Saturday, March 17, 2012

I Just Had This Discussion With an Evolutionist


[Ed: This entry has been deleted, but you can still watch the video]
Posted by at
Labels:

131 comments:

  1. Rebel ScienceMarch 17, 2012 at 9:00 PM

    Cornelius,

    Many here have been commenting on your blog forever and, even though you make the same point over and over, they never get it. I suspect they never will unless you hit them between the eyes with a two-by-four. But then again, the remedy might just kill the patient.

    ReplyDelete
  2. GhostriderMarch 17, 2012 at 9:08 PM

    How very Christian of you to quote mine and distort what I really wrote CH, deleting critical parts of my sentences and juxtaposing/shuffling parts of different questions and answers.

    Did your Church teach you how to crawl into the gutter like that CH? Or did you work it out on your own?

    Please do keep it up though. You do more to showcase Creationist dishonesty than I ever could.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cornelius HunterMarch 17, 2012 at 9:49 PM

      Oh yeah, I left out your lie about the DI paycheck ...

      Delete
    2. GhostriderMarch 17, 2012 at 10:14 PM

      Cornelius Hunter

      Oh yeah, I left out your lie about the DI paycheck ...

      Discovery Institute: Cornelius G. Hunter, Fellow - CSC

      You also "accidentally" left out a few dozen sentences in between.

      Liars make baby Jesus cry CH.

      Delete
    3. Cornelius HunterMarch 17, 2012 at 10:22 PM

      Thorton:

      You also "accidentally" left out a few dozen sentences in between.

      Oh, right, you mean that part where you said Nature is indifferent to the pain and suffering visited on living creatures by natural processes.

      Delete
    4. GhostriderMarch 17, 2012 at 10:34 PM

      Cornelius Hunter

      Oh yeah, I left out your lie about the DI paycheck ...

      Discovery Institute: Cornelius G. Hunter, Fellow - CSC

      Discovery Institute Fellow Salary

      "Discovery Institute Fellow average salary is $30,000, median salary is $30,000 with a salary range from $30,000 to $30,000.
      Discovery Institute Fellow salaries are collected from government agencies and companies. Each salary is associated with a real job position."

      Oh, right, you mean that part where you said Nature is indifferent to the pain and suffering visited on living creatures by natural processes.

      So you "accidentally" left some key true words out of sentences I wrote. And you "accidentally" left out the occasional sentence too.

      Please stop making baby Jesus cry CH.

      Delete
    5. bornagain77March 18, 2012 at 6:42 AM

      Dr. Hunter, not that it has anything to do with the fact that Darwinism is a religion masquerading as science, but has Thorton actually caught you in a compromising position with the salary bit?

      ,,,Notes that actually pertain to the topic (that Thorton would rather avoid by focusing on, of all things, 'moral' issues that can't even be grounded in a atheistic worldview):

      Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg

      In fact, it has been pointed out, by many people besides Dr. Craig, that the whole neo-Darwinian argument is, at its core beneath all the rhetoric, a theological argument:

      On the Vastness of the Universe
      Excerpt: Darwin’s objection to design inferences were theological. And in addition, Darwin overlooked many theological considerations in order to focus on the one. His one consideration was his assumption about what a god would or wouldn’t do. The considerations he overlooked are too numerous to mention here, but here’s a few:,,,
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-vastness-of-the-universe/comment-page-2/#comment-362918

      Here are peer-reviewed papers which point out the fact that many arguments for Darwinian evolution turn out to be primarily theological arguments at their core:

      The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning
      http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/

      Delete
    6. bornagain77March 18, 2012 at 6:43 AM

      Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html

      Evolution and the Problem of Evil - Jay Richards - video
      http://www.idthefuture.com/2011/06/evolution_and_the_problem_of_e.html

      From Philosopher to Science Writer: The Dissemination of Evolutionary Thought - May 2011
      Excerpt: The powerful theory of evolution hangs on this framework of thought that mandates naturalism. The science is weak but the metaphysics are strong. This is the key to understanding evolutionary thought. The weak arguments are scientific and the strong arguments, though filled with empirical observation and scientific jargon, are metaphysical. The stronger the argument, the more theological or philosophical.
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/05/from-philosopher-to-science-writer.html

      Peacefulness, in a Grown Man, That is Not a Good Sign - Cornelius Hunter - August 2011
      Excerpt: Evolution cannot even explain how a single protein first evolved, let alone the massive biological world that ensued. From biosonar to redwood trees, evolution is left with only just-so stories motivated by the dogma that evolution must be true. That dogma comes from metaphysics,
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/08/peacefulness-in-grown-man-that-is-not.html

      Here, at about the 55:00 minute mark in the following video, Phillip Johnson sums up his 'excellent' lecture by noting that the refutation of his book, 'Darwin On Trial', in the Journal Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world, was a theological argument about what God would and would not do and therefore Darwinism must be true, and the critique was not a refutation based on any substantiating scientific evidence for Darwinism that one would be expected to be brought forth in such a prestigious venue to support a supposedly well supported scientific theory:

      Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – lecture video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw

      And the theological 'bad design' argument, which Darwinists unwittingly continually use to try to make their case, is actually its own independent discipline of study within Theology itself called Theodicy:

      Is Your Bod Flawed by God? - Feb. 2010
      Excerpt: Theodicy (the discipline in Theism of reconciling natural evil with a good God) might be a problem for 19th-century deism and simplistic natural theology, but not for Biblical theology. It was not a problem for Jesus Christ, who was certainly not oblivious to the blind, the deaf, the lepers and the lame around him. It was not a problem for Paul, who spoke of the whole creation groaning and travailing in pain till the coming redemption of all things (Romans 8).
      http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201002.htm#20100214a

      Delete
    7. Cornelius HunterMarch 18, 2012 at 9:58 AM

      Hilarious. Thought you would appreciate the editing of your lies and irrelevant comments. Should've known, I'll delete the OP...

      Delete
    8. GhostriderMarch 18, 2012 at 10:50 AM

      Cornelius Hunter

      Hilarious. Thought you would appreciate the editing of your lies and irrelevant comments. Should've known, I'll delete the OP...

      Yeah CH, it's always hilarious to watch a paid DI Fellow and liar for Jesus quote mine and distort your words, creating a "conversation" out of whole cloth.

      You're a regular laugh riot CH, but not for the reasons you think.

      Delete
  3. GeoxusMarch 17, 2012 at 9:31 PM

    Why is the idea that "the Designer is incompetent and indifferent to the pain and suffering his designs cause" a religious absurdity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cornelius HunterMarch 17, 2012 at 9:40 PM

      Geoxus:

      Good question. Perhaps it is not. What it made me think of at the time was fideism, which I don't like. But in any case, the point still stands that the evolutionist's dichotomy is metaphysical.

      Delete
    2. GeoxusMarch 18, 2012 at 8:22 AM

      Actually, I think fideism may be the most defensible position in respect to religious beliefs. You left me wondering what a "religious absurdity" could ever be (any example?). If there is an omnipotent being that can make anything happen, potentially changing the game rules at will, what is left to make any judgement of what's absurd and what is sensible?

      Delete
    3. bornagain77March 18, 2012 at 12:55 PM

      Geoxus you state:

      'If there is an omnipotent being that can make anything happen, potentially changing the game rules at will, what is left to make any judgement of what's absurd and what is sensible?'

      And exactly why is the randomness of materialism not disqualified for precisely this reason?;

      BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010
      Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/

      The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon
      http://vimeo.com/34468027


      The End Of Materialism?
      * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.
      * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.
      * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.
      * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.

      This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.

      Presuppositional Apologetics - easy to use interactive website
      http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php

      Random Chaos vs. Uniformity Of Nature - Presuppositional Apologetics - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/w/6853139

      Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description)
      http://vimeo.com/32145998

      Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit

      Delete
    4. GeoxusMarch 19, 2012 at 8:45 PM

      As a general rule I don't reply to the crazy man, but in case anybody else is wondering, I'd like to point out multiverse theory posits local regularities or "laws", so at least we can have propositions that are either locally absurd or sensible.

      OK, now carry on with the copypasta.

      Delete
    5. Lino Di IschiaMarch 20, 2012 at 3:22 PM

      Geoxus, and others:

      Has no one ever heard of the Devil? Why, in all these arguments, is the reality of an evil entity not mentioned?

      But you see, once we start talking about the presence of evil in the world, we squarely enter into the terrain of theology. Is science to be buttressed by difficult-to-answer theology questions? Is this the new scientific method?

      Is Darwinism correct because otherwise God seems mean? Mind-boggling, really.

      Delete
    6. GhostriderMarch 20, 2012 at 3:32 PM

      PaV Lino

      Geoxus, and others:

      Has no one ever heard of the Devil? Why, in all these arguments, is the reality of an evil entity not mentioned?

      LOL!

      All science so far!

      Is Darwinism correct because otherwise God seems mean?

      No PaV, ToE is considered correct because of its incredibly large amount of consilient positive evidence. "God seems mean" is just pointing out the glaring contradictions in the OUR LOVING GOD DID IT position.

      Mind-boggling, really.

      The amount of religious claptrap that Creationists try to palm off as science truly is mind-boggling.

      Delete
    7. Lino Di IschiaMarch 20, 2012 at 5:52 PM

      Thorton:

      No PaV, ToE is considered correct because of its incredibly large amount of consilient positive evidence

      CH has articles galore where Darwinists are forced to change the party-line simply to comport with newly discovered facts. Darwinism is nothing more than a steadily-growing collection of "just-so" stories. Wasn't it Karl Popper who said that?

      Delete
    8. GhostriderMarch 20, 2012 at 7:37 PM

      PaV Lino

      Thorton: No PaV, ToE is considered correct because of its incredibly large amount of consilient positive evidence

      CH has articles galore where Darwinists are forced to change the party-line simply to comport with newly discovered facts.

      Gee PaV, isn't that just terrible! Science adjusts its views when new evidence comes in.

      Not like those self-proclaimed geniuses who believe a 2000 year old collection of fables is a 100% infallible scientific text.

      Your way is much easier, I admit. Maybe there's something to just sitting on your butt all day instead of doing the hard work and research. I mean, just look how far IDC has gotten with the sofa spud approach.

      Delete
    9. GeoxusMarch 21, 2012 at 8:52 PM

      Has no one ever heard of the Devil? Why, in all these arguments, is the reality of an evil entity not mentioned?

      But you see, once we start talking about the presence of evil in the world, we squarely enter into the terrain of theology. Is science to be buttressed by difficult-to-answer theology questions? Is this the new scientific method?

      Would you enlighten us by pointing the connection of your comment to the topic of the sub-thread?

      But now that you mentioned it, I have a couple of theological questions: Is the Devil part of ID? Was the Devil an active agent in Creation, IOW a "Designer"?

      Delete
  4. wgbutler777March 18, 2012 at 5:49 AM

    The "incompetent/indifferent Designer" argument is actually a pretty bad argument for several reasons.

    1) It presents no scientific evidence that macro-evolution is true and exposes naturalists for what they really are: religious zealots who are motivated by meta-physics and not scientific evidence.

    2) It completely ignores the Judeo-Christian narrative of the origin of human evil and human suffering.

    3) It assumes that pain can never accomplish any good purpose and that we are all entitled to a pain free, death free existence AND still be free moral agents despite the fact that this type of world would never be able to exterminate evil.

    4) It is on its face hypocritical, as the Designer has given us instructions on how to minimize pain and suffering yet these same people scoff at many of the moral teachings which would accomplish this very thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownMarch 18, 2012 at 7:37 AM

      Part 1

      The "incompetent/indifferent Designer" argument is actually a pretty bad argument for several reasons.

      Good or bad, it's a reasonable inference from all the pain, suffering and blatant imperfections we see in Nature. If you want to argue there's God behind it all you have to get around what that implies about the nature of that designer.

      1) It presents no scientific evidence that macro-evolution is true and exposes naturalists for what they really are: religious zealots who are motivated by meta-physics and not scientific evidence.

      The evidence for speciation is there for anyone who actually wants to see it. Unfortunately, creationists seem to think that if they haven't read it they can plausibly claim that it doesn't exist.

      2) It completely ignores the Judeo-Christian narrative of the origin of human evil and human suffering.

      You mean this nonsense about The Fall? Where Adam and Eve committed the most grave offense of eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil having been specifically warned against it?

      Okay, let's look a little closer at it.

      First, what was wrong with having knowledge of good and evil? They - and we - are never told.

      Second, this talking snake character is able to play on their curiosity and inveigle them into eating the fruit. Think about it. They were created by an all-knowing and all-powerful God. If they had curiosity it was because He designed it into them,. He must also have known exactly how they would behave. And they're being blamed for what happened? Seriously?

      Third, God tells Adam specifically that he will die on the day he eats the fruit. So what actually happens? God gets all huffy when he finds out about the addition to their diet.. He pretends He didn't know. (An all-knowing Creator didn't know? Please!) He then tosses them out on their ears and Adam lives on to the ripe old age of 900+.

      So what happened to this death threat? Either God changed His mind (except perfect beings don't make mistakes which need correction by definition) or He lied, which means that the Creator lied to His creations right off the bat. So how are we supposed to trust anything He says subsequently?

      Fourth, assuming eating the fruit was a punishable offense then A & E could expect to pay the penalty. But all their descendants as well? In perpetuity? What kind of justice is that?

      Delete
    2. UnknownMarch 18, 2012 at 7:39 AM

      Part 2


      3) It assumes that pain can never accomplish any good purpose and that we are all entitled to a pain free, death free existence AND still be free moral agents despite the fact that this type of world would never be able to exterminate evil.


      Pain plainly serves the practical purpose of warning us when we suffer illness or injury but it's far from a perfect system. For example, there are many cancers for which we get no warning whatsoever of their presence until they are so far advanced that they are very difficult or even impossible to treat. So what was the problem with putting in a few additional sensors that would alert us when there was an incipient problem.? Plus the fact that such knowledge and treatments as we have for cancers are there no thanks to God. What we do have is the product of hard, grinding research by human scientists, nothing else.

      4) It is on its face hypocritical, as the Designer has given us instructions on how to minimize pain and suffering yet these same people scoff at many of the moral teachings which would accomplish this very thing.

      Are you serious? We experience pain and suffering because, according to "the Judeo-Christian narrative", that's how God designed us. A & E ate the fruit because they had a God-given curiosity. Yet they - and, apparently, the rest of us - were punished for behaving the way they were designed to behave and the way an all-knowing God must have known they'd behave.

      And you wonder why the Christian God is characterized as vengeful, vindictive and sadistic. The "Judeo-Christian narrative" is absurd on its face.

      Delete
    3. wgbutler777March 18, 2012 at 9:05 PM

      Ian,


      First, what was wrong with having knowledge of good and evil? They - and we - are never told.


      Pretty interesting question. I found this on wikipedia which makes alot of sense to me:


      In Jewish tradition, the Tree of Knowledge and the eating of its fruit represents the beginning of the mixture of good and evil together. Before that time, the two were separate, and evil had only a nebulous existence in potentia. While free choice (apparently) did exist before eating the fruit, evil existed as an entity separate from the human psyche, and it was not in human nature to desire it. Eating and internalizing the forbidden fruit changed this and thus was born the yeitzer hara, the Evil Inclination



      And they're being blamed for what happened? Seriously?


      The scriptures tell us in 1 Timothy 2:14 that Eve was deceived by the serpent but not Adam. Adam apparently made the willful choice to eat of the tree and essentially chose his wife over God.

      God could have put a "fence" so to speak around the garden of Eden to prevent Satan from meddling with humanity but allowed this to happen. I personally think God allowed this to happen in order to create a permanent record of history of the consequences of sin.


      Third, God tells Adam specifically that he will die on the day he eats the fruit. So what actually happens?


      The Hebrew word that is translated "day" in that verse is "Yom", which can refer to a variable period of time, not necessarily a 24 hour day.

      Furthermore, I happen to believe that in the realm that God inhabits, time passes at a different rate than it does on the surface of the Earth. This is born out in scripture in 2 Peter 3 which says:

      With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day


      Fourth, assuming eating the fruit was a punishable offense then A & E could expect to pay the penalty. But all their descendants as well? In perpetuity? What kind of justice is that?


      It's justice, but more than anything its mercy. All of Adam and Eve's descendants would have inherited the sin nature. If God allowed their descendents to live eternally they would be consigned to live with the insanity of a selfish and evil nature in perpetuity.


      So what was the problem with putting in a few additional sensors that would alert us when there was an incipient problem.?


      Not a bad idea! Hey, why not ask for wings and the ability to breathe underwater too?


      And you wonder why the Christian God is characterized as vengeful, vindictive and sadistic. The "Judeo-Christian narrative" is absurd on its face.


      I think that your ignorance and disrespectful caricature of the story is absurd on its face.

      Delete
  5. GhostriderMarch 18, 2012 at 6:30 AM

    wgbutler777

    The "incompetent/indifferent Designer" argument is actually a pretty bad argument for several reasons.

    1) It presents no scientific evidence that macro-evolution is true and exposes naturalists for what they really are: religious zealots who are motivated by meta-physics and not scientific evidence.

    While there is ample scientific evidence for macroevolution, it is not pertinent to that particular argument. You still have to explain the Designer's reasons for being so cruel and sadistic.

    2) It completely ignores the Judeo-Christian narrative of the origin of human evil and human suffering.

    Science also ignores Buddhist stories of origins, and Muslim stories, and Navajo stories, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster narrative. Science doesn't deal with religious beliefs.

    3) It assumes that pain can never accomplish any good purpose and that we are all entitled to a pain free, death free existence AND still be free moral agents despite the fact that this type of world would never be able to exterminate evil.

    More pointless blathering about your own personal religious beliefs that have nothing to do with any scientific findings.

    4) It is on its face hypocritical, as the Designer has given us instructions on how to minimize pain and suffering yet these same people scoff at many of the moral teachings which would accomplish this very thing.

    Speaking of being hypocritical: please explain how to minimize pain and suffering of those who have contracted the Ebola virus, and Polio, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, and Diphtheria, and Diabetes, and HIV/AIDS, and Malaria. The medical community and millions of people worldwide would be eternally grateful.

    Tell me how to prevent the deaths of babies suffering from Ravine encephalopathy, a 100% fatal genetic disease that kills the babies by destroying their brain matter. I suppose those babies had it coming due to their immoral behavior, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. wgbutler777March 18, 2012 at 7:06 AM


      Science doesn't deal with religious beliefs.


      That is MY point. Complaining about pain and suffering in the world has nothing to do with the lack of scientific evidence for macro-evolution. It's an unscientific conclusion: pain and suffering, therefore macro-evolution.


      more pointless blathering about your own personal religious beliefs that have nothing to do with any scientific findings.


      Well do you want me to blather on about my personal religious beliefs to answer your complaints about pain and suffering, or do you want to stick to scientific evidence (or lack thereof) for macro-evolution? You can't have it both ways.


      Ebola virus, and Polio, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, and Diphtheria, and Diabetes, and HIV/AIDS, and Malaria. The medical community and millions of people worldwide would be eternally grateful.


      Well off the top of my head HIV/AIDS is extremely preventable as it is directly caused by homosexual behavior, promiscuity, and intravenous drug use. And we warned to avoid these activities by the Designer:

      I Corinthians 6:18


      Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.



      Tell me how to prevent the deaths of babies suffering from Ravine encephalopathy, a 100% fatal genetic disease that kills the babies by destroying their brain matter.


      This is actually an example I would use to falsify macro-evolution! This demonstrates perfectly how most mutations are extremely dangerous and/or fatal to a species, and deviation from the original design is harmful. If a species had to siphon through 99.999999% harmful mutations in order to get a few beneficial mutations it would go extinct long before it had any ability to evolve into a higher type of lifeform!

      Delete
    2. GhostriderMarch 18, 2012 at 7:45 AM

      wgbutler777

      It's an unscientific conclusion: pain and suffering, therefore macro-evolution.

      No one in science has ever made that argument. The question in this thread is why did your Designer God deliberately create so many ways to kill us?

      Well do you want me to blather on about my personal religious beliefs to answer your complaints about pain and suffering, or do you want to stick to scientific evidence (or lack thereof) for macro-evolution? You can't have it both ways.

      The scientific evidence IS that there's lots of nasty diseases out there that can kill us dead. I want you to give me a reason for them using your scientific Designer God paradigm.

      Well off the top of my head HIV/AIDS is extremely preventable as it is directly caused by homosexual behavior, promiscuity, and intravenous drug use.

      What ignorant fundy blather. HIV is a disease that originated in simians and was transferred to humans. It isn't CAUSED by any behavior. The disease is spread through ANY physical contact that passes bodily fluids, i.e being spattered with an infected person's blood during as accident, having a tainted transfusion. Are you seriously telling me that married monogamous non-drug using couples can never get HIV because they're good and pure in your God's eyes?

      You conveniently avoided the rest of the examples too. Do "lifestyle choices" bring about Polio? Or Creutzfeldt-Jakob?

      And we warned to avoid these activities by the Designer:

      This is about science, remember? Please present your scientific evidence that your Judeo-Christian God (and not Odin or Zeus) is the Designer.

      T: "Tell me how to prevent the deaths of babies suffering from Ravine encephalopathy, a 100% fatal genetic disease that kills the babies by destroying their brain matter."

      This is actually an example I would use to falsify macro-evolution!

      Quit trying to avoid the issue. Explain why your all merciful God designed this particular way to kill babies in the first place.

      Delete
    3. wgbutler777March 18, 2012 at 8:22 PM

      Thorton,

      Just got back and thought I would throw you a response before going to sleep.


      The question in this thread is why did your Designer God deliberately create so many ways to kill us?


      That's an interesting question. Before I answer, I'd ask you what you think God should have done instead?

      For example, do you think God should have created all of us as immortal beings who lived eternally in the absence of physical pain? Should God also have created us with free moral will to choose to be good or evil? How would things be in the perfect world of Thorton?


      HIV is a disease that originated in simians and was transferred to humans. It isn't CAUSED by any behavior.


      Are you saying that AIDS has no correlation with behavior, or are you just trying to be clever with words?


      Are you seriously telling me that married monogamous non-drug using couples can never get HIV because they're good and pure in your God's eyes?


      What do you think? At the very least their risk of contracting the disease is tremendously reduced. I can't believe I'm even having this discussion with you.

      Thorton, you do such a beautiful job of proving my point. God has given us through scripture ways to live that would greatly minimize the pain and suffering in our lives, including how to express ourselves sexually. Sex was designed to be experienced in a lifelong monogamous relationship between a husband and a wife.

      And science tells us that when we discard this way of living we run the risk of contracting all sorts of nasty and sometimes fatal diseases, like AIDS.

      Your mocking tone tells me what utter contempt you have for this scriptural principle. You are not really interested in reducing human suffering. If you were, you would be advocating that people live in committed lifelong heterosexual relationships in order to reduce their risk of contracting a terrible disease. Thus the original point I made about hypocrisy is validated.


      Please present your scientific evidence that your Judeo-Christian God (and not Odin or Zeus) is the Designer.


      Most scientific evidence that intelligent design advocates would use (for example, the creation of the Universe, the fine tuning of the Universe, and the complexity of life) simply points to a Designer of the universe. While this evidence is in perfect accord with Christian theology, and one could make a strong case that Christian theology is the belief system that best predicted the scientific data, the evidence from design in nature isn't bulletproof that it had to be the Christian God that created nature, rather than say the Jewish God or the Muslim God.

      For empirical scientific evidence that strongly points to a CHRISTIAN God, I would point to the scientific studies that have been conducted on the Shroud of Turin and Sudarium of Oviedo.

      Delete
    4. GhostriderMarch 18, 2012 at 9:02 PM

      wgbutler777

      The question in this thread is why did your Designer God deliberately create so many ways to kill us?

      That's an interesting question. Before I answer, I'd ask you what you think God should have done instead?

      I'm not the one claiming my personal God is the Designer. I think science doesn't concern itself with supernatural Gods, any Gods.

      Are you saying that AIDS has no correlation with behavior, or are you just trying to be clever with words?

      Evasion noted. Behavior has nothing to do with the ORIGIN of the disease. The question still remains - in your scenario, why did your Designer God create HIV and Polio and Ravine encephalopathy and all the other nasties in the first place?

      Your mocking tone tells me what utter contempt you have for this scriptural principle.

      What I have contempt for is religious Fundies who think their Bible is a hammer, and who see everything else in the world as a nail. The same Fundies who lie, cheat, and steal to undermine science education and push their narrow religious beliefs.

      For empirical scientific evidence that strongly points to a CHRISTIAN God, I would point to the scientific studies that have been conducted on the Shroud of Turin and Sudarium of Oviedo.

      What scientific studies would those be? The ones where four independent labs carbon-dated the Shroud of Turin to the 1300s? And yes, I know several Christian believers wrote papers claiming the dating was flawed. But what the critics didn't do is perform an accurate dating themselves.

      Please provide the scientific references that definitely establish the two artifacts to be of supernatural origin and history.

      Delete
    5. wgbutler777March 19, 2012 at 4:03 AM


      Evasion noted. Behavior has nothing to do with the ORIGIN of the disease. The question still remains


      I'm really not interested in answering your questions unless you answer my questions. Let me ask again:

      What do you think God should have done instead? Should he have made us as immortal, pain free beings with the ability to choose to be good or evil? Or should God have created us as we are but we can only die of heart attacks? What is your specific complaint? How would things be in the perfect world of Thorton?


      The same Fundies who lie, cheat, and steal to undermine science education and push their narrow religious beliefs.


      Your views appear to be based on strong emotions and you are seething with anger and hostility. Have you had some bad experience with a religious person? I'm just curious.



      hat scientific studies would those be? The ones where four independent labs carbon-dated the Shroud of Turin to the 1300s? And yes, I know several Christian believers wrote papers claiming the dating was flawed. But what the critics didn't do is perform an accurate dating themselves.


      Your knowledge of the research of the Shroud is woefully out of date. I'm going to give you ONE peer reviewd paper by STURP team member Raymond Rogers that demonstrates beyond any doubt that the samples that were dated were taken from a repaired area of the Shroud. Based on your reaction to this paper, I will consider continuing this discussion with you.

      Delete
    6. GhostriderMarch 19, 2012 at 5:48 AM

      wgbutler777

      I'm really not interested in answering your questions unless you answer my questions.

      Second cowardly evasion noted. The question still remains - in your scenario, why did your Designer God create HIV and Polio and Ravine encephalopathy and all the other nasties in the first place?

      It's not science to speculate on what your mythological God would or wouldn't do. The fact remains those killer diseases are out there, their origin has nothing to do with behavior, and you claim they were purposely designed. I want to hear a good reason why.

      Have you had some bad experience with a religious person?

      Every time a Creationist tries to dishonestly undermine the integrity of public science education is a bad experience. Every time they lie, and accuse scientists of fraud, and end up costing the scientific community valuable time and money in fighting their lies is a bad experience.

      Your knowledge of the research of the Shroud is woefully out of date.

      Even if science accepted your claim that the C14 test was inaccurate, that doesn't provide any scientific evidence for an accurate dating or establishes a supernatural origin and history.

      You still have a hat full of nothing.

      Delete
    7. wgbutler777March 19, 2012 at 9:27 AM

      Thorton,


      I want to hear a good reason why.


      And I want to hear answers to my questions. We appear to be at am impasse.


      they lie, and accuse scientists of fraud


      I don't know anyone like that, and I've met hundreds of Christians from dozens of churches.

      How did you get so ginned up about this? You still haven't answered the question. Why are you such a seething little ball of hostility? You could be out there flying a kite or snow skiing, yet you spend much of your time hanging around blog(s) and shouting at people who disagree with you. Did someone drop you on your head when you were a kid?


      Even if science accepted your claim that the C14 test was inaccurate


      Science DOES accept this claim. The peer reviewed paper I cited was from the world's leading subject matter expert and published in a leading scientific journal. His findings were corroborated by the leading textile experts in the world.

      It's patently obvious to me that it is still impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you. So excuse me if I don't waste any more time corresponding for the time being.

      But I will give you some credit for dialing back the snide remarks and childish insults (at least towards me). That's progress, just not enough.

      Delete
    8. GhostriderMarch 19, 2012 at 10:01 AM

      wgbutler777

      Thorton: I want to hear a good reason why.

      And I want to hear answers to my questions. We appear to be at am impasse.

      Third cowardly evasion noted. You want to claim your all loving God created the good things in the world, but won't accept that means he created the bad stuff too. Flaming hypocrite.

      T: they lie, and accuse scientists of fraud

      I don't know anyone like that, and I've met hundreds of Christians from dozens of churches.

      The Discovery Institute. The Dover school board. Ken Ham. Kent Hovind. Bill Dembski. Robert Marks. Jonathan Wells. Any moderator at UncommonlyDense.

      The list goes on and on...

      Even if science accepted your claim that the C14 test was inaccurate

      Science DOES accept this claim.

      Cowardly avoidance of the fact there is no scientific evidence for an accurate dating or establishment of a supernatural origin and history.

      Live your born-again life in blissful ignorance and denial of reality. Just don't pretend for a second any of it is scientific.

      Delete
    9. wgbutler777March 19, 2012 at 4:15 PM


      there is no scientific evidence for an accurate dating or establishment of a supernatural origin and history.


      Excuse me but this last statement is completely untrue.

      But if you want to prove the scientific researchers wrong, I invite you to create an authentic replica of the Shroud. (With the exact physical and chemical properties and 3 dimensionally encoded information).

      Here, I'll even supply a short video to help you get started.

      Delete
    10. GhostriderMarch 19, 2012 at 9:16 PM

      wgbutler777

      T: there is no scientific evidence for an accurate dating or establishment of a supernatural origin and history.

      Excuse me but this last statement is completely untrue.

      Your link goes to a popular press news report saying Italian scientists claim the image on shroud could have been created with a flash of UV light.

      There's no reference to any peer reviewed scientific publication.

      There's no mention of dating of the artifact.

      There's no evidence of where this supposed UV flash came from.

      There's no evidence of supernatural intervention.

      There's no evidence of the shroud's history pre-1300's.

      Sorry wg. I know you lack the critical thinking skills to tell when you're being conned, but you'll have to do better than that.

      BTW, I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why your benevolent God designed a way to kill babies.

      Delete
    11. wgbutler777March 20, 2012 at 3:31 AM

      Thorton,

      There are dozens of peer-reviewed papers on the Shroud of Turin. It's the most studied artifact in human history. Here is a list of peer reviewed papers from the STURP team alone! Several atheistic scientists who have studied the Shroud have ended up converting to Christianity.

      By the way, here is the study from the Italian government scientists that you were implying didn't exist.


      There's no evidence of the shroud's history pre-1300's.


      There's plenty of evidence for the shroud's history pre-1300's.


      I'm still waiting for your explanation


      Which I will be happy to provide as soon as you answer my questions!

      Delete
    12. GhostriderMarch 20, 2012 at 6:21 AM

      wgbutler777

      There are dozens of peer-reviewed papers on the Shroud of Turin. It's the most studied artifact in human history. Here is a list of peer reviewed papers from the STURP team alone! Several atheistic scientists who have studied the Shroud have ended up converting to Christianity.

      Not one of them provides any accurate dating of the piece.

      There's plenty of evidence for the shroud's history pre-1300's.

      There is evidence of burial shrouds being used. There is no evidence of that particular shroud's history pre-1300's.

      Which I will be happy to provide as soon as you answer my questions!

      You'll cowardly evade the issuse as long as you're here. That's what cowards do.

      Delete
    13. wgbutler777March 20, 2012 at 10:05 AM


      There is no evidence of that particular shroud's history pre-1300's.


      You really have no idea of what you are talking about. And its VERY obvious that you are taking a faith position without any scientific proof and actively resisting evidence that would lead you to a conclusion that contradicts your worldview, because you are an emotional person who does not use reason and logic to arrive at your conclusions.

      I'm following the scientific evidence where it leads.


      You'll cowardly evade the issuse as long as you're here. That's what cowards do.


      Nope. You're the coward. I'm not afraid of this issue at all and would love to discuss it. I'm not just not going to play the game by your rules. If you have the guts, man up and answer my questions, and then I give you my word that I will answer yours.

      Delete
    14. GhostriderMarch 20, 2012 at 1:00 PM

      wgbutler777

      T: There is no evidence of that particular shroud's history pre-1300's.

      I'm following the scientific evidence where it leads.

      Then show me the scientific evidence that definitely establish an age for the shroud, with error ranges. It wasn't in any of the papers you linked to.

      Show me the scientific evidence that links this particular shroud to a specific death event that happened 2000 years ago in Jerusalem. That evidence was missing too.

      You're like a guy selling a baseball on Ebay and claiming it was the one Babe Ruth hit for his historic 60th home run in 1927. When I ask you for evidence that's really the exact ball you show me a an old B&W photo from the 20's of a ball game and go "SEE! They WERE using a baseball back then!!"

      Just because you're as gullible as they come doesn't make everyone else equally dense.

      I'm not afraid of this issue at all and would love to discuss it.

      Sadly, the evidence clearly shows you're a coward who is using any excuse to avoid discussing the issue. But that's nothing you haven't done before.

      Delete
    15. wgbutler777March 20, 2012 at 1:54 PM

      Thorton,


      Then show me the scientific evidence that definitely establish an age for the shroud, with error ranges. It wasn't in any of the papers you linked to.


      You mean to tell you you've already read through the entire list of research papers I gave you earlier? That's amazing! But your reading comprehension must really suck or you wouldn't be asking such stupid questions.

      Here is a research paper which concludes that the Shroud was manufactured in the Middle East during the 1st century:

      http://www.public.iastate.edu/~rhetoric/105H17/ahersey/cof.html

      As it concludes:


      As the evidence indicates, the Shroud of Turin is of First Century and Middle Eastern origin. At one time it shrouded a man who died a brutal death by crucifixion after being scourged and beaten


      Show me the scientific evidence that links this particular shroud to a specific death event that happened 2000 years ago in Jerusalem. That evidence was missing too.


      You mean evidence BESIDES the 100% forensically accurate record of a man who was beaten, scourged, crucified, and had a crown of thorns mashed on His head and a Roman lance stabbed through His side that just happens to match the Gospel accounts perfectly and without any evidence of a bodily decomposition?

      Would the faint outlines of coins minted by Pontius Pilate and placed over the eyes of the Victim
      be sufficient? What else could you possible want, a tag sewn on the Shroud that says "Jesus was here"?

      OK, now its my turn to ask you some questions. Please explain to me how these brilliant medieval forgers were able to encode three dimensional information on the Shroud that would require NASA's VP-8 analyzer to decode and which wouldn't be invented for almost another 700 years.


      Sadly, the evidence clearly shows you're a coward who is using any excuse to avoid discussing the issue.


      And the evidence also clearly shows that you are nothing more than an unhinged attack chihuaha who just wants to insult and taunt others but doesn't have the intellectual firepower to engage in any kind of serious debate.

      I'll say it for the hundredth time, answer my questions, and then I'll answer yours.

      Delete
    16. BradfordMarch 20, 2012 at 2:36 PM

      Here is a research paper which concludes that the Shroud was manufactured in the Middle East during the 1st century:

      http://www.public.iastate.edu/~rhetoric/105H17/ahersey/cof.html

      As it concludes:


      As the evidence indicates, the Shroud of Turin is of First Century and Middle Eastern origin. At one time it shrouded a man who died a brutal death by crucifixion after being scourged and beaten.

      That "research paper" fails to truly investigate the illeged inaccuracies of carbon dating in reference to this Shroud. A good research paper is supposed to thoroughly investigate the evidence before making conclusions.

      Dr. Walter McCrone: "The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century. Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories."

      http://mcri.org/home/section/63-64/the-shroud-of-turin

      Delete
    17. GhostriderMarch 20, 2012 at 3:25 PM

      wgbutler

      Here is a research paper which concludes that the Shroud was manufactured in the Middle East during the 1st century:

      That's not a research paper wg. It's some chick's personal website with a whole pile of unsubstantiated assertions.

      You still have no scientific evidence for an actual date with error ranges.

      You still have no scientific evidence that ties the shroud to any specific person or any specific event.

      You mean evidence BESIDES the 100% forensically accurate record of a man who was beaten, scourged, crucified, and had a crown of thorns mashed on His head and a Roman lance stabbed through His side

      You haven't show scientific evidence for any of that nonsense. All you're doing is parroting back stuff your read on "True Believer" web pages.

      Would the faint outlines of coins minted by Pontius Pilate and placed over the eyes of the Victim be sufficient?

      Another batch of wingnut unsubstantiated assertions. You're really on a roll here wg.

      Your gullibility and lack of critical thinking skills is beyond belief.

      Now quit being a coward and tell me why your Designer God created a disease that kills little babies by destroying their brain matter.

      Delete
    18. Lino Di IschiaMarch 20, 2012 at 3:36 PM

      Thorton:

      Tell me how to prevent the deaths of babies suffering from Ravine encephalopathy, a 100% fatal genetic disease that kills the babies by destroying their brain matter. I suppose those babies had it coming due to their immoral behavior, right?

      Tell me how life arose.

      Delete
    19. Lino Di IschiaMarch 20, 2012 at 3:39 PM

      Unknown:

      That "research paper" fails to truly investigate the illeged inaccuracies of carbon dating in reference to this Shroud.

      It has rather demonstrably shown that the inaccuracies of the carbon dating can be attributed to the samples taken coming from a portion of the Shroud which had to be rewoven due to fire damage.

      Delete
    20. wgbutler777March 20, 2012 at 4:08 PM

      Unknown (or possibly sockpuppet of Thorton),


      That "research paper" fails to truly investigate the illeged inaccuracies of carbon dating in reference to this Shroud


      In the future, I suggest you inform yourself before piping in and making ignorant comments, or at the very least read through the thread to avoid rehashing already debunked arguments.

      A peer reviewed research paper by the leading subject matter expert in the world and STURP team member Raymond Rogers concluded that the samples carbon dated in 1988 were taken from a repaired section of the shroud that was rewoven by medieval seamstresses. Three independent textile experts have corroborated these findings in analysis where they were not informed of the nature of the evaluated fragments.

      No informed person thinks that the Shroud was from the 1300s anymore. There was already sufficient independent evidence before the Rogers paper to rule that out. For example, the wounds on the Shroud perfectly match up with the wounds on the Sudarium of Oviedo which is dated to a much earlier period.

      What's really amazing is to see people like yourself (Thorton?) fixate on relatively meaningless and trivial details like this to completely avoid discussing the other aspects of the Shroud which have completely baffled scientists!

      Delete
    21. BradfordMarch 20, 2012 at 4:30 PM

      Why are you so fixated on calling me Thorton? I chose a username of Unknown. That's no more information than what "wgbutler" conveys about you. It's a pattern of pixels on a screen. In the future I suggest you not jump to conclusions since you apparently have some sort of emotional vendetta against Thorton.

      If no informed person thinks the shroud is from 1300, then from when do informed people think it's from? Upon looking further into it, it seems there is no definitive proof of its date of origin. Therefore if you are already resigned to what this piece of cloth actually is, you are the ignorant one, since there is not ample evidence to say with 100% certainty.

      By the way, please don't let my comments derail you from Thorton's valid points. I don't want to give you any more reasons to evade his arguments XD

      Delete
    22. wgbutler777March 20, 2012 at 4:41 PM

      Thorton,


      That's not a research paper wg. It's some chick's personal website with a whole pile of unsubstantiated assertions.


      A peer reviewed paper conducted by botanists at Hebrew University has traced pollen residue on the Shroud to have come from plants near the Jerusalem, Israel that bloomed in the Spring.

      Another peer reviewed paper has compared the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin and concluded that both clothes covered the same crucified Person and notes in its conclusion:

      All the stains caused by sharp objects on the nape of the neck on the sudarium fit in perfectly with those in the same area on the Shroud, both being blood shed in life. This is without doubt an unexpected coincidence (Ricci could not see it as a consequence of his mistake about which part of the sudarium was in direct contact with the face), and one that reveals much. There is no other known case of a crucifixion where the victim was previously crowned with thorns. Jackson's hypothesis about the formation of the Shroud image and the sideways movement of the stains described by Lavoie and Adler (see Biblia y Fe no. 70) exists on the corresponding stains on the sudarium on the left front. This too is unexpected, as neither Lavoie, Adler nor Jackson know the sudarium in depth, so they were not looking for preconceived coincidences while ignoring reality. Anyone who observes the cloths will immediately perceive this. It is another question to know how to identify and evaluate it. This means an in-depth study of how the cloths were placed, which in turn means time and interest, as the majority of information we have worked with is not immediately evident.

      The Shroud of Turin and the sudarium of Oviedo are two cloths that should be studied together without forgetting the individual value of each. The information obtained from one can be used to interpret the other. We think this work should be of interest to any student of the person we now call the "historical Jesus", because as we have already said on many occasions, these cloths may be documents that provide extraordinary information about the fundamental details of the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth.

      Delete
    23. wgbutler777March 20, 2012 at 5:05 PM

      Unknown,

      If no informed person thinks the shroud is from 1300, then from when do informed people think it's from?


      Informed people who are Christians believe that the Shroud is a relic that records the resurrection of Christ.

      Some Non-Christian scientists who have studied the Shroud have converted to Christianity as a result of their research. Others, like Barrow Schwortz, who was the STURP team photographer and is JEWISH, believe that the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Christ but plead ignorance regarding the origin of the special properties of the Shroud.


      Therefore if you are already resigned to what this piece of cloth actually is, you are the ignorant one, since there is not ample evidence to say with 100% certainty.


      There's about as much evidence for my view as there can possibly be. There absolutely is no naturalistic explanation for the special properties of the Shroud. We do not have the technology to create a Shroud of Turin today. To suggest that a clever medieval forger made this defies all common sense.


      I don't want to give you any more reasons to evade his arguments


      I'm not interested in evading arguments, although conversing with him is largely a waste of time and becomes boring pretty quickly.

      I just refuse to let him play interrogator with me and not answer any of my questions. I've said on multiple occasions that I'll happily answer his latest questions once he answers mine.

      Delete
    24. GhostriderMarch 20, 2012 at 6:25 PM

      wgbutler777

      A peer reviewed paper conducted by botanists at Hebrew University has traced pollen residue on the Shroud to have come from plants near the Jerusalem, Israel that bloomed in the Spring.

      Another peer reviewed paper has compared the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin and concluded that both clothes covered the same crucified Person and notes in its conclusion:

      Good gravy but you're a sap.

      Neither of those articles is from a peer-reviewed journal. Both are papers that were presented at Shroud of Turin conferences ("sindonolgy", literally "shroud study"), i.e "preaching to the true believers". That gives them as much validity as the recent ID conference claimed to be at Cornell, where a bunch of IDiots stood around and told each other how smart they were.

      NONE of the claims are verified, and some are so over-the-top as to evoke laughter. Like the claim that the pollen on a 2000 year old garment that's traveled all over the middle east and Europe could ONLY have come from Jerusalem - not anywhere else in Israel or the surrounding areas, just Jerusalem.

      There's a whole little cottage industry of religious true believers self publishing these sorts of papers to "prove" the shroud is real as to prove the Jesus story was real too. You read them uncritically and your uneducated Fundy brain goes "YEAH MAN!!!" But there's still not a single piece of scientifically verified evidence for the date or the history of the article.

      Delete
    25. GhostriderMarch 20, 2012 at 6:29 PM

      wgbutler777

      I just refuse to let him play interrogator with me and not answer any of my questions. I've said on multiple occasions that I'll happily answer his latest questions once he answers mine.

      But I asked mine first. You only came up with your list of non-sequitur ones as a cowardly evasion.

      It's a defensive mechanism you use often when confronted with a reality you can't handle. Like your loving Designer God creating an awful disease just to killing babies.

      Delete
    26. wgbutler777March 20, 2012 at 6:56 PM

      Thorton,

      "Talking" with you is like watching an awful traffic accident in slow motion.


      That gives them as much validity as the recent ID conference claimed to be at Cornell, where a bunch of IDiots stood around and told each other how smart they were.


      Is it your position that the Sudarium and the Shroud do NOT match up then? Are you calling that paper a fraud?

      And are you saying that the botanists at Hebrew University (Avinoam Danin - the leading authority in the world on the flora of Israel and Uri Baruch, pollen specialist with the Israel Antiqities Authority) are really just secret Shroud of Turin crackpots trying to prove Christianity true?

      What about STURP team member Dr. Max Frei who came to similar conclusions? Was he a creationist crackpot too?


      ONE of the claims are verified, and some are so over-the-top as to evoke laughter. Like the claim that the pollen on a 2000 year old garment that's traveled all over the middle east and Europe could ONLY have come from Jerusalem


      From:

      http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html


      n 1995, Israeli botanist and expert on the plant life of Israel Dr. Avinoam Danin, a Professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, confirmed findings by Dr. Alan Whanger, Professor Emeritus at Duke University in North Carolina, of floral images on enhanced Shroud photographs. They were joined by Dr. Uri Baruch of the Israel Antiquities Authority, a palynologist and expert on Israel's pollen. Danin studied the plant images and Baruch analyzed the pollen grains found by the late Swiss criminologist and botanist Dr. Max Frei via the sticky tape collection of materials that Frei had taken from the Shroud in 1973 and 1978.

      The team has identified, the "inflorescence of the crown chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum coronarium)"; the Rock Rose (Cistus creticus) lateral to the left cheek of the figure on the Shroud; a bouquet of bean caper plants (Zygophyllum dumosum); and a thorn tumbleweed (Gundelia tournefortii) which Whanger speculates comprised the Crown of Thorns.

      Danin indicates that the pollen grains serve as "geographic and calendar indicators" demonstrating that the origin or provenance of the Shroud was definitely the Holy Land, and more specifically an area in and around Jerusalem. Zygoplyllum dumosum, for example, grows only in Israel, Jordan and the Sinai. Evidence also suggests that the flowers on the Shroud were picked in the Spring. Danin notes that "...they could have been picked fresh in the fields. A few of the species could be found in the markets of Jerusalem in the Spring of the year" - a period consistent with the time of the Passover and the Crucifixion.

      It appears that bunches or bouquets of flowers were once placed on the Shroud, leaving pollen grains and imprints of plants and flowers on the linen cloth. It provides important evidence regarding the origin of this cloth in the Holy Land, and indicates that the Man of the Shroud was entombed with flowers from the waist up to the head.

      Delete
    27. wgbutler777March 20, 2012 at 7:01 PM


      But I asked mine first. You only came up with your list of non-sequitur ones as a cowardly evasion.


      No. You started hammering me with all sorts of questions at the beginning of this conversation, which I started to answer in good faith. But then when I asked you some questions in response you waived them away and refused to answer.

      I'm not playing that game. You don't get to play Mr. Prosecutor and drill me with questions while evading my questions.

      We both know that you have nothing when it comes to arguments and your strategy consists of nothing but hurling insults and tearing down other people's ideas without offering any substantive ideas of your own. I'm exposing this tactic for everyone on this blog to see.

      Delete
    28. GhostriderMarch 20, 2012 at 7:07 PM

      wgbutler777

      Is it your position that the Sudarium and the Shroud do NOT match up then? Are you calling that paper a fraud?

      You didn't provide a peer-reviewed published paper.

      There's still not a single piece of scientifically verified evidence for the date or the history of the article. But keep floundering WG. Maybe one of those crackpot sites you love to get your "science" from will have something.

      In the meantime, if you ever grow a pair, you can explain why your loving Designer God created an awful disease just to kill babies.

      Delete
    29. wgbutler777March 20, 2012 at 7:27 PM

      Thorton,


      Is it your position that the Sudarium and the Shroud do NOT match up then? Are you calling that paper a fraud?

      You didn't provide a peer-reviewed published paper.


      I notice that you never answer any of my questions, and have the audacity to accuse me of evasion!

      The botanical paper by the Israeli botanists that determined that pollen from the Jerusalem area was peer reviewed.

      From

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990803073154.htm


      An analysis of pollen grains and plant images places the origin of the "Shroud of Turin," thought by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, in Jerusalem before the 8th Century. The authenticity of the Shroud has been debated for centuries, with a 1988 carbon dating process placing it in the Middle Ages.

      Botanist Avinoam Danin of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem determined the origin of the Shroud based on a comprehensive analysis of pollen taken from the Shroud and plant images associated with the Shroud. The review of plant and pollen evidence is being published by the Missouri Botanical Garden Press as Flora of the Shroud of Turin by Danin, Alan Whanger, Mary Whanger , and Uri Baruch. The peer-reviewed publication will be available in late summer.


      The PEER-REVIEWED study can be read

      here.

      The scientist discusses his research here.

      Delete
    30. GhostriderMarch 20, 2012 at 7:41 PM

      There's still not a single piece of scientifically verified evidence for the date or the history of the article.

      Keep floundering wg. You'll find that elusive evidence one day.

      Delete
    31. wgbutler777March 20, 2012 at 8:11 PM

      Thorton,


      There's still not a single piece of scientifically verified evidence for the date or the history of the article.


      I guess that's as close as I'll ever get to you admitting that you were wrong.

      Regarding the date, one peer-reviewed research paper places the date between 1300 and 3000 years old.

      An author of another peer reviewed research paper published in the Journal of Imaging Science and Technology described the results of his research team as thus:

      We must admit it is not easy creating an image that is negative, has 3D encoded information, is extremely shallow, with the color intensity is determined by the surface density of fibrils all having the same RGB value, and which does not fluoresce under UV illumination. Modern technologies seem unable to produce an image with the characteristics of the Shroud image, even using the most advanced tools like those used in our experiments. As a consequence, it is unlikely that a forger could have created this image using technologies available in the Middle Ages. In addition, we must consider the body image is not the only difficult-to-replicate marking. On the Shroud there are also stains of blood with high levels of bilirubin which would be consistent with a haemolytic process caused by torture, eg whipping (the bilirubin content being only visible by UV lamps, such as those used by policemen to detect organic traces), there is the absence of image under the blood stains, and many other forensic details unknown in the Middle Ages.

      Delete
    32. GhostriderMarch 20, 2012 at 8:39 PM

      wgbutler777

      Thorton: "There's still not a single piece of scientifically verified evidence for the date or the history of the article."

      Regarding the date, one peer-reviewed research paper places the date between 1300 and 3000 years old.

      LOL! Well that sure narrows it down a bit.

      Do you ever have a single neuron fire before posting this idiocy?

      BTW, did you even read the second article you linked to, that states

      "We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion. Years ago, as a skeptic of the Shroud, I came to realize that while I might believe it was a fake, I could not know so from the facts. Now, as someone who believes it is the real burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, I similarly realize that a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential."

      The author says the exact thing I've been telling you. The scientific evidence does not support the claims about the shroud. The only reason to believe is if your religious faith tells you to believe.

      I give the author props for being honest. Why can't you?

      Delete
    33. wgbutler777March 21, 2012 at 3:37 AM

      Thorton,

      First of all, thank you for reading through the links I post. I appreciate that.


      The only reason to believe is if your religious faith tells you to believe.


      This isn't true. Up until a few years ago I thought that the Shroud was a fake because I read about the 1988 carbon dating test and assumed it was just another cheesy Catholic relic from the middle ages. I had this view DESPITE being a very committed believer in Jesus Christ and His resurrection from the dead.

      Then I went to an EPS conference and attended a seminar where Gary Habermas was discussing it and started to research the matter on my own. Once I found out about the flawed dating test and read about the other properties, I was completely blown away. If this isn't evidence of Jesus death and resurrection, I don't know what is.

      Don't you find it just the least bit odd about how a 3 dimensionally encoded image that shows up in photographic negative appears on a relic that was created centuries ago? Isn't it weird how we still don't have the technology to create an artifact like this in the 21st century and scientists who study this and publish in peer review journals can only speculate that high intensity lasers could make an image like this?

      I think this conversation has run its course. You can have the last word. Again, thanks for reading my links.

      Delete
    34. GhostriderMarch 21, 2012 at 7:27 AM

      wgbutler

      Don't you find it just the least bit odd about how a 3 dimensionally encoded image that shows up in photographic negative appears on a relic that was created centuries ago? Isn't it weird how we still don't have the technology to create an artifact like this in the 21st century and scientists who study this and publish in peer review journals can only speculate that high intensity lasers could make an image like this?

      Sorry, but that has been disproven.

      Life-size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and its Image

      Abstract: "The Shroud of Turin, although carbon-dated between 1260 and 1390 C.E., is believed by many to be the real burial cloth of Jesus on the basis of other evidence. Part of the controversy arises from the fact that it has proven very difficult to explain just how the image was generated and to achieve a good imitation of the Shroud by simple means. The faint image of a crucified man has pseudonegative properties, is superficial, contains three-dimensional information and consists of a discoloration of the top cellulose fibers of the linen. The authors present now a simple technique, which may explain how the image could have originated from the work of a medieval artist. Furthermore, the authors were able to obtain a good replica of the Shroud of Turin at a 1:1 scale that possesses all the above-mentioned features and the same visual and spectroscopic properties as the original."

      The STURP group you keep citing is very similar to the Creationist RATE group. Both were formed from true believers with huge religious biases who set out to confirm their pre-existing religious beliefs. They publish bits and pieces of their "sciency" research in backwater low-impact journals, never submitting any work for mainstream peer review. Of course the Church has a huge financial incentive to see the shroud declared real. It brings in tens of millions of Euros a year in tourist money. The C14 tests were an unmitigated disaster for the Church's cash cow, hence the extremes attempts gone through to discredit the work.

      If you want to believe because it makes you happy, more power to you. Just don't pretend the story is supported by science in the least little way.

      Delete
    35. GhostriderMarch 21, 2012 at 7:42 AM

      For those interested, here is a description of the new shroud fabrication technique along with a detailed look at the glaring anatomical impossibilities present in the real shroud.

      Remaking the Shroud

      For some reason the true believers never want to talk about the problems.

      Delete
    36. wgbutler777March 21, 2012 at 10:59 AM

      Sorry, but I can't let this go unaddressed. Since Thorton waited until the end of the discussion to post a very dishonest argument let me address it.

      The Garlaschelli replica of the Shroud was a replication effort well funded by an atheist group intent on discrediting the Shroud.

      As my source explains:

      Garlaschelli received funding for his work by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics but said it had no effect on his results. "Money has no odor," he said. "This was done scientifically. If the Church wants to fund me in the future, here I am."

      Well, there it is. Back to junior high at that detention slip, I must confess an odor was involved... the smell of flesh burning with my Dad tanning my behind if I brought home another detention slip. So, I find a way out... if only for a short while.

      However, any shrew has its price and this was no exception.

      A gaggle of hellbent Atheists show up at Luigi's door with a bag of cash, he opens it up to make sure there wasn't a foul smell and marches straight to the bank. Sure, they would probably leave a shroud in their own bed if their wives didn't change the sheets, but this isn't about dirt trapped in herringbone twill - it's a matter of faith....


      Coincidentally enough, this effort was made just prior to a public displaying of the Shroud in an effort to discredit the Shroud.

      While it is an impressive replica from a visual point of view, it's chemical and microscropic properties are nothing whatsoever like the chemical properties of the real Shroud of Turin as this paper and this paper explain, nor does it contain the 3 dimensional properties of the original Shroud. In the latter paper Garlaschelli is even quoted as admitting:

      “I have absolutely not tackled the problem of blood stains
      (…)” (personal communication). At least, it should have been interesting to try to know why and how the
      artist could have painted the “blood” before the image (it is proved that there is no image color under the
      blood) and how one could explain the presence of a fluorescent halo (not seen with the naked eyes)
      around his “blood stains”

      Delete
    37. wgbutler777March 21, 2012 at 11:07 AM

      No serious researcher believes that Garlaschelli has recreated the Shroud of Turin. The most recent research effort conducted by the Italian government agency ENEA (similar to the US dept of Energy) concluded that the Shroud could have not been produced using medieval technology and found that only an intense burst of light requiring technologies that we do not possess today could have created the image. As the lead researcher said:


      It is possible that the body image was formed by a sort of electromagnetic source of energy. Our experiments show that many (not all) the peculiar properties of the body image of the Shroud are produced by a burst of photons in a very narrow range of parameters (pulse duration, intensity, number of shots). In particular, vacuum ultraviolet photons account for the very thin coloration depth, the hue of color and the presence of image in linen parts not in contact with the body. Obviously, it does not mean the image was produced by a laser. Rather, the laser is a powerful tool to test and obtain the light parameters suitable for a shroud-like coloration



      The STURP group you keep citing is very similar to the Creationist RATE group. Both were formed from true believers with huge religious biases who set out to confirm their pre-existing religious beliefs


      I almost fell out my chair when I read this. Thorton has told some whoppers in the brief time I have known him, but this has to be the biggest one yet. This statement alone should tell you everything you need to know about materialists. Whenever a group of scientists conduct research that threatens materialism, the main tactic by materialists is to immediately attack and discredit the scienists.

      The STURP team was comprised of a group of prominent scientists, mostly from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, in response to an accidental discovery that the Shroud of Turin contained 3-D information that was able to be decoded by NASA's VP-8 analyzer. The team was composed of members of a varity of worldviews, including non-Christian members. One of the non-Christian members (Barrie Schwortz) was not at all comfortable with the idea that the Shroud was the burial cloth of Christ because of his Jewish religion. It took him almost 20 years, but in the end he finally came to the conclusion based on the evidence that the Shroud was the authentic burial cloth of Christ (and he is still a Jew, btw).

      Delete
    38. wgbutler777March 21, 2012 at 11:52 AM

      Regarding the accusations that the Shroud contains anatomically incorrect images.

      Several evaluations by forensic experts have been conducted and have found that the image on the Shroud of Turin is anatomically correct and could not have been faked.

      Here is one of the most recent peer-reviewed forensic studies that have found the image to be forensically correct.

      Many other studies have been conducted by other forensic experts and have come to the same conclusions like this one.

      Finally, I wanted to mention this peer-reviewed comparison of the Shroud of Turin and the replica created by Garlaschelli, and describes in great detail the many problems with claiming that Garlaschelli's method could have been used by a medieval artist to create the original Shroud.

      Delete
    39. GhostriderMarch 21, 2012 at 12:19 PM

      wgbutlet777

      Whenever a group of scientists conduct research that threatens materialism, the main tactic by materialists is to immediately attack and discredit the scienists.

      That's the same guy who just a few hours ago posted

      wgbutler777: "The Garlaschelli replica of the Shroud was a replication effort well funded by an atheist group intent on discrediting the Shroud.

      However, any shrew has its price and this was no exception.

      A gaggle of hellbent Atheists show up at Luigi's door with a bag of cash, he opens it up to make sure there wasn't a foul smell and marches straight to the bank. Sure, they would probably leave a shroud in their own bed if their wives didn't change the sheets, but this isn't about dirt trapped in herringbone twill - it's a matter of faith...."

      So besides being as gullible a sap as they come, you're also a huge flaming hypocrite.

      BTW, all those "peer-reviewed" papers you keep claiming aren't peer reviewed. Merely having a presentation presented at a conference of your fellow True Believers doesn't make the paper peer reviewed.

      I'm sure you can link to this sort of wingnut pseudoscience all day long, articles from websites run by your fellow True Believers. But the simple fact remains there's no credible scientific evidence to support either the claimed age of the artifact nor its supposed history.

      Delete
    40. wgbutler777March 21, 2012 at 5:59 PM

      Thorton,


      So besides being as gullible a sap as they come, you're also a huge flaming hypocrite.


      The quote you used to portray me as a hypocrite was me quoting directly from the newspaper article and intended only to demonstrate the fact that Garlaschelli was paid by an atheist group to create a replica of the Shroud in an attempt to discredit it right before a public display.

      To take me quoting from a newspaper article and call me a "flaming hypocrite" is completely off based, but then again you never miss an opportunity for an insult.


      BTW, all those "peer-reviewed" papers you keep claiming aren't peer reviewed.


      The research paper comparing the Shroud of Turin with the replica created by Garlaschelli was a peer reviewed paper, as was the peer reviewed forensic study.

      As the IWSAI reports on their own website, their journal contains only peer-reviewed papers.

      To go into a little more detail on your previous assertions:

      Regarding your wildly inaccurate claim that the STURP team was composed of religious nuts dedicated to promoting the authenticity of the Shroud, this article demonstrates that this is clearly not the case.

      Nuclear Physicist Tom D'Muhula is quoted as saying:

      We all thought we'd find it a forgery and would be packing our bags in a half-hour.

      The article further goes on to say that:

      The team included "born-again" Christians, atheists, agnostics, Protestants, Catholics, and Jews.


      Blood Chemist John Heller, author of the book "Report on the Shroud of Turin" said:

      I was convinced it was a forgery, but now there is no question in my mind that there was a scourged, crucified man in the Shroud

      Jewish photographer Barrie Schwortz said:

      We can't figure out how this image came to be, the the person we see here fits only one person known to history

      Regarding the Garlaschelli replica, the problems with promoting that as evidence that the Shroud of Turin was created by a medieval forger are legion, not the least of which are Garlaschelli's own admission that he completely avoided the problem of the image being on top of the blood, rather than vice versa as he did, and the fact that his replica utterly fails at any rigorous chemical, physical and 3 dimensional analysis. As physicist Dr. John Jackson from the University of Colorado says of the replica:

      "The shroud’s image intensity varies with” the distances in between the cloth and the body. While he admitted that the images of Garlaschelli’s shroud on the internet look authentic, when taken from a 3-D perspective, “it’s really rather grotesque.”

      The hands are embedded into the body and the legs have unnatural looking lumps and bumps

      Recent peer reviewed analysis has effectly ruled out medieval forgery as a hypothesis, and his replica has none of the other compelling evidence such as the presence of bilurubin in the blood samples, the pollen samples from flowers in the Jerusalem area in the Spring, or the forensic compatibility with the Sudarium of Oviedo.

      Delete
  6. wgbutler777March 18, 2012 at 7:07 AM

    BTW, I'm getting ready to travel to see my mom for the day. So I won't be answering any more of your posts (at least today). Just wanted to get that in before you started patting yourself on the back for scaring me off.

    ReplyDelete
  7. natschusterMarch 18, 2012 at 7:09 AM

    What exactly is the evolutionists basis for saying the designer is becuase of bad designs? Whay exactly is the evolutionists basis for saying good and evil even exists?

    If the Bible said that God was evil, then there wouldn't be any problem. The question of the bad stuff we see in nature only contradicts conventional theology. It doesn't contradict the idea of a Creator. SO before you can even question conventional theology, you have to grant theology's premise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GeoxusMarch 18, 2012 at 8:51 AM

      Thorton's exercise is to put himself in the shoes of creationists to examine the consistency of their claims. The problem is not that an evil or apathetic god is possible, but that very few creationists are willing to accept the possibility.

      Now, putting myself in the creationist shoes, I'd say that we shouldn't expect to understand the rationale of God's acts (him being so perfect, and us being so lame), and we are unfit to either judge the morality of God's actions or to attempt to discover his intentions from creation alone. This, of course, comes at the price of resigning to any pretension of being able to model the process of God's creation, much to the detriment of the scientific pretensions of Intelligent Des--, oh sorry, Creationism.

      Delete
    2. GhostriderMarch 18, 2012 at 9:01 AM

      Geoxus

      Thorton's exercise is to put himself in the shoes of creationists to examine the consistency of their claims. The problem is not that an evil or apathetic god is possible, but that very few creationists are willing to accept the possibility.

      It's even simpler than that.

      IDCers keep claiming their theory is scientific, not religious.

      I'd just like the scientific explanation for why the Designer deliberately created so many ways to try and kill us.

      Delete
    3. Lino Di IschiaMarch 20, 2012 at 3:51 PM

      Thorton:


      I'd just like the scientific explanation for why the Designer deliberately created so many ways to try and kill us.

      Not that you're much of a thinker, but have you ever stopped to think about what would happen if mutations didn't occur?

      Random mutation is part of the process wherein adaptation can occur. Perhaps mutations are the price to be paid so that extant biological forms can have continued existence in the presence of changing conditions.

      As to the bigger questions of life, when Job complained to God, God asked Job: "Where were you when I placed the Pleaides in the sky? Where were you when I told the sea to go so far, and no further?" Etc.

      Let me put it to you another way: how did living things come from non-living things? If living things were produced by non-living things, then why do living things die? IOW, they had to overcome the status of being non-living in some fashion. How come it didn't work so well?

      You have your own set of questions to answer.

      Delete
    4. GhostriderMarch 20, 2012 at 7:19 PM

      PaV Lino

      I'd just like the scientific explanation for why the Designer deliberately created so many ways to try and kill us.

      Not that you're much of a thinker, but have you ever stopped to think about what would happen if mutations didn't occur?

      But PaV, you didn't say Ravine encephalopathy came about through randomly occurring mutations. You argued the "junk" DNA which produced the disease was deliberately designed, that it was solid evidence for the Designer, remember?

      Why are you now doing a 180 and reversing your position? You seem to be easily confused. You want to come back when you make up your mind?

      Delete
  8. bornagain77March 18, 2012 at 9:16 AM

    Thorton, God is not the author of evil;

    If God created everything, did god create Evil ?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe0IvneAR4k

    If God, Why Evil? (Norman Geisler)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtOOPaNmJFY

    And once again Thorton, since you clearly believe in the existence of evil, and good, so as to even be able to make distinctions between what is evil and good in the first place, please tell me exactly how you ground the existence of good and evil in the amoral atheistic worldview that you hold in the first place so as to justify you being able to make such judgements between good and evil:

    The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris' moral argument – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDyLs_cReE

    Stephen Meyer - Morality Presupposes Theism (1 of 4) - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpdh1b0X_M

    Hitler & Darwin, pt. 2: Richard Weikart on Evolutionary Ethics - podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-11-30T15_33_04-08_00

    Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament is True – Frank Turek – video – November 2011
    (41:00 minute mark – Despite what is commonly believed (of being 'good enough' to go to heaven, in reality both Mother Teresa and Hitler fall short of the moral perfection required to meet the perfection of God’s objective moral code)
    http://saddleback.com/mc/m/5e22f/

    Objective Morality – The Objections – Frank Turek – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5MWBsPf5pg

    This following short video clearly shows, in a rather graphic fashion, the ‘moral dilemma' that atheists face when trying to ground objective morality;

    Cruel Logic – video
    Description; A brilliant serial killer videotapes his debates with college faculty victims. The topic of his debate with his victim: His moral right to kill them.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qd1LPRJLnI

    "Atheists may do science, but they cannot justify what they do. When they assume the world is rational, approachable, and understandable, they plagiarize Judeo-Christian presuppositions about the nature of reality and the moral need to seek the truth. As an exercise, try generating a philosophy of science from hydrogen coming out of the big bang. It cannot be done. It’s impossible even in principle, because philosophy and science presuppose concepts that are not composed of particles and forces. They refer to ideas that must be true, universal, necessary and certain." Creation-Evolution Headlines
    http://creationsafaris.com/crev201102.htm#20110227a

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousMarch 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM

    Geoxus: Thorton's exercise is to put himself in the shoes of creationists to examine the consistency of their claims. The problem is not that an evil or apathetic god is possible, but that very few creationists are willing to accept the possibility.

    Jeff: That's not a problem to anyone who thinks for themselves, Geoxus. Why do you care what some people think? The relevant point is that an indifferent designer is conceivable. In fact, that's pretty much what we say sadistic psychopaths are. They intentionally seek pleasures which most of us consider sadistic or socially indifferent. That doesn't mean those actions can explained without positing some intentions as necessary conditionz of those actions. ID per se is about explanation, not theodicy.

    Theodicy is a move up from that, positing narrower constraints so as to generate an epistemology that has a coherent way of accounting for warranted belief of any kind. As such, it is a worthy pursuit. For without such an epistemology, the axioms of science are just more blind beliefs that have to be accepted blindly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GeoxusMarch 18, 2012 at 1:13 PM

      Why do you care what some people think?

      I don't understand your question. I see no point in a discussion if you don't care about what the other person thinks. Most, if not all, creationists here are Christians who strongly believe in a caring and benevolent god.

      Theodicy is a move up from that, positing narrower constraints so as to generate an epistemology that has a coherent way of accounting for warranted belief of any kind. As such, it is a worthy pursuit.

      Worthy? Why is it desirable to generate your epistemology from one of the two equally fanciful axioms "God is good" and "God is evil"?

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMarch 18, 2012 at 4:10 PM

      Geoxus: I don't understand your question.

      Jeff: I meant it in the sense that you should care about the issues you think are relevant. Even if you think Christians believe non-sense, that has no relevance to what ID per se is about. I've never seen CH defend anything but ID per se.

      Geoxus: Why is it desirable to generate your epistemology from one of the two equally fanciful axioms "God is good" and "God is evil"?

      Jeff: The question is, how do you synthesize from your own categories of thought (whatever you think they are) an epistemology that doesn't render all beliefs blind? After all, it's you anti-ID folks that constantly assure us you have proved our most fundamental intuitions about time, space, design, etc. false. That's sheer non-sense. You can't disprove the very fundamental beliefs that render even falsifiability, etc. possible.

      For example, if evolution only assures survival, how can it be known that we even know anything about an external world. All subjective, conscious experience could be merely illusory and no one would know the difference. So long as the bodies are functioning just fine, conscious/sentient states could be irrelevan to survival.

      But in that case, falsification would be impossible for hypotheses about the external world. Such non-sense proves to much and therefore can not be taken seriously. And that's just one of an infinite set of absurdities that can't be falsified once you rule out a priori the belief that we're designed to apprehend.

      It's not like people do any rocket science reasoning to come to the conclusion that humans are designed to apprehend. It seems to be, as even some atheistic philosophers and scientists concede, that we believe this naturally. And lo and behold, this belief happens to ground the believe that we're capable of falsifying certain hypotheses about an external world to boot!

      The anti-ID approach can't even get us off the ground epistemologically. It intentionally starts in mid-air by blind faith and then dogmatically judges all that oppose.

      But alas, a sadistic or indifferent designer has the same epistemological problems. Remember "The Matrix?" Again, what could Neo falsify about the external world? NOTHING!

      Delete
    3. ScottMarch 18, 2012 at 5:39 PM

      Jeff: That's not a problem to anyone who thinks for themselves, Geoxus. Why do you care what some people think?

      We create knowledge by using conjecture to create theories. We then test those theories for errors using observations. However, if no one criticizes them, then we cannot discover errors. At which point, the entire process of creating knowledge comes to a grinding halt.

      Assuming there is some error-free source of knowledge, which cannot be criticized, essentially has the same effect.

      Jeff: In fact, that's pretty much what we say sadistic psychopaths are. They intentionally seek pleasures which most of us consider sadistic or socially indifferent. That doesn't mean those actions can explained without positing some intentions as necessary conditionz of those actions. ID per se is about explanation, not theodicy.

      Except, as I've pointed out elsewhere, merely claiming the biosphere was "designed" doesn't actually provide an explanation. All you've done is push the food around on your plate and claimed you've ate it. But it's right there staring you in the face.

      Adaptations require knowledge to build. However, ID says nothing about the origin of this knowledge.

      Jeff:Theodicy is a move up from that, positing narrower constraints so as to generate an epistemology that has a coherent way of accounting for warranted belief of any kind. As such, it is a worthy pursuit. For without such an epistemology, the axioms of science are just more blind beliefs that have to be accepted blindly.

      Again, are you familiar with the work of Karl Popper? Specifically, critical rationalism in particular?

      I'm asking because what you're describing is "warranted, true belief", which Popper pointed out, in great detail, is a myth.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousMarch 18, 2012 at 7:31 PM

      Scott: I'm asking because what you're describing is "warranted, true belief", which Popper pointed out, in great detail, is a myth.

      Jeff: Then you must have been bluffing when you said "We create knowledge by using conjecture to create theories." Knowledge is true belief. So if true belief is a myth, so is knowledge. If, on the other hand, knowledge exists but is unwarranted, there is no known methodology by which to generate knowledge. You can't have your cake and eat it too, Scott.

      Scott: Except, as I've pointed out elsewhere, merely claiming the biosphere was "designed" doesn't actually provide an explanation.

      Jeff: It's not merely "claimed." We don't have any other testable alternative. Indeed, no one yet has explained to me how we can even know we can do actual falsification about the "external" world if we can't at least know intuitively that our minds are designed to apprehend. To just "claim" that our minds apprehend an external world is a bald pontification. It can't be proved. And science, for the most part, has rejected the validity of foundationalism. That leaves us with nothing but blind faith. And that ain't worth arguing blindly about.

      Delete
    5. ScottMarch 18, 2012 at 8:54 PM

      Scott: Again, are you familiar with the work of Karl Popper? Specifically, critical rationalism in particular?

      Jeff: Knowledge is true belief. So if true belief is a myth, so is knowledge. If, on the other hand, knowledge exists but is unwarranted, there is no known methodology by which to generate knowledge.

      I'll take that as a "NO", as Popper indeed argues that knowledge exists, but is unwarranted, untrue and not belief.

      Apparently, methodologies by which to create knowledge only exist if *you* personally have knowledge of them.

      Delete
    6. GeoxusMarch 19, 2012 at 7:22 AM

      I meant it in the sense that you should care about the issues you think are relevant.

      Well, I do. I don't think I've ever brought up this topic, but once it's on the table why shouldn't I comment on it?

      Even if you think Christians believe non-sense, that has no relevance to what ID per se is about.

      I'm not very interested on ID per se, it's mostly vacuous. I'm more interested in the general mindsets that adopt and defend ID.

      I've never seen CH defend anything but ID per se.

      I beg your pardon? Cornelius never defends any positive claim, not even ID.

      The question is, how do you synthesize from your own categories of thought (whatever you think they are) an epistemology that doesn't render all beliefs blind?

      No, that's your question. My question was why would you want to base your epistemology on such a strange axiom as "God is good". I doesn't seem self-evident nor very useful at all as a starting point.

      For example, if evolution only assures survival, how can it be known that we even know anything about an external world. All subjective, conscious experience could be merely illusory and no one would know the difference. So long as the bodies are functioning just fine, conscious/sentient states could be irrelevan to survival.

      Well, I think you have part of the answer there. To keep bodies functioning is not so simple, we have to deal with the external world. One would expect evolution to develop cognitive systems that have some connection to the actual environment. Although some good enough connection, a perfect connection is, of course, not granted.

      And that's just one of an infinite set of absurdities that can't be falsified once you rule out a priori the belief that we're designed to apprehend.

      I think you're conflating two things here. The question of why to trust our cognitive systems is different from the question of how such systems came about.

      Delete
  10. second opinionMarch 18, 2012 at 4:41 PM

    To me the problem of evil is not an argument against IDC or for the TOE. It is a nice rhetoric device in debates but nothing more. Imho the universe was created by either an evil or an indifferent god irrespective of whether the TOE is true or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 18, 2012 at 8:34 PM

      This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMarch 18, 2012 at 8:35 PM

      The problem of evil is not a show-stopper for IDC if there is no doable theodicy. But it's impossible to account for warranted belief without one, on the other hand. And without warranted belief, who cares what anyone believes?

      Delete
  11. AnonymousMarch 19, 2012 at 9:42 AM

    Scott: I'll take that as a "NO", as Popper indeed argues that knowledge exists, but is unwarranted, untrue and not belief.

    Jeff: So all assertions are either JUST KNOWN or JUST UNKOWN by you? No degrees of plausibity? Absolute certainty or absolute uncertainty? Just want to make sure I'm understanding you before proceeding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ScottMarch 19, 2012 at 10:55 AM

      Jeff,

      A good place to start would be the Wikipedia entry on critical rationalism.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMarch 19, 2012 at 6:52 PM

      from the site: "For criticism is all that can be done when attempting to differentiate claims to knowledge, according to the critical rationalist. Reason is the organon of criticism, not of support; of tentative refutation, not of proof."

      So we know the rules of deduction, but nothing else? Where does knowledge of anything else come from?

      Delete
  12. AnonymousMarch 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM

    Geoxus: I think you're conflating two things here. The question of why to trust our cognitive systems is different from the question of how such systems came about.

    Jeff: We can't know such systems came about if our cognition is untrustworthy. All cognition could be mere subjective experience having no correspondence to an external "world" if our cognition is untrustworthy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GeoxusMarch 19, 2012 at 12:39 PM

      We can't know [how?] such systems came about if our cognition is untrustworthy.

      From your previous posts I suspect you meant to say that the other way around, right? I don't quite follow.

      All cognition could be mere subjective experience having no correspondence to an external "world" if our cognition is untrustworthy.

      And that could be the case! I can live with that. At least it would be an interesting illusion. I don't have a good answer for why to trust our cognition systems, but axiomatically claiming we must sounds rather cheap. I'd much prefer a more modest justification, like "to trust our cognition makes it easier to carry on with our lives (it can hurt to disbelieve your senses!)". It's far from satisfactory, but it's honest and avoids making stuff up.

      And I still can't understand your strong claim that our cognition can only be explained by design. Why is it exactly that can't be accounted by necessity?

      Delete
    2. ScottMarch 19, 2012 at 2:14 PM

      Jeff, you're essentially making the same sort of appeal as solipsism. However, when we attempt to take solipsism seriously, in that all observations should conform to it, we see it's a bad explanation.

      Specifically, the solipsist experiences and accepts the same observations you and I accept as external to ourselves, but claims they are somehow internal to themselves. Since solipsism predicts exactly the same empirical observations we observe, this means every every discovery in technology, medicine and particle physics also “supports” solipsism. They just happen to be internal to the solipsist, rather than external.

      However, solipsism is designed to explain away reality, not actually explain what we observe.

      Solipsism suggests there are dream-like aspects of myself that act like autonomous conscious beings which surprise me, have different personalities and even disagree with me on Solipsism. And there object-like facets of myself that obey laws of physics like facets even though, as a non-physicist, I can’t do the math that describes their behavior. Not to mention that these supposed people-like facets of myself discover new things about myself (physics like facets) all the time, which I wasn’t aware of previously.

      Solipsism makes no attempt to explain *why* object-like facets of one’s self would obey laws of physics-like facets of one’s self, etc. No explanation is presented at all. Instead, the claim is based on a supposed limitation that we cannot know anything exists outside of ourselves, which represents a supposed boundary where human reasoning and problem solving.

      In other words, Solipsism consists of the theory of realty with the added exception of it all being elaborate facets of the internal self. It merely attempts to explain way the currently tenable theory of reality. As such, solipsism is a convoluted elaboration of reality, in that it accepts the same observations, while suggesting a completely different state of affairs that is essentially the opposite of realism.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMarch 19, 2012 at 6:43 PM

      Scott: In other words, Solipsism consists of the theory of realty with the added exception of it all being elaborate facets of the internal self. It merely attempts to explain way the currently tenable theory of reality.

      Jeff: "Tenable" is not something you can knowably apply in distinctions. Remember, you claim you're NOT designed to apprehend.

      Delete
    4. wgbutler777March 20, 2012 at 3:44 AM

      Scott,

      How was the information on the Shroud of Turin created?

      Delete
    5. GhostriderMarch 20, 2012 at 6:23 AM

      wgbutler777

      How was the information on the Shroud of Turin created?

      It was created by the medieval human artists who fabricated the shrould.

      Delete
    6. wgbutler777March 20, 2012 at 10:00 AM


      It was created by the medieval human artists who fabricated the shrould.


      Really? Which medieval human artists created it? What methods did they use? Is it possible to create a replica of the Shroud that matches its physical and chemical properties?

      Also, how were the medieval artists able to encode three dimensional information that could only be analyzed by NASA's VP-8 computer? And how were they able to create an image that would only appear in photographic negative, hundreds of years before the invention of photography? How did these artists become forensic geniuses that were able to create with 100% anatomical accuracy the blood patterns and wounds that matched perfectly the crucifixion account in the gospels? Finally, how were they able to match up the wounds and mark perfectly with the Sudarium of Oviedo?

      Do tell!

      Delete
    7. ScottMarch 21, 2012 at 8:21 AM

      Jeff: "Tenable" is not something you can knowably apply in distinctions. Remember, you claim you're NOT designed to apprehend.

      Now you're merely playing word games, as you're using design in the sense of being *intentionally* designed to comprehend.

      One could say a puddle of water fits "perfectly" in a pothole, despite the pothole not being intentionally deigned to hold the water.

      Delete
    8. ScottMarch 21, 2012 at 8:35 AM

      WG: Really? Which medieval human artists created it? What methods did they use? Is it possible to create a replica of the Shroud that matches its physical and chemical properties?

      This is the same sort of fallacy assuming we should be abel to put a bunch of chemicals into a vat and get life.

      Specifically, you're assuming there is some principle of induction by which should allow us to mechanically derive an explanation for the pattern using observations of the Shroud itself. But, as Popper has pointed out, inductivism is a myth.

      In other words, it's not evidence that is scarce, as we have plenty. What is scarce are explanatory theories for evidence, And it's scarce because we create theories from conjecture, rather than mechanically deriving them from observations.

      Of course, I'm guessing this will go completely over your head, so I'm not sure why I should even bother pointing out the difference.

      Delete
  13. GhostriderMarch 19, 2012 at 10:06 AM

    Jeff

    We can't know such systems came about if our cognition is untrustworthy. All cognition could be mere subjective experience having no correspondence to an external "world" if our cognition is untrustworthy.


    Big LOL! I was just kidding the other day when I noted:

    "What's next, the argument that we're all just disembodied brains living in a vat?"

    ...all you can do is shake your head and laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  14. AnonymousMarch 19, 2012 at 5:31 PM

    Geoxus: And that could be the case! I can live with that. At least it would be an interesting illusion.

    Jeff: Then we're done. That's the kind of epistemological humility I like to see from those who go your route. The Thorton's of the world are so confused and yet consumed with an over-blow sense of entitlement that they've become obnoxiously arrogant.

    Geoxus: I'd much prefer a more modest justification, like "to trust our cognition makes it easier to carry on with our lives (it can hurt to disbelieve your senses!)". It's far from satisfactory, but it's honest and avoids making stuff up.

    Jeff: I'm only claiming that you're right--that those in the UCA camp can't even get off the ground epistemologically to even remotely come close to being taken seriously by those who are unconvinced when they state that UCA is known to be a fact.

    Geoxus: And I still can't understand your strong claim that our cognition can only be explained by design. Why is it exactly that can't be accounted by necessity?

    Jeff: I only mean that as far a I can tell, benevolent/competent design is the only intuition that can account for why we can't shake our belief that we apprehend. Very few atheists that I know even deny that a belief in design is intuitive. They just question the validity of their categories and intuitions. And that's precisely why the consistent ones are as open-minded as you are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GeoxusMarch 19, 2012 at 8:14 PM

      I'm only claiming that you're right--that those in the UCA camp can't even get off the ground epistemologically to even remotely come close to being taken seriously by those who are unconvinced when they state that UCA is known to be a fact.

      I see no connection with UCA, but whatever. I can't take very seriously your epistemology either, if you're justifying it by axiomatically claiming God made you to know. I could base my epistemology on the axiom that our cognition is reliable by necessity, but that's just as lame.

      I do accept the assumption that our cognition is reliable (possibly imperfectly), --I think it's the best we can do if we want to go anywhere,-- but I lack an entirely satisfactory justification for this. That means that my assumption is provisional, and that the knowledge that stems from that assumption is provisional as well. Is that so different from the foundations of your own epistemology? If you think you have grounds for a higher degree of certitude, I don't see how you design axiom grants them.

      I only mean that as far a I can tell, benevolent/competent design is the only intuition that can account for why we can't shake our belief that we apprehend.

      But you've just repeated yourself, unless you're claiming the intuitive status of "design" makes it preferable (but then, couldn't necessity be an intuition?). Why is design better than necessity?

      Also, the "benevolent" bit is capricious. What if the external word is painful, and the benevolent designer made us to trick ourselves into thinking we live in a better world? What if the designer is malevolent and made us to believe we're living in a more painful world? A malevolent designer could even have made us to reliably experience the true horrors of the external world.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMarch 20, 2012 at 4:27 AM

      Geoxus: I do accept the assumption that our cognition is reliable (possibly imperfectly), --I think it's the best we can do if we want to go anywhere,-- but I lack an entirely satisfactory justification for this. That means that my assumption is provisional, and that the knowledge that stems from that assumption is provisional as well.

      Jeff: It's not merely provisional. It's ABSOLUTELY provisional. It can NEVER be anythihg BUT provisional. Thus, you can NEVER say ANYTHING about a putative external world is known by you. You're just speculating constantly. And now that I know that you know you know nothing about an external world, I'm perfectly fine with your approach. On the other hand, it's absolutely worthless to me.

      Delete
    3. GeoxusMarch 20, 2012 at 7:08 AM

      Wow, you do have extremely high pretensions about knowledge. I still don't see how can you justify them. If could try to answer my questions...

      Delete
    4. AnonymousMarch 20, 2012 at 4:24 PM

      By your view, I can't knowingly answer a question accurately, anyway. So what, pray tell, difference does it make what I say? Your approach is such that it doesn't matter what you OR I think (assuming I'm not a figment of your imagination in the first place, of course).

      Delete
    5. GeoxusMarch 21, 2012 at 8:42 PM

      Not a question about the external world, but I made no such question.

      And no, I'm not really a solipsist. My epistemology is a work in progress. What I'm seeing here is you being dismissive toward what I regard to be a challenging problem, yet failing to reply to criticism of your position.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousMarch 22, 2012 at 4:16 AM

      Geoxus, you're epistemology, if it doesn't have entailed the intuition that you are DESIGNED to APPREHEND, does not consist of challenging problems. It is dead out of the door. You can't even know if you've ever had an actual memory with that approach. But what's most fatal is the fact that you can't even believe you have a criteria for plausibility determination that isn't just posited by absolute blind faith. That means ALL normative evaluation is BLIND.

      Delete
    7. GeoxusMarch 22, 2012 at 8:44 AM

      No, you're confusing the issue by using the word "design". Your intuition needs to be that we can apprehend, period. Whether we were designed for that or not doesn't change anything.

      Delete
    8. AnonymousMarch 23, 2012 at 4:15 AM

      Well, intuition is key. Do you accept that there really is intuitive knowledge? Or do you, like some atheists I've debated claim nothing is known intuitively. For if nothing is known intuitively, all belief is blind. For then, every belief is neither intuitive nor grounded in anything knowably plausible. We can't even get make progress that way.

      But if you do believe in intuitive knowledge, then we can discuss what humanly knowable criteria we can use to adjudicate which epistemology is BETTER. If none is better than any other, then there's nothing to meaningfully argue about--including ID vs. anti-ID.

      Delete
    9. GeoxusMarch 23, 2012 at 6:36 PM

      I think you may be right in that intuition may be necessary for knowledge. But these intuitions act as assumptions, and one should be careful about assumptions. Especially if the veracity of the assumptions is apparently impossible to determine. I think we should aim to keep the minimal number of assumptions necessary for knowledge.

      Another problem is to identify the "correct" intuitions. I think you're dead wrong in that we need to accept as true the intuition that we designed to apprehend. I, for one, don't have that intuition at all. The word "design" is tricky. It might mean the plan of somebody, but it can also simply mean "the particular way things are". I suspect your alluded atheist philosophers are using the latter meaning when they say we are designed to apprehend. I'd agree. It's intuitive that we are in such a way that we can apprehend. More succinctly, I have the intuition that we can apprehend. I think you do too, and that's all we need.

      How did we came to be this way is another issue. The answer could be design*, necessity, or chance. Non of the alternatives is intuitive for me.

      * I think it could be argued that design is a particular case of necessity, but that doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment.

      Delete
    10. GeoxusMarch 23, 2012 at 6:39 PM

      This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. GeoxusMarch 23, 2012 at 6:43 PM

      Anticipating your possible reply, if you think it's absolutely necessary to think we're designed to apprehend, please do tell this time why wouldn't necessity, and even chance, do the trick as well.

      Delete
    12. AnonymousMarch 23, 2012 at 9:06 PM

      Geoxus: I think we should aim to keep the minimal number of assumptions necessary for knowledge.

      Jeff: You have stated the very reason why I think my view is correct. So let me get one thing clear before proceeding according to this criteria we agree on. Do you believe humans even have free-will, such that teleological causality is a real causal relation?

      Delete
  15. GhostriderMarch 19, 2012 at 6:52 PM

    Jeff

    I'm only claiming that you're right--that those in the UCA camp can't even get off the ground epistemologically to even remotely come close to being taken seriously by those who are unconvinced when they state that UCA is known to be a fact.

    Please provide a reference to an accredited scientist, science research paper, or science text stating that "UCA is known to be a fact."

    I say you just made that up. Please support the claim or retract.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 19, 2012 at 6:57 PM

      What are they saying is a fact when they do refer to the "fact" ID'ists supposedly disbelieve that is any less a brazen pontification? And no, I won't retract. I wanna see if you'll kill me! LOL!

      Delete
  16. GhostriderMarch 19, 2012 at 7:19 PM

    Jeff

    What are they saying is a fact when they do refer to the "fact" ID'ists supposedly disbelieve that is any less a brazen pontification? And no, I won't retract. I wanna see if you'll kill me! LOL!

    OK, you admit to being a liar. You now have forfeited any small bit of credibility you may have had.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 19, 2012 at 7:28 PM

      But you're not gonna kill me? LOL!

      Delete
    2. GhostriderMarch 19, 2012 at 7:33 PM

      Jeff

      But you're not gonna kill me? LOL!

      Demonstrating your dishonesty to the lurkers is enough.

      How many other "quotes" from scientists did you make up?

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMarch 19, 2012 at 8:14 PM

      It wasn't in quotes, Thorton. It's a comment that captures their delusion. They constantly speak of "facts" that can not be known to be plausible per induction or true because of deductions from intuitions. They're just idiots--like you.

      Delete
    4. GhostriderMarch 19, 2012 at 8:20 PM

      Jeff

      It wasn't in quotes, Thorton. It's a comment that captures their delusion. They constantly speak of "facts" that can not be known to be plausible per induction or true because of deductions from intuitions. They're just idiots--like you.

      You made up something out of whole cloth just to 'win' an argument. That's called lying Jeff. Honest people don't do it.

      How does that work out for you in real life, lying to try and make points?

      Delete
    5. AnonymousMarch 20, 2012 at 4:24 AM

      Wrong, Thorton. There are plenty of scientists who say things logically equivalent to the idea that UCA, or something very close to it (like SA from multiple single-celled organisms or something), is TRUE or a FACT. What cave have you been living in?

      There's a book called "WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE." And it's not about why evolution from SA at the family level is true, Thorton. It's a book that purportedly shows how even most PHYLA evolved is KNOWABLE.

      You see, Thorton, you're so illogical you wouldn't know a lie if it hit you in the face.

      Delete
    6. GhostriderMarch 20, 2012 at 6:14 AM

      Jeff

      Wrong, Thorton. There are plenty of scientists who say things logically equivalent to the idea that UCA, or something very close to it (like SA from multiple single-celled organisms or something), is TRUE or a FACT. What cave have you been living in?

      Then provide a reference for any scientist saying UCA is known to be a fact.

      Wriggling and squirming to justify the lie ("logically equivalent", "something very close to it") isn't very honest either Jeff. Or very smart.

      You see, Thorton, you're so illogical you wouldn't know a lie if it hit you in the face.

      Yet I knew the one you told right off the bat.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousMarch 20, 2012 at 4:20 PM

      Ok, let's assume that the title "Why evolution is true" doesn't mean "how I know evolution is a fact," then I guess the author is just pathetically poor at communication. I'll give you that. The man is still an idiot either way.

      Delete
    8. AnonymousMarch 20, 2012 at 4:26 PM

      And to clarify, Thorton, I'm not meaning that the man isn't a savant in some sense. He clearly is. But savants can be IDIOT-savants.

      Delete
    9. AnonymousMarch 22, 2012 at 4:11 AM

      So put up for a change, Thorton -- When Coyne writes a book called "Why evolution is true," what relevant difference does it make that he allows for CA back to multiple single-celled organisms in the Precambrian as opposed to merely one? How is the one known to be true and the other not? You're literally moronic beyond belief, dude.

      Delete
    10. GhostriderMarch 22, 2012 at 6:10 AM

      JeffMar 22, 2012 04:11 AM

      So put up for a change, Thorton

      Man up for a change Jeff. Supply the source for your claim that scientists say UCA is known to be a fact or retract. Quit trying to cowardly change the subject.

      what relevant difference does it make that he allows for CA back to multiple single-celled organisms in the Precambrian as opposed to merely one?

      What does the "U" in UCA stand for Jeff?

      You told the lie, now you've got to wear it.

      Delete
    11. AnonymousMarch 24, 2012 at 3:13 PM

      Thorton: You told the lie, now you've got to wear it.

      Jeff: OK, it's on now. How do I look? Does it match my shoes?

      Delete
  17. velikovskysMarch 19, 2012 at 7:44 PM

    Jeff,
    Interesting, you have mentioned several times that only a competent and benevolent design can account for the intuitive belief we are designed. Is this a choice of the designer or does design logically require this intuition? If a requirement why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GeoxusMarch 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM

      ^^ This.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMarch 19, 2012 at 8:17 PM

      Rather, only the intuitive or virtually intuitive belief that we are competently designed to apprehend to attain satisfaction can account for any kind of normativity for thought. And without normativity for thought, no belief is better or worse than another in any knowable or non-relativistic sense. It's all blind faith once you abandon even THAT much of your intuition.

      Delete
  18. velikovskysMarch 20, 2012 at 9:35 AM

    Jeff,
    I suspected that the virtual intuitive belief was the key to our ability to apprehend to attain satisfaction. To believe otherwise would be ludicrous . But the linkage of the most basic of all human beliefs that we were competently designed, at maybe a high C or low B level,to normativity is a stroke of genius. It virtually proves itself. Coupled with an explanation with zen-like simplicity , another nail in the Darwinian coffin. Thanks. When you have time, I have a question about cupcakes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 20, 2012 at 4:17 PM

      If we aren't designed, we aren't designed to apprehend cupcakes.

      If we aren't designed to apprehend competently, we may not be able to apprehend cupcakes, and we could never demonstrate otherwise.

      There is no knowable normativity to thought if we can not apprehend that sentient states can be modified, causally and predictably, by intentional allocation of consciousness.

      It's really pretty simple. Making cupcakes is more difficult.

      Delete
    2. velikovskysMarch 20, 2012 at 10:30 PM

      This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMarch 21, 2012 at 4:26 AM

      Velikovskys: Which brings me back to my first question, could we be designed competently not to apprehend cupcakes?

      Jeff: It's not so much about what we can seemingly conceive of as logical possibilities. It's about whether I have any reason to believe it's plausible that I can or have had REAL converstions.

      Personally, I can't shake the belief that I know certain plausibility criteria. On the other hand, I can't shake the belief that there is an infinite set of unfalsifiable logical possibilities that I can't falsify even by implication (by confirming, e.g., that a hypothesis about an external world passed any given test) if I deem them REAL possibilities.

      This, in turn, means I can't possibly know what I can't, on the other hand, shake believing I know. Thus, the only way I can accept both is if my intuition of design grounds a VALID (i.e., normative) way to distinguish between REAL possibilities and merely logical possibilites.

      And the only way that works is if I accept not only that my category of design is as epistemologically "authoritative" as any other category, but that my most fundamental inference that I'm designed to seek and attain satisfaction is correct.

      If either of those is false, I can know nothing. And in that case, I feel no motivation to attempt to dialogue since I can't even believe other beings exist with ANY knowable plausibility even.

      So, again, it's not about what can be proven, it's about what must be believed to render any putative dialogue a knowably REAL activity.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousMarch 21, 2012 at 4:38 AM

      To sum up, V, we can't even CORROBORATE a hypothesis about any regular, external world if what seem to be unfalsifiable LOGICAL possibilities are actually REAL possibilities.

      So how do YOU show, per your epistemology, that those seemingly unfalsifiable logical possibilities aren't REAL possibilities? Because THAT'S the burden of proof that YOU have if you insiste you've CORROBORATED the hypothesis of UCA. No one has ever done any such thing. It's not a causal theory. It's a tree-building methodology. The UCA hypothesis itself is PURELY metaphysical.

      Delete
  19. velikovskysMarch 21, 2012 at 12:30 PM

    Appreciate the thought provoking post and the translation to common English.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)