, as Karl Popper put it, theory-laden. Scientific knowledge isn't derived from anything. It's like all knowledge. It's conjectural, guesswork, tested by observation, not derived from it.
[...]
The search for hard-to-vary explanations is the origin of all progress. It's the basic regulating principle of the Enlightenment. So, in science, two false approaches blight progress. One is well known: untestable theories. But the more important one is explanationless theories. Whenever you're told that some existing statistical trend will continue, but you aren't given a hard-to-vary account of what causes that trend, you're being told a wizard did it.
[...]
That the truth consists of hard to vary assertions about reality is the most important fact about the physical world. It's a fact that is, itself, unseen, yet impossible to vary.
ScottFeb 9,
Delete2012 10:54 PM
"Explanations represent some unseen state of affairs that explains the seen."
You have two problems with that definition, 1) How I get a representation? Is it real(mean physical)?
2) How can beleive a representation of what we seen if we cannot trust in what we seen?
Blas: You have two problems with that definition, 1) How I get a representation? Is it real(mean physical)?
DeleteIt's a cloudy day. In reality, the sun is rising. However, based on our theories of geometry and optics (explanations), we do not expect to experience the sun rising. Why?
Specifically, our theory of optics explains when we should expect light to be transmitted through objects. And geometry explains that the sun would be above the clouds, that we would be below the clouds them on the earth's surface, and that the earth as a whole is rotating. All of theses things represent explanations of things *are*, in reality, which we use to determine how to interpret what we experience.
For example, we do not think the sun did not rise, just because we did not experience it rising. Do we?
Blas: 2) How can beleive a representation of what we seen if we cannot trust in what we seen?
Science is about correcting errors. That's how we create knowledge. As such, all facts are open to correction. In fact, we know that scientific theories contain errors. We expect it based on how knowledge is created. The question is where and to what degree.
To quote Richard Feynman..
[In science] The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
Blas,
What's your explanation as to how we create knowledge? Is it magic? Do we create knowledge because, that's just what God must have wanted?
Scott, you are not answering my question. How we build a representation that explain what we see? in base of what we build a teory? Are the representaion physical?
Delete"What's your explanation as to how we create knowledge? Is it magic? Do we create knowledge because, that's just what God must have wanted?"
We apply the Idea of beeing to what we perceive troguh our senses.
Blas: Scott, you are not answering my question. How we build a representation that explain what we see? in base of what we build a teory? Are the representaion physical?
DeleteI've answered your question several times. We create theories via conjecture, which we then test for errors using observations.
New observations may lead us to find existing theories lacking in their ability to explain what we observe. As such, we use conjecture to modify an existing theory or even form a completely new theory, then test them via observations.
Theories are tested by observations, not derived from them.
Blas: We apply the Idea of beeing to what we perceive troguh our senses.
But the idea of "being" doesn't come though our senses. Again, to quote Deutsch…
Empiricism is inadequate because, well, scientific theories explain the seen in terms of the unseen. And the unseen, you have to admit, doesn't come to us through the senses. We don't see those nuclear reactions in stars. We don't see the origin of species. We don't see the curvature of space-time, and other universes. But we know about those things. …
That the input from your senses actually represents a flower depends on a number of explanations which you cannot positively prove as true though your senses. We used conjecture to create explanations about what these sensory inputs represent, which we test via observation. Those that are not found to be in error are used as the basis to explain other observations, etc.
At any time, we might find observations that reveal explanations are in error. At which point, they would be reevaluated, along with explanations we've built on top of them. We would again use conjecture to either modify an existing explanation, or create an entirely new one.
This is how science works.
Blas: So according to you do not exist the concept of false theory.
DeleteI'm not clear why you think this is the case. I'm a realist, so I think there are false theories. The question is, how could we know a theory is false? Do you have an explanation as to how we could know this for certain?
All of our theories contain errors to some degree. That is, they are not exhaustively true. All we can do is continually refine them to become more accurate. But they also contain truth to some degree. For example, even the falsified theory that the earth was flat contains truth, in that when you're standing on the earth's surface it appears *as if* it was flat.
Blas: For you only exists errors in the explanation of the data gathered trough our senses.
Again, it's not that they do not exist. Rather, I'm referring to what we can know, though our senses. So, for me, all we can know is that we can find errors in our explanations by exposing them to empirical criticism (observations).
Blas: But how do you know it is an error in the explanation? It is because a data from our senses do not fit the explanation? How do you know the data do not fit?
Because the explanation either contradicts itself or it contradicts other aspects of our current, best explanations. It doesn't add up when we attempt to take it seriously as an explanation of how things *are* in reality.
Blas: One more question if for you theory of evolution is only an educated guess, we can never know if it really happened or is happening now
DeleteIt seems that Cornelius has indoctrinated you well.
First, you're assuming this is only a "problem" for evolution in particular, rater than science as a whole. However, nothing I've outlined here is specific to evolutionary theory. Rather, it's applicable in the case of all field and all scientific facts. Suggesting otherwise is view that is narrow in scope.
Second, it's not "only" an educated guess. That would only be the case if we guessed, but never bothered to test that guess via observations. In the case of evolutionary theory, we've been testing it via observations for over 150 years, across multiple disciplines, such as geology, archeology, molecular chemistry, etc. As such, saying it's "only" an educated guess indicates you do not understand my position, or you're willfully misrepresenting it.
Third, theories cannot be "happening" now, in the past or in the future. Rather, theories represent explanations as to how specific relationships been unseen things result in observed phenomena. The same things could be interacting differently, which would "look" the same, while being at odds with two or more theories.
For example, if you've only observed red sports cars, you might conclude that it's the red paint that make them go fast, rather than the engine. However, we have an explanation as to how engines make cars go fast. We do not have an expansion as to how red paint makes cars go fast. In both cases, the same cast of characters are present (engines, red paint, and moving fast) However, both theories conclude different things about the relationship between them (what is it that makes the car go fast)
We can test this by observing cars that are painted colors other than red to see if they also go fast. Since this is the case, this falsifies the red paint theory, as it was found in error by observations. However, does this mean we know that our engine theory is true via observations alone? No, it does not.
Blas: Why are you always on the side of darwinists that states that Evolution is a fact and really happened?
Again, this is a straw man that Cornelius has created of darwinists so he can attack them. However, we do not necessarily agree on what is meant by a fact, that something is true, etc.
For example, you seem to have quickly forgotten that facts are based on explanations, which are open to revision. On the other hand, you seem to think think facts are either exhaustively true, or they are false, that facts can be justified as true via observations, etc. However, we're not all justificationists, empiricists, etc.
Cornelius depends on the fact that you're not aware that we do not universally accept these definitions.
Blas: Why not on the side of CH that at least says that you need faith to affirm ToE is afact and we know that it happened?
Again, we use the unseen to explain the seen. This is no different in the case of evolutionary theory, as we cannot see the distant past either. So, Cornelius has it backwards.
We observe the biosphere evolving today. We explain those changes with how things *are* in reality, which extends to how things *were* in the past. In neither case do we claim to know these things are True, with a capital 'T' via observations.
Second, it's not "only" an educated guess. That would only be the case if we guessed, but never bothered to test that guess via observations. In the case of evolutionary theory, we've been testing it via observations for over 150 years, across multiple disciplines, such as geology, archeology, molecular chemistry, etc. As such, saying it's "only" an educated guess indicates you do not understand my position, or you're willfully misrepresenting it.
DeleteWhat change a educated guess in something more thatn that if our knoledge is based on educated guesses?
“For example, if you've only observed red sports cars, you might conclude that it's the red paint that make them go fast, rather than the engine. However, we have an explanation as to how engines make cars go fast. We do not have an expansion as to how red paint makes cars go fast. In both cases, the same cast of characters are present (engines, red paint, and moving fast) However, both theories conclude different things about the relationship between them (what is it that makes the car go fast)”
According with your premises the false of the paint theory do not make true the engine theory. What makes more than educated guesses theory of evolution?
“Third, theories cannot be "happening" now, in the past or in the future.”
Are you and darwinist that evolution happened and is happening now. According to your premises we can even know if the phisical signals reflect a reality.
“For example, you seem to have quickly forgotten that facts are based on explanations, which are open to revision. On the other hand, you seem to think think facts are either exhaustively true, or they are false, that facts can be justified as true via observations, etc. However, we're not all justificationists, empiricists, etc”
Tell this to darwinists that always insist that evolution is more than a theory, it is a fact. Tell to Thorton that ToE is an educated guess.
“We observe the biosphere evolving today. We explain those changes with how things *are* in reality, which extends to how things *were* in the past. In neither case do we claim to know these things are True, with a capital 'T' via observations.”
Here you are contradicting yor premises. According to you we do not observe, we put phisical impulses in frameworks, and instead of *are* you should use the word suppose.
Scott: As such, saying it's "only" an educated guess indicates you do not understand my position, or you're willfully misrepresenting it.
DeleteBlas: What change a educated guess in something more thatn that if our knoledge is based on educated guesses?
Blas: According with your premises the false of the paint theory do not make true the engine theory. What makes more than educated guesses theory of evolution?
What makes the engine theory more than just an educated guess? Again, I'm not suggesting that empirical observations do not play a role in this process. Rather I'm suggesting that you have this role backwards. You seem to be having difficulty with the subtle difference between the two.
Scott: “Third, theories cannot be "happening" now, in the past or in the future.”
Blas: Are you and darwinist that evolution happened and is happening now. According to your premises we can even know if the phisical signals reflect a reality.
You still seem to be confused, as I've already pointed out that signals we receive do reflect reality. Even when photons are manipulated when bounced of of a mirror, they still represent reality.
Scott “For example, you seem to have quickly forgotten that facts are based on explanations, which are open to revision."
Blas: Tell this to darwinists that always insist that evolution is more than a theory, it is a fact. Tell to Thorton that ToE is an educated guess.
Thorton doesn't think facts are open to revision? This is the straw man that Cornelius is presenting, and apparently that you've bought into.
Just because you, personally, think that saying something is a "Fact" means it's not open for revision, doesn't mean that everyone else who uses the word. "fact" does as well.
Blas: Here you are contradicting yor premises. According to you we do not observe, we put phisical impulses in frameworks, and instead of *are* you should use the word suppose.
No, I'm not. As I've explained previously, observations are theory-laden. Have you forgotten this as well?
Scott said:
Delete"Thorton doesn't think facts are open to revision? This is the straw man that Cornelius is presenting, and apparently that you've bought into. "
Well then I can think that evolution is not happening now and never happened?
Scott: Thorton doesn't think facts are open to revision? This is the straw man that Cornelius is presenting, and apparently that you've bought into.
DeleteBlas: Well then I can think that evolution is not happening now and never happened?
You can think what ever you want. However this would be a parochial view in that it's very narrow in scope. In other words, it would mean that you, yourself, do not take your own arguments seriously.
For example, you seem to be suggesting the conclusion that all facts are open to revision by future observations and the conclusion that evolution, in particular, is not happening now and never happened are the same thing. But are they?
To illustrate further, why are facts about evolution different than facts about, say gravity or the fact that I'm a sentient being, rather than merely a zombie that only appears to be sentient?
You're essentially claiming that God created the biosphere in such a way that mades evolutionary theory impossible. But this would be like claiming that God created atoms in a way that makes atomic theory impossible or that God created objects so they would move in a way that makes the theory of gravity impossible.
Why would God do this in the case of evolution, but not atoms and the motion of objects? How do you explain this? That's just what God must have wanted?
Scott said:
Delete"Science is about correcting errors. That's how we create knowledge. As such, all facts are open to correction."
Then said:
"Thorton doesn't think facts are open to revision"
Then said:
"To illustrate further, why are facts about evolution different than facts about, say gravity or the fact that I'm a sentient being, rather than merely a zombie that only appears to be sentient?"
First: be a provisional fact I understand it is true so far. Then it can be not true in the future and I´m free to guess that it will be showed wrong in the future without be considered a fool.Why my guess is worst of mine?
Second: What I understand is that according to you, our images of reality start to be guesses and at some point they became to more than guesses but not facts, or at least provisional facts that make foul if you do not beleive them.
You didn´t explain when and why this change occur.
Blas: First: be a provisional fact I understand it is true so far. Then it can be not true in the future and I´m free to guess that it will be showed wrong in the future without be considered a fool.Why my guess is worst of mine?
DeleteTake gravity, for example. Is it uniform?
Despite the fact that we have a overwhelming number of observations that suggest gravity is uniform here on earth, and in our solar system in general, this is merely a drop in the bucked compared to all the possible locations in the entire universe we haven't "observed" it. Then, consider all of the 13+ billion years we were not "observing" gravity in the past because human beings didn't exist yet.
As such, one might say that, from a statistical perspective, it's astronomically unlikely that gravity is uniform and you wouldn't be a fool for thinking so. However, if this is the case, then why isn't everyone running around in fear that gravity might not be uniform in the future?
We're not worried because we have an explanation as to why gravity would be uniform. And this explanation is also part of our explanation for time and space itself, which is what we think the entire universe is made of.
Specifically, if gravity wasn't uniform everywhere else in the universe, this would mean our theory of gravity was false. But if this is the case, in reality, then it would also effect our theory of space and time itself as they overlap and depend on each other. In other words, it's part of a hard to vary chain of explanations.
Choosing to say one is "wrong" without addressing the impact it would have everywhere else is parochial. That is, it's narrow in scope, naive, etc. So would accepting all other scientific provisional facts, while making an exception for evolution. It's parochial.
Blas: Second: What I understand is that according to you, our images of reality start to be guesses and at some point they became to more than guesses but not facts, or at least provisional facts that make foul if you do not beleive them. You didn´t explain when and why this change occur.
The transition represents part of the process of how knowledge is created.
Not only is it important that theories be falsifiable, but they should be hard to vary. So, what's important is that a conjectured theory is criticized.
Scott said:
Delete“Take gravity, for example. Is it uniform?
We're not worried because we have an explanation as to why gravity would be uniform. And this explanation is also part of our explanation for time and space itself, which is what we think the entire universe is made of.
Specifically, if gravity wasn't uniform everywhere else in the universe, this would mean our theory of gravity was false. But if this is the case, in reality, then it would also effect our theory of space and time itself as they overlap and depend on each other. In other words, it's part of a hard to vary chain of explanations.
Choosing to say one is "wrong" without addressing the impact it would have everywhere else is parochial. That is, it's narrow in scope, naive, etc.”
So, we prefer to guess the existence of the dark matter or the dark energy. Is this less scientific and less parrochial than say the gravity probably is not uniform? Is less science stopping?
Scott: “ So would accepting all other scientific provisional facts, while making an exception for evolution. It's parochial. “
What other teories depends on ToE? What changes in biology if I think ToE will be found in error?
My guess no one, nothing that we guess about biology an related sciences will be afected if ToE is found in error.
“The transition represents part of the process of how knowledge is created.”
You didn´t explain the process that transform a guess in a provisional fact. Could you be more specific?
Blas: So, we prefer to guess the existence of the dark matter or the dark energy. Is this less scientific and less parrochial than say the gravity probably is not uniform? Is less science stopping?
DeleteIf we're realists in that we take all of our best, most recent theories seriously, then yes.
The existence of dark matter is simply matter we cannot see at the moment. The alternative is that all the rest of our theories do not actually represent reality, but are merely instruments that are useful for predicting phenomena. However, this would represent an instrumentalist view, rather than realism.
Blas: What other teories depends on ToE? What changes in biology if I think ToE will be found in error?
Everything from drug therapies, agriculture, and genetic engineering, etc.
See here: here for an expanded list.
Blas: My guess no one, nothing that we guess about biology an related sciences will be afected if ToE is found in error.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we assume that genetic variation and natural selection only results in neutral to highly detrimental effects, would they not have a significant effect on the development of life? Wouldn't, at a minimum, the "designer" need to compensate for their effects?
In other words, at a minimum, wouldn't it be accurate to say that genetic variation and natural selection plays a significant role in the development of species? How does adding, a designer to this mix serve an explanatory purpose?
Blas: You didn´t explain the process that transform a guess in a provisional fact. Could you be more specific?
The guess survives criticism. If you never criticize a guess, then it never becomes a provisional fact.
If criticism is all we can do, then how else to we arrive at facts?
Do we make guess, then check those guesses against what the bible says? But how do we know what the bible says is true?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThorton asked:
ReplyDelete"Why do Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always?"
I think you already know the answer but I'll say it anyway:
They lie because it's the only way to promote and defend fairy tales as being real.
Blas: If it is not with senses how do you observe facts?
ReplyDeleteYou can't.
I can observe a flower though a stream of input coming from my senses, but I do not know it's a flower based on this stream of input alone. That this stream of input actually represents an actual flower is theory-laden, in that it depends on a number of explanations that we cannot know is true though our senses.
Then how do you know is true that there is an actual flower?
Delete< whispers in Blas' ear > the flower is you.
DeleteBlas: Then how do you know is true that there is an actual flower?
DeleteMy point here is that truth isn't something you can mechanically derive from our experiences. This is because we create knowledge by guessing about what our senses represent, testing those guesses using other observations and discarding those guesses with errors.
For example, when we remember seeing the sunrise under the same circumstances, we are ultimately relying on explanatory theories that tell us which of our experiences should be interpreted as an actual repeated phenomena in realty.
For example, if it's a cloudy day outside, we do not assume the sun did not rise that day merely because we did not observe it. Rather our theories of geometry and optics tell us we should expect to see it occur on cloudy days.
Furthermore, theory tells us if we see a sunrise reflected in a mirror, rendered in a video game or played back on a TV, this does not count as seeing the sun rise twice, in reality. As such the knowledge that an experience has been repeated isn't something that comes to us though our senses, but is based on theory.
"My point here is that truth isn't something you can mechanically derive from our experiences. This is because we create knowledge by guessing about what our senses represent, testing those guesses using other observations and discarding those guesses with errors. "
DeleteHow do you know which guess is correct?
"As such the knowledge that an experience has been repeated isn't something that comes to us though our senses, but is based on theory"
An the theory from where come from?
Blas: How do you know which guess is correct?
DeleteKnow which guess is correct though our senses? That's what I'm asking you, Blas. Please explain this process in detail.
In the absence of such an explanation, you're approaching the problem from the wrong direction. Nor can we possibility prove something is True, with a capital 'T'.
So, If we cannot prove something is true using our senses, then what can we do? We can say theory X isn't a valid explanation because it contains an error. As such we discard it.
For example, one might clam an internal combustion engine (ICE) cannot exceed 30,000 MPG because the spark plug is directly connected to the crankshaft.
However, observations tell us that not all ICEs use spark plugs. For example, diesel engines use high compression to ignite fuel, rather than a spark plug. Even then, ICEs that do have spark plugs are not directly connect to the crankshaft. As such, this theory has been found in error by observation.
So, while it might be true that a ICEs cannot exceed 30,000 MPG, we shouldn't conclude this this is "True" because the theory was found to be in error.
In other words, science is about correcting errors, not proving that something is True with a capital 'T'. This is why scientific facts are always open to revision.
Blas: An the theory from where come from?
We create theories via conjecture. That is, we make educated guesses.
Scott said:
Delete"We create theories via conjecture. That is, we make educated guesses."
Scott you sre not answering, you are moving from one word to another Theory, rapresentation, gues.
What are them?
Of what are them made?
are the physical?
If we cannot trust in our senses how can we build a theory?
In your example of the car you conclude that a theory is wrong because do not fit an observation made with your senses, how do you know that that observation is correct if you cannot relay on them?
Blas: What [is a theory]?
DeleteA theory represents an explanation as to how things interact with each other. It's a proposed state of affairs as to how things *are* in reality. This is in contrast to prediction of what we will experience.
Blas: What are they made of? Are the physical?
Creating knowledge is a form of information process, which requires computation. Computation requires a computer, and there is no known way of making a computer and storing the results (a theory), without matter and energy necessary to create them.
Blas: If we cannot trust in our senses how can we build a theory?
If we cannot justify a theory is true with our senses then how can we justify theories?
We can't. All we can do is criticize them. That's my point.
If you think we know nothing because we cannot justify theories, then you're a justificationist.
From the Wikipedia entry on Critical Rationalism….
William Warren Bartley compared critical rationalism to the very general philosophical approach to knowledge which he called "justificationism". Most justificationists do not know that they are justificationists. Justificationism is what Popper called a "subjectivist" view of truth, in which the question of whether some statement is true, is confused with the question of whether it can be justified (established, proven, verified, warranted, made well-founded, made reliable, grounded, supported, legitimated, based on evidence) in some way.
According to Bartley, some justificationists are positive about this mistake. They are naïve rationalists, and thinking that their knowledge can indeed be founded, in principle, it may be deemed certain to some degree, and rational.
Other justificationists are negative about these mistakes. They are epistemological relativists, and think (rightly, according to the critical rationalist) that you cannot find knowledge, that there is no source of epistemological absolutism. But they conclude (wrongly, according to the critical rationalist) that there is therefore no rationality, and no objective distinction to be made between the true and the false.
By dissolving justificationism itself, the critical rationalist regards knowledge and rationality, reason and science, as neither foundational nor infallible, but nevertheless does not think we must therefore all be relativists. Knowledge and truth still exist, just not in the way we thought..
Blas: In your example of the car you conclude that a theory is wrong because do not fit an observation made with your senses, how do you know that that observation is correct if you cannot relay on them?
Did I? I said the theory was found to be in error, not that it's conclusion was true or false. Specifically…
I wrote: So, while it might be true that a ICEs cannot exceed 30,000 MPG, we shouldn't conclude this this is "True" because the theory was found to be in error.
This is not the same as claiming we are justified in concluding ICEs can exceed 30,000 MPG because of these specffic observations.
I wrote: So, while it might be true that a ICEs cannot exceed 30,000 MPG, we shouldn't conclude this this is "True" because the theory was found to be in error.
DeleteTo clarify, it might be true that a ICEs cannot exceed 30,000 MPG. However, we shouldn't conclude this is the case based on this particular theory - the spark plug being connected to the crankshaft - since it was found to be in error via observations.
Again, theories are explanations about how things *are*, in reality. We cannot know a theory is True with a capital 'T'. However, we can determine that the explanation is in error, based on our current, best theories that have also not been falsified.
However, it might be that, in reality, a demon has chosen to manipulate photons that bounce off an ICE before they reach our eyes. As such, it only merely appears that diesel engines do not require spark plugs. We cannot rule this out either. However, we have no explanation as to why a demon would manipulate photons leaving ICEs, but not other objects. As such, we discard it.
This might be the case. However, this isn't a problem, so to speak, because we know all of our theories contain errors. The question is, in what area and to what degree?
Furthermore, we explain our ability to make progress, in that the truth about the physical world consists of long chains of hard to vary assertions about reality.
As such, if the demon is only changing the photons bouncing off on an ICE, but not other objects, and the universe is comprehensible, then there will be a conflict with our explanations when they overlap our explanation as to how an ICE works, in reality.
if this is the case, then these hard to vary assertions will conflict with each other when it comes to the demons illusions. Of course, the demon could manipulate our brains so that we wouldn't notice this inconsistency. However, as with above, we have no explanation as to why a demon would manipulate our brains in regards to conflict with ICEs, but not everything else.
And if a demon was manipulating our brains all the time, why would be able to explain anything at all? That's just what the demon must have wanted?
So, here we have more explanations. Let me refrase you to be sure I understand.
DeleteEach human been receive physical signals true his senses that it is supposed reflect a reality outside us.
We have no way if the signals are True reflection of the reality.
The signals are stored in a physical forms in our brains.
Our brains compute the signals and order them in a logical way to describe the reality trough images stored physically in the brain.
That images are again ordered and produce new images.
That is the process we aquire knoledge according to you?
By the way:
"Did I? I said the theory was found to be in error, not that it's conclusion was true or false. Specifically…"
Which is the difference between “found in error” and to be false?
Blas: Each human been receive physical signals true his senses that it is supposed reflect a reality outside us.
DeleteThis is realism, and I'm a realist, so Yes.
Blas: We have no way if the signals are True reflection of the reality.
We have no way of knowing that the conclusions we reach based on these signals are correct. This is because we cannot extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework. Specifically, our explanations about how things are, in reality, isn't something we receive though our senses.
For example, Newton's claim to fame is that he suggested apples falling on earth and planets orbiting in space were both caused by gravity. And we've been testing and refining this explanation ever since then. However, we cannot know this is true based on our senses. We can only try to poke holes in the theory by testing it via observations and discarding or adjusting parts that are found to be in error.
Blas: The signals are stored in a physical forms in our brains. Our brains compute the signals and order them in a logical way to describe the reality trough images stored physically in the brain.
Light bounces of an object, which enters our eyes. At which point, it is converted to electrical impulses. Yet, when you remember what something looks like, you do not "see" electrical impulses. You see a representation of these impulses as translated by our brains. What those images actually represent in, reality, is base on theory.
Signals are inputs to a process of computation. The results of this computation is knowledge, which is stored on in our brains media in a form of matter, created by energy.
So, for example, if you've used a public telephone, and you've been to the pier in San Francisco, you can dream of using a public telephone on the pier in San Francisco, despite never actually having experienced doing with your senses in reality.
Blas: That images are again ordered and produce new images.
That's the thing, they're not images until you process the electrical impulses. And even then, what they represent isn't something we know though our senses. So, we're not using images to create other images.
Blas: That is the process we aquire knoledge according to you?
No. You're approaching it from the wrong direction. We guess about what our senses represent, in reality, then test those guess via observations.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBlas: Which is the difference between “found in error” and to be false?
DeleteSee my earlier comment.
When an explanation is found in error, this represents a defect in the unseen parts of the explanation that explains the seen.
We cannot see that the explanation does not match reality though our senses. However, we can look for errors in the explanation that conflict or disagree with itself, should we take it (and all of our other best explanations) seriously as an accurate model of reality.
Well,this is confusing again you say that our images do not come from the signal of our senses, you also use terms like:
Deleteyou "process" the electrical impulse
We "guess" about what our senses represent,
then "test" those
putting them into an "explanatory framework"
Where we get an explanatory framework?
How we process the electrical impulses if it nos on base of previous images we built with other electrical impulses?
How we can start a process of guess?
"When an explanation is found in error, this represents a defect in the unseen parts of the explanation that explains the seen.
DeleteWe cannot see that the explanation does not match reality though our senses. However, we can look for errors in the explanation that conflict or disagree with itself, should we take it (and all of our other best explanations) seriously as an accurate model of reality."
So according to you do not exist the concept of false theory.
For you only exists errors in the explanation of the data gathered trough our senses.
But how do you know it is an error in the explanation? It is because a data from our senses do not fit the explanation? How do you know the data do not fit?
One more question if for you theory of evolution is only an educated guess, we can never know if it really happened or is happening now Why are you always on the side of darwinists that states that Evolution is a fact and really happened? Why not on the side of CH that at least says that you need faith to affirm ToE is afact and we know that it happened?
DeleteBlas: Well,this is confusing again you say that our images do not come from the signal of our senses, you also use terms like:
DeleteBlas, what we "see" isn't what's actually out there, in reality. This is because we do not observe objects directly. Rather, what we get though our senses ls light bouncing off objects, which is converted into electrical impulses. It's only when our brains stitch these impulses together that we see "Images". However it's impossible to create "images" that do not exist in reality by feeding signals into our brains.
For example, prosthetic eyes are being developed which use an algorithm that models how we think our retinas generates electrical impulses from incoming photons. Currently, we feed them input from the environment using video cameras. However we could also feed them input that we simply make up, which does not reflect the environment, such as 3D renderings from a computer game.
To use another example, when someone watches a TV show on a display, they see images of a person. How do we know these moving images do not represent a part of someone's soul that has been captured by the camera and somehow forced to replay the same actions and lines over and over again?
After all, this is what primitive cultures thought when the concluded taking someone's photo stole part of their soul.
Can we rule this out via observations? No we cannot. If people have souls, is this logically impossible? No.
However we do not have an explanation as to how a camera could capture someones soul. Furthermore, why would this process work across different mediums, such film, analog video, digital video, etc? We cannot say for certain this isn't true, in reality. However we should not conclude this *is* true because our best, most recent explanations about how cameras, digital signals, etc. do not explain how they could capture someone's soul and force them to re-enact the same thing over and over again. As such, I discard it.
And you discard it as well, despite the fact that you cannot know this via observations. Knowledge takes the form of explanations about how things *are*, in reality, not what we'll experience.
Blas: Where we get an explanatory framework?
We create an explanation about how it might work, in reality, via conjecture. We make an educated guess.
Let me go back to the basics.
DeleteWe agree on this:
“Each human been receive physical signals true his senses that it is supposed reflect a reality outside us.”
Then we went trough this:
“Blas: We have no way if the signals are True reflection of the reality.
We have no way of knowing that the conclusions we reach based on these signals are correct.”
Then if we have no way of knowing if the conclusions are correct, we also do not know if the signals are a reflection of the reality. (Remember it is possible someone manipulating the photons)
Then:
“Blas: The signals are stored in a physical forms in our brains. Our brains compute the signals and order them in a logical way to
describe the reality trough images stored physically in the brain.
Light bounces of an object, which enters our eyes. At which point, it is converted to electrical impulses. Yet, when you remember what something looks like, you do not "see" electrical impulses. You see a representation of these impulses as translated by our brains. What those images actually represent in, reality, is base on theory.
Signals are inputs to a process of computation. The results of this computation is knowledge, which is stored on in our brains media in a form of matter, created by energy.”
So we do not store the signals but the processed signals, converted in knowledge by computation.
Here is where I was trying to get an answwer.
How can our brain compute?
I mean the basic operation of computing are ordering, filtering and commuting. In order to perform each of this with the signals, you have to define properties on the signals in base of wich you are going to order, filter or commute the signal.
Then your brain have to define the algoritm in base of which you will order, filter or commute your signals.
How the brain can define properties on the signals?
Where the brain get the algoritms to compute?
PS: I will really appreciate if you answer my quesion about why you are in the "against CH" camp.
Blas: Then if we have no way of knowing if the conclusions are correct, we also do not know if the signals are a reflection of the reality. (Remember it is possible someone manipulating the photons)
DeleteIf someone/thing manipulated the photons before they strike our retina, wouldn't these altered photos still exist, in reality? Are they not "real" photons because they were manipulated? Wouldn't this reflect what's happening, in reality?
For example, when you look into a mirror, you do not assume that you're looking though a window into a room that's an absolute copy of the room your in, except flipped horizontally - including an second copy of you, right? The photos that hit your retina actually exist, in reality. They've just been manipulated after bouncing off you by the mirror, before they hit your retina.
Of course, it could be that someone is manipulating the electrical impulses that leave your retina. However, if this were the case, your brain would still be receiving real impulses, which exist in reality. So, in both cases, the input we receive is a "reflection" of something that is happening in reality.
Blas: How can our brain compute?
While we do not know exactly how consciousness works, our brain represents a neural network in which a great number of signals are processed in parallel.
Blas: I mean the basic operation of computing are ordering, filtering and commuting. In order to perform each of this with the signals, you have to define properties on the signals in base of which you are going to order, filter or commute the signal.
I'm not quite sure I understand your question. Are you asking where the knowledge of how to process this data was created?
Where does the information we do not receive though our senses come from, if not computation?
Blas: PS: I will really appreciate if you answer my quesion about why you are in the "against CH camp.
I did. See here and here .
“Of course, it could be that someone is manipulating the electrical impulses that leave your retina. However, if this were the case, your brain would still be receiving real impulses, which exist in reality. So, in both cases, the input we receive is a "reflection" of something that is happening in reality.”
DeleteOk, so refrasing you:
Reality is the phisical signal that reach our senses. It can exist as we receive it or could manipulated in an unseen way we cannot determine.
“While we do not know exactly how consciousness works”
So you do not have a guess how we reach knoledge.
“Where does the information we do not receive though our senses come from, if not computation?”
That it is a good question. But the word computation it is not an answwer, because to compute we need specific parameters, seem that our brain has them. Where they came from? Any guess?
A side question, everybody process the physical signals in the same way? A guess wrong for me can be right for you? Weall receive the same physical signals in the same circumpstances?
Blas: Reality is the phisical signal that reach our senses. It can exist as we receive it or could manipulated in an unseen way we cannot determine.
DeleteThere is no difference between the photons that directly bounce off of us and the photons that bounce of the mirror. We sense them both as we receive them. The question of what do their reception tell us about reality is theory-laden, in both cases.
This is what I mean when I say it's impossible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework.
Blas: How can our brain compute?
Scott: While we do not know exactly how consciousness works, our brain represents a neural network in which a great number of signals are processed in parallel.
Blas: So you do not have a guess how we reach knoledge.
Huh? First, you asked how our brains perform computations, not how computations results in consciousness. And, BTW, there are a number of theories about how our brains create consciousness using computation based on neuroscience. So, this is a non-sequitur.
Second, you don't have to know exactly how an digital calculator works to explain why pressing 2+2= results in 4. It's an example of addition, regardless if you don't know don't the details of how it was implemented, such as exactly which electron went through which transistor, or how digital systems work at all.
Scott: Where does the information we do not receive though our senses come from, if not computation?
Blas: That it is a good question. But the word computation it is not an answwer, because to compute we need specific parameters, seem that our brain has them. Where they came from? Any guess?
Again, it sounds like you asking, how was the knowledge of how to process this input data, as found in our brains, created? If so, we explain this knowledge in that it was also created via the process of conjecture and refutation.
Blas: A side question, everybody process the physical signals in the same way? A guess wrong for me can be right for you? Weall receive the same physical signals in the same circumpstances?
I'd recommend you watch the following presentations by Heny Markram on simulating the brain. They cover several discoveries about how the neurons orient, distribute and connect themselves that addresses your questions.
Henry Markram on simulating the brain — the next decisive years
Henry Markram builds a brain in a supercomputer
Scott said:
Delete“While we do not know exactly how consciousness works, our brain represents a neural network in which a great number of signals are processed in parallel. “
Nice, but that is the hardware, how we got the softwere?
Scott said:
“Second, you don't have to know exactly how an digital calculator works to explain why pressing 2+2= results in 4. It's an example of addition, regardless if you don't know don't the details of how it was implemented, such as exactly which electron went through which transistor, or how digital systems work at all.”
That´s true,better a guess that i do not found in error. But if we want to know what our knowledge mean, weneed to know how the calculator was built. We know that the calculator will give us correct answer to math operation because it was built to do it. We can then only make some checking and using it. But how we can use the knoledge we make if we do not know how and why the machine that construct it was designed and bulded? Can we relay in the computation of our brain if it is only the product of ramdom mutations?
Scott said:
"If so, we explain this knowledge in that it was also created via the process of conjecture and refutation."
What are conjecture? What are refutation? Are you bringing new words to avoid to say we do not know.
Scott:
"First, you asked how our brains perform computations, not how computations results in consciousness. And, BTW, there are a number of theories about how our brains create consciousness using computation based on neuroscience. So, this is a non-sequitur.
No, I asked how our brain perform computation, I never mentioned computation, precisely I asked where our brain got the capacity to define properties and the algoritsm to compute.
On the other side What do you mean by consciusness? Self awarness? Is it not the result of physical signals and brain computation? It is real or just another educated guess?
Blas: Nice, but that is the hardware, how we got the softwere?
DeleteThe line between hardware and software isn't nearly as black and white as it is with computers. But even then, we learn via conjecture and refutation.
Blas: But if we want to know what our knowledge mean, weneed to know how the calculator was built. We know that the calculator will give us correct answer to math operation because it was built to do it.
My point is that whether it's implemented using an abacus, our fingers, or a super computer, we explain the outcome as being the result of addition. However, it could be that a demon decided to make the calculator appear *as if* it was performing addition, but eventually change its mind next Tuesday, and display 5 when you enter 4+4= on the keypad. We cannot know this will not occur by observations alone.
Every time we use it represents an opportunity for the the theory to be falsified.
Blas: Can we relay in the computation of our brain if it is only the product of ramdom mutations?
But it's not "only" the product of random mutations. That's reductionism. We've been over this before.
Blas: What are conjecture? What are refutation? Are you bringing new words to avoid to say we do not know.
While they may be new or unfamiliar to you, I'm not using them for the sake of obscuring their meaning.
See Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery
Blas: No, I asked how our brain perform computation, I never mentioned computation, precisely I asked where our brain got the capacity to define properties and the algoritsm to compute.
We've embedded the knowledge of how to perform calculations into the computers we built. However, merely saying this knowledge was located in our heads, then moved into hardware & software, doesn't explain the origin of this knowledge.
Again, see Popper's The logic of scientific DiscoveryWe created the knowledge of how to build computers via the process of conjecture and refutation.
On the other side What do you mean by consciusness? Self awarness? Is it not the result of physical signals and brain computation? It is real or just another educated guess?
Again, this is addressed in the following video. Did you watch it?
Henry Markram builds a brain in a supercomputer
Scott: “The line between hardware and software isn't nearly as black and white as it is with computers. But even then, we learn via conjecture and refutation.”
Delete“Again, see Popper's The logic of scientific DiscoveryWe created the knowledge of how to build computers via the process of conjecture and refutation.”
You are not explainig where the algoritms for computation come from neither what do you mean by conjecture and refutation. Do you mean that the software is “built in” in our brain like the old mechanical calculators that performed basic operation based on phisical movements? I´m not interested in Popper´s answer I want to know yours.
Scott: “My point is that whether it's implemented using an abacus, our fingers, or a super computer, we explain the outcome as being the result of addition. However, it could be that a demon decided to make the calculator appear *as if* it was performing addition, but eventually change its mind next Tuesday, and display 5 when you enter 4+4= on the keypad. We cannot know this will not occur by observations alone.”
“We've embedded the knowledge of how to perform calculations into the computers we built. However, merely saying this knowledge was located in our heads, then moved into hardware & software, doesn't explain the origin of this knowledge. “
Then you are giving up to understand why we can create knoledge. You know you have a computer in your brain and you are not interested why and how we have it, and how trustable is it.
Scott: “Every time we use it represents an opportunity for the the theory to be falsified.”
Here we are still tryng to understand how we get a theory, falsification will come later.
Scott: “But it's not "only" the product of random mutations. That's reductionism. We've been over this before.”
So you agree that our capacity of computation arised by RM + NS.
Blas: You are not explainig where the algoritms for computation come from neither what do you mean by conjecture and refutation. Do you mean that the software is “built in” in our brain like the old mechanical calculators that performed basic operation based on phisical movements? I´m not interested in Popper´s answer I want to know yours.
DeleteBlas,
Conjecture and refutation represents an overall explanation for how knowledge is created. For example, when we create algorithms, we use the process of C&R. That is, we use conjecture to "guess" what the algorithm should contain, actually implement the algorithm in a computer, feed the algorithm data, then observe the results. What we end up with is the knowledge in the form of an algorithm.
The knowledge of the algorithm didn't simply get moved from one place to another, it was created though, C&R, then embedded in to the computer.
Blas: Then you are giving up to understand why we can create knoledge. You know you have a computer in your brain and you are not interested why and how we have it, and how trustable is it.
It's ID that merely claims the knowledge was previously located somewhere else, then moved here; not evolutionary theory. It's ID that doesn't explain how the knowledge was created.
Scott: “Every time we use it represents an opportunity for the the theory to be falsified.”
Blas: Here we are still tryng to understand how we get a theory, falsification will come later.
Again, theories *start out* as conjecture. It's a guess about how things are, in realty, that explain the seen.
Blas: So you agree that our capacity of computation arised by RM + NS.
RM+NS is a form of C&R. As is gene duplication+NS. As is horizontal gene transfer + NS. Along with other mechanism that represent forms of C&R that we haven't conceived of yet.
So, what I'm saying - or what the underlying theory presents - is that the knowledge necessarily for our capacity of computation was created by a form of C&R. And this form of C&R does not exhibit foresight, planning, the ability to create explanations and use them as a criteria, etc.
I wrote: So, what I'm saying - or what the underlying theory presents - is that the knowledge necessarily for our capacity of computation was created by a form of C&R. And this form of C&R does not exhibit foresight, planning, the ability to create explanations and use them as a criteria, etc.
DeleteWhat do I mean by this?
I'm a programmer. When writing an application, it's possible that randomly picking out a number of instructions would end up with the desired result. However, I can look at the resulting instructions and attempt to create an explanation as to why they would work.
If, after reviewing the randomly selected code, I could form an explanation as to why the instructions might result in the output I'm after, I might actually run the code, observe the results and compare them with the desired outcome. If it's a match, then we've created knowledge. But, if I cannot create an expiation as to how it might possibility work, I wouldn't even bother running it. I discard it as a working algorithm, a-priori.
So, in the case of people, we do not test a near infinite number of possibilities merely because they are possible, but we form explanations as a criteria to determine which possibilities we should test and which we should discard, a-priori.
Biological Darwinism uses a variation of the same process. However, the key difference is that natural processes cannot create explanations. As such, it has no criteria as to which genetic variations to test and which to discard. This is what separates how you and I create knowable and how Biological Darwinism creates knowledge.
The biosphere appears *as if* it was deigned because both people and Biological Darwinism create knowledge using variations of the this same process.
Still waiting on Thornton to tell us how novel specific, complex, genetic information is created to produce the wonderful traits life has. Sigh.
ReplyDeleteNational Velour
ReplyDeleteStill waiting on Thornton to tell us how novel specific, complex, genetic information is created to produce the wonderful traits life has. Sigh.
Still wondering why national Velour has to lie about this when the answer was already provided to him here and here in this very thread.
Still wondering when National velour will provide his details on Intelligent Design, like a mechanism, timeline, and identity of the Designer.
Still wondering why Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always.
Thornton cited Troy's answer:
ReplyDeleterandom mutation and natural selection that creates information
EXCEPT, natural selection doesn't create anything, it only helps retain something that provides an advantage in a given environment. Besides, evolutionist Lynn Margulis admitted the evidence for THAT 'theory' is missing:
The question is, is natural selection enough to explain evolution? … This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection… Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create. …
I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. …
There is no gradualism in the fossil record… ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the discontinuity.
Still waiting for that mechanism that allegedly created all the novel, complex, specific genetic
information for all the biological traits we see in life, Thornton. ;-)
National Valium
ReplyDeleteThornton cited Troy's answer:
random mutation and natural selection that creates information
EXCEPT, natural selection doesn't create anything, it only helps retain something that provides an advantage in a given environment.
That's why he said random mutation AND natural selection you lying moron. It's the combined PROCESS, not each one separately.
Still wondering when National velour will provide his details on Intelligent Design, like a mechanism, timeline, and identity of the Designer.
Still wondering why Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always.
Keep lying and making yourself look like a cowardly moron here NV. Jesus loves it.
National Velour: EXCEPT, natural aelection doesn't create anything, it only helps retain something that provides an advantage in a given environment.
ReplyDeleteNational Velour,
Why don't you start out by explaining how knowledge is created, then point out how evolutionary processes do not fit that example. Please be specific.
Thornton said: That's why he said random mutation AND natural selection you lying moron. It's the combined PROCESS, not each one separately.
ReplyDeleteAnd as I pointed out to you before, evolutionist Lynn Margulis admitted:
The question is, is natural selection enough to explain evolution? … This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection… Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create. …
I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. …
There is no gradualism in the fossil record… ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the discontinuity. …
I'm still waiting for you to show what alleged mechanism creates the novel genetic information for new traits, Thronton. ;-)
National Valium
DeleteI'm still waiting for you to show what alleged mechanism creates the novel genetic information for new traits, Thronton.
We're all still waiting for you to stop lying about what was already presented.
We're all still waiting for you to provide your details on Intelligent Design, like a mechanism, timeline, and identity of the Designer.
Looks like it's gonna be a long wait.
Why do Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always?
National Velour: I'm still waiting for you to show what alleged mechanism creates the novel genetic information for new traits, Thronton. ;-)
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm still waiting for you to [1] explain how the knowledge represented by genes was created, then [2] point out how conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection, does not fit that explanation.
Of course, if you're a creationist, you think that this knowledge has always existed, so there can be no explanation and it could have never been created over time. Rather, it's merely been moved from one place to the other.
As such, I won't be holding my breath.
Well, it looks like Thornton has egg on his face (again) after seeing his fellow evolutionist Lynn Margulis shoot down his claims about random genetic mistakes (mutations) + natural selection = miraculous biological traits. What a surprise! ;-)
ReplyDeleteNational Valium
ReplyDeleteWell, it looks like Thornton has egg on his face (again) after seeing his fellow evolutionist Lynn Margulis shoot down his claims about random genetic mistakes (mutations) + natural selection = miraculous biological traits. What a surprise!
Looks like National Valium got caught in his blatant lie, claiming that no one explained where the 'information' in organisms comes from.
Looks like National Valium is going to be too cowardly to ever provide his details on Intelligent Design, like a mechanism, timeline, and identity of the Designer.
Why do Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always?
BTW, if anyone wants to see the whole interview with Lynn Margulis that the lying scum National Valium quote-mined, it is here.
ReplyDeleteDiscover Interview: Lynn Margulis
Notice how the lying scum National Valium has taken individual, out-of-context sentences from different answers and pasted them together to make it look like one statement.
That's exactly why lying Creationist scum like National Valium here will never got anywhere in the scientific world.
Why do Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always?
What did I take out of context, Thornton? Margulis said what she said, and it's pretty hard to take THIS out of context:
DeleteThe question is, is natural selection enough to explain evolution? … This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists:
They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection… Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create. …
I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. …
There is no gradualism in the fossil record… ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the discontinuity.
You're just angry because your darwinian myth have been exposed as a fraud by your own fellow evolutionist.
National Valium
DeleteWhat did I take out of context, Thornton? Margulis said what she said, and it's pretty hard to take THIS out of context:
You took her whole argument out of context you quote mining liar. Margulis isn't arguing for intelligent design. She's stating her personal belief that evolutionary changes occurred through her own pet hypothesis of symbiogenesis:
Interviewer: "You claim that the primary mechanism of evolution is not mutation but symbiogenesis, in which new species emerge through the symbiotic relationship between two or more kinds of organisms. How does that work?
Margulis: "All visible organisms are products of symbiogenesis, without exception."
So she's offering another purely naturalistic method for evolution It was a fringe view that she was unable to support and that is almost universally rejected by mainstream science.
She also thinks people like you Idiots have nothing to offer
Margulis: "The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or “God did it.” They have no alternatives that are scientific."
Do you really want to argue Margulis' position you quote-mining liar?
Why do Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always?
Thornton, where did I say Margulis was arguing for I.D???? I specifically stated she was one of your fellow evolutionists, didn't I?
ReplyDeletePlease learn to read before you call people 'liars' Not once did I say she was an I.D supporter.
You tried to claim the mechanism for creating novel genetic information to produce the wonderful traits of life came about by random mutations + natural selection(aka darwin's myth.) I then showed you even your fellow EVOLUTIONIST Margulis admitted:
The question is, is natural selection enough to explain evolution? … This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection… Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create. …
I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. …
There is no gradualism in the fossil record… ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the discontinuity.
So, any chance of telling us what mythical mechanism created the wonderful traits of life by pure random chance (that hasn't been exposed as lacking evidence by Margulis)? ;-)
National Valium
ReplyDeleteYou tried to claim the mechanism for creating novel genetic information to produce the wonderful traits of life came about by random mutations + natural selection(aka darwin's myth.) I then showed you even your fellow EVOLUTIONIST Margulis admitted:
Margulis didn't 'admit' anything. She was offering her own unsupported opinion about another naturalistic hypothesis, her own "symbiogenesis" one.
You quote-mined the crap out of an interview to give a deliberately false impression of what Margulis was arguing. That's lying in anyone's book.
Why do Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always?
BTW, I'll also note after all this dishonest quote-mining by you that you're still too cowardly to provide your details on Intelligent Design, like a mechanism, timeline, and identity of the Designer.
Do you have anything to add besides your childish attempts to cover your dishonesty?
Margulis admitted the evidence for darwin's myth was lacking, so why are you lying Thornton? BTW, I'll take your silence on the fact I never said Margulis was an I.D advocate as your way of apologizing to me.
DeleteAnytime you wish to tell us how novel genetic information was created which produced the wonderful traits of life, be my guest.
National Valium, liar for Jesus
ReplyDeleteMargulis admitted the evidence for darwin's myth was lacking,
Of course she didn't liar. I already explained what she actually said.
I'll take your lack of rebuttal as an admission of your lying.
Anytime you wish to tell us how novel genetic information was created which produced the wonderful traits of life, be my guest.
You were already provided the answer at least three times but choose to ignore it and lie about it. The answer is still here in this thread for all to see. Looks like I was right, you have nothing to add besides your childish attempts to cover your dishonesty.
Why do Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always?
BTW liar, you're still too cowardly to provide your details on Intelligent Design, like a mechanism, timeline, and identity of the Designer.
Thornton, you don't have to 'explain' (aka spin it to lessen the damage to your darwinian myth)what she said. Margulis' words are quite clear:
ReplyDeleteThe question is, is natural selection enough to explain evolution? … This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection… Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create. …
I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. …
There is no gradualism in the fossil record… ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the discontinuity.
Why would she say that if darwin's myth had that 'mountain of evidence' we keep hearing about?
And we're all still waiting for you to tell us what mythical mechanism created the wonderful traits of life by pure random chance and that hasn't been exposed as lacking evidence by Margulis?
National Valium
ReplyDelete(snip the same repeated quote-mined lies and blithering)
Yep, you've got nothing to add besides your childish attempts to cover your dishonesty. Now you've gone into baby mode, just mindlessly repeating the same lies. Yawn.
Why do Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always?
BTW liar, you're still too cowardly to provide your details on Intelligent Design, like a mechanism, timeline, and identity of the Designer.
And we're all STILL waiting for Thornton to tell us what mythical mechanism created the wonderful traits of life by pure random chance and that hasn't been exposed as lacking evidence by Margulis.
ReplyDeleteNational Valium the liar for Jesus
ReplyDeleteAnd we're all STILL waiting for Thornton to tell us what mythical mechanism created the wonderful traits of life by pure random chance and that hasn't been exposed as lacking evidence by Margulis.
And we're all STILL waiting for National Valium to stop lying about things that were already answered at least three times.
We're all STILL waiting for National Valium to stop the childish attempts to cover his dishonesty. Now he's gone into baby mode, just mindlessly repeating the same lies. Yawn.
We're all STILL waiting for National Valium to provide his details on Intelligent Design, like a mechanism, timeline, and identity of the Designer.
Why do Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always?
Gee, I wonder why Thornton can't tell us what mythical mechanism allegedly created the wonderful traits of life by pure random chance, AND hasn't been exposed as lacking evidence by Margulis? ;-)
ReplyDeleteNational Valium the liar for Jesus
ReplyDeleteGee, I wonder why Thornton can't tell us what mythical mechanism allegedly created the wonderful traits of life by pure random chance, AND hasn't been exposed as lacking evidence by Margulis?
Gee, I wonder why National Valium can't stop lying about things that were already answered at least three times?
Gee, I wonder why National Valium can't stop the childish attempts to cover his dishonesty. Now he's gone into baby mode, just mindlessly repeating the same lies. Yawn.
Gee, I wonder why National Valium can't provide his details on Intelligent Design, like a mechanism, timeline, and identity of the Designer.
Why do Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always?
Don't worry folks. The little liar for Jesus will cry himself to sleep eventually.
And Thornton still can't produce the mythical mechanism for his darwnian myth...what a surprise! ;-)
ReplyDeleteNational Valium the liar for Jesus
ReplyDeleteAnd Thornton still can't produce the mythical mechanism for his darwnian myth...what a surprise!
And National Valium the liar for Jesus can't stop lying about things that were already answered at least three times...what a surprise!
Why do Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always?
It sure is fun making this little liar dance. Dance little liar dance! I'm just curious to see how long I can keep the baby crying.
Still waiting for you to produce that mythical mechanism, Thornton. ;-)
ReplyDeleteDance little liar for Jesus, dance!
ReplyDeleteWhy do Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always?
We're still waiting Thornton. ;-)
ReplyDeleteWe're still waiting for you to stop lying Valium.
ReplyDeleteSee kids.... push a darwinist to produce the alleged mechanism for their myth, and they will dodge it like a cat in the rain. ;-)
ReplyDeleteSee adults...put a Creationist in front of a keyboard and he'll lie his butt off every time.
ReplyDeleteWhy do Creationists always have to resort to lying when pushing their agenda, always?
keep dodging Thornton...you're sweating buckets. ;-)
DeleteNational,
ReplyDeleteWe've already provided a mechanism. You're the one dogging the issue by refusing to criticize it.
Specifically, I'm still waiting for you to [1] explain how the knowledge represented by the genome was created and, [2] point out how conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection, does not fit that explanation.
Scott, please tell me what the mechanism is (that hasn't been exposed by peeps like Margulis)
ReplyDeleteApparently, a recap is needed.
ReplyDeleteNational Velour: Still waiting on Thornton to tell us how novel specific, complex, genetic information is created to produce the wonderful traits life has. Sigh.
National Velour: EXCEPT, natural aelection doesn't create anything, it only helps retain something that provides an advantage in a given environment.
Of course, that natural selection does this on it's own is a misrepresentation of evolutionary theory.
At which point, I ask National Velour to enlighten us as to how knowledge *is* created, and why evolutionary process do not fit that explanation, in hope of shedding some light on the question.
Scott: Why don't you start out by explaining how knowledge is created, then point out how evolutionary processes do not fit that example. Please be specific.
What do we get instead? National Velour quote mines someone else making the same misrepresentation.
Quote: Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.
So, I repeat my question, in hope that National Velour will actually answer it, rather than dodge it, yet again...
Scott: Specifically, I'm still waiting for you to [1] explain how the knowledge represented by the genome was created and, [2] point out how conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection, does not fit that explanation.
And what do I get? More of the same.
National Velour: Scott, please tell me what the mechanism is (that hasn't been exposed by peeps like Margulis)
Again, the underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory is that the knowledge in the genome is created by a form of conjecture and refutation. Specifically, conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection. This is the mechanism I'm referring to.
However, National Velour keep running away when I actually ask him to criticize this explanation.
Does he not have an explanation for how knowledge is created? Is he refusing to disclose his explanation? Or perhaps he holds the presupposition that this knowledge has always existed?
In other words, it's unlearn how NV knows evolutionary theory doesn't fit the explanation of how knowledge is created, when he refuses to disclose that explanation in the first place.
Let me guess, only people create knowledge because that's how a magic man decided it ought to be? And since evolutionary processes are not people, then it couldn't have created knowledge?
Or perhaps, the designer "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build the biosphere, already present. Therefore, evolutionary process couldn't have created this knowledge because it has always existed?
Correction: In other words, it's unclear how NV knows evolutionary theory doesn't fit the explanation of how knowledge is created, when he refuses to disclose that explanation in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteScott, if everything is just the result of trillions of mindless/random etc accidents, why would you believe YOU would be capable of understanding the cause? In other words, the effect is not greater than the cause. If you are just the product of non-living matter somehow magically coming to life by purely naturalistic means and defying the law of biogenesis, why trust your brain to be any better than the original non-living matter you believe you came from???
ReplyDeleteBack to my question:
What mechanism is creating the complex biological traits we see around us??
National Velour: Scott, if everything is just the result of trillions of mindless/random etc accidents, why would you believe YOU would be capable of understanding the cause?
ReplyDeleteFirst, this is simply more of the same misrepresentation we've seen in your previous comments.
Second, this is why I keep asking you to [1] explain how knowledge is created and, [2] point out how conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection, does not fit that explanation.
Again, please be specific.
National: In other words, the effect is not greater than the cause.
And the cause of the designer is greater than the designer?
National: If you are just the product of non-living matter somehow magically coming to life by purely naturalistic means and defying the law of biogenesis, why trust your brain to be any better than the original non-living matter you believe you came from???
Unless knowledge has always existed, the creation of knowledge is magic?
Magic would be the spontaneous creation of knowledge. However, I've offered an explanation for how this knowledge was created. The assumption that the knowledge has always existed serves no explanatory purpose. You might as well have said organisms "just appeared" compete with the knowledge of how to build themselves, already present.
National: What mechanism is creating the complex biological traits we see around us??
Conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection.
What is your criticism of this explanation? Do you even have any?
So, Scott won't tell us what mechanism is creating the complex biological traits we see around us...I rest my case.
ReplyDeleteNational Velour: So, Scott won't tell us what mechanism is creating the complex biological traits we see around us...I rest my case.
ReplyDeleteYou mean, Scott won't tell us what you know to be the true mechanism, right?
Otherwise, this is the equivalent of me having written…
So, National Velour hasn't posted any comments on this thread...I rest my case?
... because I have presented an explanation, which you keep misrepresenting.
Nor have you [1] explained how the knowledge represented by the genome was created and, [2] point out how conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection, does not fit that explanation.
So, when you have no argument, your response is to misrepresent, ignore and even deny arguments you disagree with, then claim you've won?
We were told that random mutation + natural selection could produce miraculous biological traits such as eyes, respiratory system, etc. We replied that there was no evidence for said claims. Now, even evolutionists like Lynn Margulis have come out and admitted the evidence for darwinism is lacking.
ReplyDeleteSo, what else have you got Scott?
National, you're making my argument for me.
ReplyDeleteScott: So, when you have no argument, your response is to misrepresent, ignore and even deny arguments you disagree with, then claim you've won?
National Velour: We were told that random mutation + natural selection could produce miraculous biological traits such as eyes, respiratory system, etc. We replied that there was no evidence for said claims.
That there is "no evidence" is denial and misrepresentation.
From an NCSE article What did Karl Popper really say about Evolution
What Popper calls the historical sciences do not make predictions about long past unique events (postdictions), which obviously would not be testable. (Several recent authors—including Stephen Jay Gould in Discover, July 1982—make this mistake.) These sciences make hypotheses involving past events which must predict (that is, have logical consequences) for the present state of the system in question. Here the testing procedure takes for granted the general laws and theories and is testing the specific conditions (or initial conditions, as Popper usually calls them) that held for the system.
A scientist, on the basis of much comparative anatomy and physiology, might hypothesize that, in the distant past, mammals evolved from reptiles. This would have testable consequences for the present state of the system (earth's surface with the geological strata in it and the animal and plant species living on it) in the form of reptile-mammal transition fossils that should exist, in addition to other necessary features of the DNA, developmental systems, and so forth, of the present-day reptiles and mammals.
So, clearly, there is overwhelming evidence for evolutionary theory.
National Velour: Now, even evolutionists like Lynn Margulis have come out and admitted the evidence for darwinism is lacking.
Which is misrepresentation and/or ignorance.
Even if Lynn Margulis' theory was correct, it doesn't falsify evolutions' underlying theory that the knowledge of how to build the biosphere was created by conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection.
This is because theories explain how things *are* in reality, not what we would have experienced, in the distance past. The specific features of each organism that makes it's symbiotic relationships successful required knowable to build. Specifically, Margulis wasn't claiming this knowledge had always existed or was purposely orchestrated with the foreknowledge it would result in successful symbiotic relationships.
So, what else do you have, National?
Scott: Nor have you [1] explained how the knowledge represented by the genome was created and, [2] point out how conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection, does not fit that explanation.
ReplyDeleteNational Velour: [no response yet again]
Which represents ignoring my argument.
That's lovely Scott...I know what the CLAIMS of darwinists are, I'm now asking you to tell us what alleged mechanism produced the wonderful, biological, complex traits we see around us (and that hasn't been exposed as lacking evidence by evolutionist Margulis and others)
ReplyDeleteCongratulation Scott. You've now got the immature little punk National Valium chasing you around, lying about the same question that was already answered multiple times.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry. The little baby will cry himself to sleep eventually.
National Velour: That's lovely Scott...I know what the CLAIMS of darwinists are […]
ReplyDeleteExcept you keep illustrating that you do not. Nor do you have any criticism of my previous comment.
For example, are you suggesting Darwinists claim something other than contained in the NCSE quote, and there isn't any evidence for what they do claim?
Or perhaps you're denying there would be necessarily, testable consequences for the present state of the system as described in the quote, or that these testable consequence were observed?
I can't tell because you're not actually criticizing the details of the theory. Rather, it's just more of the same misrepresentation, denial and ignoring we've seen here all along.
National Velour: [...] I'm now asking you to tell us what alleged mechanism produced the wonderful, biological, complex traits we see around us (and that hasn't been exposed as lacking evidence by evolutionist Margulis and others)
Except, Margulis doesn't contradict evolutionary theory as a form of C&R. If you think otherwise, then you've again illustrated that you do not understand evolutionary theory.
Again, any specific features useful in forming symbiotic relationships would require knowledge to build. However, Margulis did not claim this knowledge had always existed or was purposely orchestrated with the foreknowledge it would result in successful symbiotic relationships.
It's not ID. Nor does it falsify evolutionary theory. It's just hand waving.
Of course, feel free to point out, in detail, how it does. I won't be holding my breath.
And on the subject of ignoring…
Scott: Nor have you [1] explained how the knowledge represented by the genome was created and, [2] point out how conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection, does not fit that explanation.
I'd also note: It's not that you have provided an answer to my questions, which I've continually failed to criticize or refused to accept; you've simply ignored the questions completely.
In fact, you've yet to acknowledge the questions were posed to you at all. Period.
Again, it's unclear how you know evolutionary theory *doesn't* fit the explanation of how knowledge is created, when you refuses to disclose an explanation for how knowledge *is* created in the first place.
Scott said:
ReplyDeleteFor example, are you suggesting Darwinists claim something other than contained in the NCSE quote, and there isn't any evidence for what they do claim?
Yes...she clearly states there's no gradualism in the fossil record.
All I'm asking is for you to provide the alleged mechanism that allegedly produced the complex biological traits. That's it. If you can't even define the 'theory' of evolution and produce the evidence for it, how can you claim it as fact?
Except, Margulis doesn't contradict evolutionary theory as a form of C&R. If you think otherwise, then you've again illustrated that you do not understand evolutionary theory.
I stated she was an evolutionist, didn't I? Thus showing that she obviously believes in evolution. It's one of the reasons her comments are so damning to darwinists. You can't claim she's a creationist or I.D proponent and biased against evolution. She's an evolutionist.
The point you keep missing is that we were (and still are) told that there's a 'mountain of evidence' for the darwinian myth. For years, creationists and I.D proponents have stated otherwise and have asked to see this alleged evidence, or the name of the scientist(s) who allegedly moved darwin's myth from hypothetical to factual and what experiment(s) they used to do so.
None was given. We are required to first ACCEPT the darwinian myth as a fact, then interpret everything with that assumption firmly in place.
The interesting fact is, Darwin's own brother Erasmus (inadvertently) exposed this a long time ago:
"In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling."
(Erasmus Darwin, in a letter to his brother Charles, after reading his new book, "The Origin of Species," in Darwin F., ed., "The Life of Charles Darwin," [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p215)
NOW, we finally have evolutionists admitting darwinism is lacking and even going so far (as Margulis did) to admit there's no evidence for it.
Here's what she said:
The question is, is natural selection enough to explain evolution? … This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection… Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create. …
I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. …
There is no gradualism in the fossil record… ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the discontinuity. …
Now, here's the $64,000 question Scott:
If darwin's 'theory' has a 'mountain of evidence' as darwinists like to claim but can never produce, WHY would evolutionist Margulis admit it doesn't?
National Valium
DeleteYes...she clearly states there's no gradualism in the fossil record.
And not being a paleontologist she was also clearly wrong.
Margulis did exceptional scientific work early in here career in describing the evolution of eukaryotes, and her endosymbiotic theory is widely accepted as the origin of certain organisms. Sadly, in her later years she also went off the rails and became enamored with symbiosis as the explanation for everything in biology. She made a lot of enemies in mainstream science with her nonsensical unsupported claims, like the ones you quote mined from her interview. She also drew much scorn for becoming an HIV/AIDS denier.
Bottom line is that her opinions on evolution that you cite have been almost universally rejected due to lack of evidence. That you try to paint her as some of approved spokesperson for all of science who "admitted" evolution is wrong is the height of dishonesty.
You have been shown lots of evidence that directly contradicts your and Margulis' claims. You have had explained to you multiple times the source of new biological novelties - the process of genetic variation and heritability as shaped by the selection pressures of the environment.
We can't help it if all you can do is lie about and ignore the evidence.
National Velour: Yes...she clearly states there's no gradualism in the fossil record.
ReplyDeleteDoes one clearly stating "pigs can fly" make it true? Arguing that something is true because X said so, rather than presenting an argument, represents justificationism.
National Velour: All I'm asking is for you to provide the alleged mechanism that allegedly produced the complex biological traits. That's it. If you can't even define the 'theory' of evolution and produce the evidence for it, how can you claim it as fact?
And all I'm asking is for you to post at least one comment on this thread. However, since you can't even compose a single sentence, how can you show evolution is false? Does that about cover it?
Scott: Except, Margulis doesn't contradict evolutionary theory as a form of C&R. If you think otherwise, then you've again illustrated that you do not understand evolutionary theory.
National Velour: I stated she was an evolutionist, didn't I? Thus showing that she obviously believes in evolution. It's one of the reasons her comments are so damning to darwinists. You can't claim she's a creationist or I.D proponent and biased against evolution. She's an evolutionist.
Huh? If anyone has bought into "the darwin myth", it's you, as you seem to be attacking a straw man of evolutionary theory, based on a "myth" created by creationists.
To use an analogy, imagine Margulis claimed we do not observe addition and division, but rather only multiplication. However, even if this was true, all of these things fall under the same umbrella of mathematics. This would not falsify an underlying explanation that mathematics was at work. It's merely hand waving or ignorance.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, what's ironic about creationism is that it's actually anti-creation. That is, the underlying assumption behind creationism is that the knowledge of how to build the biosphere wasn't created, but has always existed. Knowledge was previously located there, was moved here.
On the other hand, the underlying assumption behind evolutionary theory is that the knowledge used to build the specific biological adaptations we observe was created by a variation of conjecture and refutation (C&R). This is a hard to vary explanation, as I've pointed out above.
For example, if the order in which biological adaptations appeared was most complex to least complex, evolutions explanation that the knowledge used to build these adaptations was C&R has no where to go. There is no way to easily vary any form of C&R to explain this order equally well. It's a hard to vary explanation.
If this knowledge ended up being created faster than we expected, but still explainable by C&R, does not falsify evolutionary theory.
This is because scientific theories are not prophecy. They do not predict what we'll experience in the future. They only way this would be possible is if one could account for an infinite number of parallel but unrelated possibilities that would effect the outcome. That's would be prophecy via divine revelation. Rather, predictions of scientific theories are based on explanations of how things *are* in reality. Along with our best explanations about everything else at the time.
Ih other words, they assume that our explanations about everything else, which could effect the subject at hand and, as a result, what we experience in the future, will remain the same. However, this isn't always necessary the case.
For example, whether we "experience" neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light depends on our best, current explanation of how the Global Positioning system works. And our explanation for the GPS depends on our explanations of the variance of the passage of time between objects on the earth's surface and objects orbiting the earth at roughly 14,000 km. When our explanation about how the passage of time is clarified or changed, so does the distance we conclude that neutrinos travel when measured via GPS. And when this distance changes, so does the speed that we "experience" neutrinos traveling.
National Velour: If darwin's 'theory' has a 'mountain of evidence' as darwinists like to claim but can never produce, WHY would evolutionist Margulis admit it doesn't?
Admit or conclude? Apparently, neither you, or Margulis understand the underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory.
And, let's not forget, you still haven't even acknowledged the questions I've asked you. At all. Period.
ReplyDeleteBetter to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt?
Scott said:
ReplyDeleteDoes one clearly stating "pigs can fly" make it true? Arguing that something is true because X said so, rather than presenting an argument, represents justificationism.
Now you know why we reject darwinism.
Anyway, even Stephen Gould admitted we didn't see the gradualism we SHOULD be seeing if the darwinian myth were true, which is why punctuated equilibrium came into play. IN other words: The evidence doesn't support the darwinian myth.
Now Scott, as you pointed out earlier, simply making a claim is not evidence. However, Margulis can't produce what isn't there (especially now, R.I.P)...it's up to YOU and your fellow darwinists to produce the evidence for your myth. So, once again I ask:
Please name/provide the alleged mechanism that allegedly produced the complex biological traits. That's it.
We know random mutation + natural selection couldn't do it...so what allegedly DID?
National Valium
ReplyDeleteNow you know why we reject darwinism.
Because of your religious teachings combined with pitiful scientific ignorance. Yes, we do know.
Please name/provide the alleged mechanism that allegedly produced the complex biological traits. That's it.
It's genetic variations in populations that retain heritable traits as shaped by the selection pressures of the environment. The same answer as the last six times you asked the question.
We know random mutation + natural selection couldn't do it
We don't know "random mutation + natural selection couldn't do it". We know that was Margulis' unsupported personal opinion, an opinion that is virtually universally rejected by the scientific community for its lack of evidence.
Do you ever do anything besides quote-mine, lie, and argue from authority?
National, you keep repaying the same initial argument, while you refuse to address mine.
ReplyDeleteFor example..
Scott:To use an analogy, imagine Margulis claimed we do not observe addition and division, but rather only multiplication. However, even if this was true, all of these things fall under the same umbrella of mathematics. This would not falsify an underlying explanation that mathematics was at work. It's merely hand waving or ignorance.
And what is your response? You merely repeat the same thing, yet again, without even acknowledging it. At all.
Also, From the NCSE article.
What Popper calls the historical sciences do not make predictions about long past unique events (postdictions), which obviously would not be testable. (Several recent authors—including Stephen Jay Gould in Discover, July 1982—make this mistake.) These sciences make hypotheses involving past events which must predict (that is, have logical consequences) for the present state of the system in question. Here the testing procedure takes for granted the general laws and theories and is testing the specific conditions (or initial conditions, as Popper usually calls them) that held for the system.
In other words, not only do not understand evolutionary theory, the means by which you attempt to evaluation it's predictions are backwards.
You're attempting to evaluate evolutionary theory based on predictions it made in the past, which were in part based on explanations for state of the system, not in the present, but the state of the system when the predictions were made, which is in the past.
Why would you expect these predictions to hold?
Are you an instrumentalist? Where do you put divine revelation in the traditional hierarchy of deduction, induction and philosophy?
Scott said:
ReplyDeleteNational, you keep repaying the same initial argument, while you refuse to address mine.
Because you're trying to sidetrack the issue, Scott. We were (are) told that there's a mountain of evidence for darwin's myth, yet even your fellow evolutionist (Margulsi) admitted the evidence for it was lacking. Why would she say that unless it were true? Like I said before, she's an evolutionist, so why would she say that?
For example..
Scott:To use an analogy, imagine Margulis claimed we do not observe addition and division, but rather only multiplication. However, even if this was true, all of these things fall under the same umbrella of mathematics. This would not falsify an underlying explanation that mathematics was at work. It's merely hand waving or ignorance.And what is your response? You merely repeat the same thing, yet again, without even acknowledging it. At all.
You keep missing the point, Scott. Margulis is not denying she believes in evolution, (which would be analagous to mathematics in your example) She's admitting the evidence for darwinism is not there.
The reason I keep asking you what evolutionary mechanism allegedly produced all the biological traits is because were were (are) told that darwin's myth is a fact. However, more and more evolutionists are admitting that the theory is lacking (to say the least) and Margulis went so far as to admit she looked for the evidence for it, and didn't find any.
Darwinism is not an empirical scientific theory, it's a faith-based worldview. If darwinisn is a fact, as many claim, why didn't Margulis see the evidence for it? Why can't darwinists produce this evidence? It's all smoke and mirrors, which is why the 'theory' has to be protected from scientific scrutiny...see "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"
National Valium
DeleteBecause you're trying to sidetrack the issue, Scott. We were (are) told that there's a mountain of evidence for darwin's myth, yet even your fellow evolutionist (Margulsi) admitted the evidence for it was lacking.
Why do you keep lying about this? Margulis didn't admit anything. Margulis offered her own unsupported personal opinions. She was not speaking for the scientific community and was certainly not in a position to "admit" anything.
Why would she say that unless it were true? Like I said before, she's an evolutionist, so why would she say that
Margulis also said there's no connection between HIV and AIDS. Do you think that's true merely because she said it?
Margulis had her extremely fringe opinions on evolutionary theory because was a fallible human being. Sadly she became so enamored with her "symbiosis" idea that it clouded her critical thinking skills. Such personal biases are not unknown among otherwise brilliant scientific minds. That's why we have critical peer review, to do our best to ensure personal biases don't sway the results.
Now please, stop the lying about Margulis. Your question about the origin of biological traits has been answered.
Why can't darwinists produce this evidence?
Big summary of the evidence for common descent
There, it's been produced. Read it, ALL of it. Come back and ask intelligent questions if you can.
National Velour: You keep missing the point, Scott. Margulis is not denying she believes in evolution, (which would be analagous to mathematics in your example) She's admitting the evidence for darwinism is not there.
ReplyDeleteHuh? In my analogy, Darwinism is mathematics, not division. Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the claim that we didn't see addition or division, seeing nothing but multiplication still would be mathematics.
Again, the key difference between biological Darwinism and Lamarckism / creationism hinges on the creation of knowledge via conjecture and refutation vs the spontaneous generation of knowledge and/or the assumption that knowledge always having had existed. These represent the underlying explanations behind their predictions.
For example, if you did more than quote mine Margulis' interview, you'd know she claims that evolution occurs due to symbiosis. However, any features of biological organisms beneficial for symbiosis require knowledge to build. As such, the question becomes: did this knowledge spontaneously appear, had always existed or was it created by C&R?
There's nothing in Margulis' interview that suggests she thinks this knowledge was the result of spontaneous generation, as Lamarck suggested, or that it had always existed, as creationist suggest. As such, it's not in opposition to biological darwinism.
National Velour: The reason I keep asking you what evolutionary mechanism allegedly produced all the biological traits is because were were (are) told that darwin's myth is a fact. However, more and more evolutionists are admitting that the theory is lacking (to say the least) and Margulis went so far as to admit she looked for the evidence for it, and didn't find any.
I've already provided the explanation. The knowledge of how to build the biological adaptations we observe was created by conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection.
Are you claiming Margulis didn't find evidence that the knowledge used to build the adaptations used in symbiotic relationships was created by C&R? Was that even a question she was asking? It's not clear this is the case. Unless these organisms intelligently and intentionally decided to create symbiotic relationships, the eventual resulting adaptations were a form of C&R.
Again, so far you've provided no criticism of C&R, as you've confused a specific mechanism or prediction for the underlying explanation behind darwinism.
National Velour: Darwinism is not an empirical scientific theory, it's a faith-based worldview.
You mean the "myth" of Darwinism you've created? Or perhaps the "myth" of Darwinism you've fell for hook line and sinker. Nor have you addressed the details of the NSCE quote.
And let's not forget, you still haven't even *acknowledged* the question I asked. At all. Period. I'll repeat it here for your convenience.
Why don't you start out by explaining how knowledge *is* created, then point out how biological Darwinism doesn't fit this example. Please be specific.
I wrote: Unless these organisms intelligently and intentionally decided to create symbiotic relationships, the eventual resulting adaptations were a form of C&R.
ReplyDeleteFor example, did bacteria intelligently decide to form a symbiotic relationship with us? Did animals that utilize bacteria in their digestive systems knowingly enter in the relationship with the knowledge that their presence would be beneficial? We didn't even know about this relationship until recently.