Saturday, December 22, 2012

An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation

And a Whole List of Other Things That Came True

Adam Sedgwick was a class act and his November 24, 1859 letter to Charles Darwin is a classic. In the 1128 word missive the aging professor of geology at Cambridge University—after reading Darwin’s massive work in less than a week amidst his many other duties—managed to pack several cogent criticisms and profound observations of evolutionary thought.

Sedgwick began his review by explaining that he had read the younger Darwin’s manuscript “with more pain than pleasure.” For while parts were admirable and other parts humorous, there nonetheless were so many passages that Sedgwick read “with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous.”

For Darwin, it seemed to Sedgwick, had abandoned the tried and true method of empirically-based scientific induction and substituted for it his own baseless assumptions:

Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?

Neither proved nor disproved? What a prophecy of the evolutionary just-so stories to come.

And as for Darwin’s grand principle, natural selection, “what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts.” Yet Darwin had smuggled in teleological language to avoid the absurdity and make it acceptable. For Darwin had written of natural selection “as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.” Yet again, this criticism is cogent today. Teleological language is rampant in the evolutionary literature.

And anticipating the fixity-of-species strawman, Sedgwick explained to the Sage of Kent that he had conflated the observable fact of change over time (development) with the explanation of how it came about. Everyone agreed on development, but the key question of its causes and mechanisms remained. Darwin had used the former as a sort of proof of a particular explanation for the latter. “We all admit development as a fact of history;” explained Sedgwick, “but how came it about?”

Again, how cogent. Even to this day evolutionists continue to trumpet the fact of evolution because moths change color or viruses mutate, as though that somehow proves the spontaneous origin of all of biology.

Now the foundation had been laid and Sedgwick was ready to make his thesis point: “There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.” Yet again what an incredible prophecy of things to come. Evolutionary thought since Darwin extrapolated wildly on his vacuous thought experiments with so many just-so stories which tell us nothing about the actual science.

But that is not all. Sedgwick continued with his observation that the life sciences (organic science) holds a unique position within the sciences because its province includes sentient creatures and all that that entails, even consciousness and morality:

Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro’ final cause, link material to moral; & yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, & our classification of such laws whether we consider one side of nature or the other— You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it.

Darwin had broken the sacred trust entrusted to the life scientist with his cavalier and even presumptuous conclusions. But Sedgwick, in a chilling anticipation of the coming eugenics and abortion movements, believed such ignorance could never propagate:

Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.

Sedgwick correctly foresaw the terrible consequences of the modern day resurrection of the Epicurean idea that something, and in fact everything, came from nothing. Humanity would suffer damage that “might brutalize it” and sink the human race “into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen.” Today we witness a never-ending road of killing and destruction.

If only Sedgwick could have read Nietzsche when the German polymath proclaimed that it was the sick, the oppressed, the broken and the weak, rather than evil men, who were the greatest threat to humanity:

Sick people are the greatest danger for healthy people. …

The invalids are the great danger to humanity: not the evil men, not the “predatory animals.” Those people who are, from the outset, failures, oppressed, broken— they are the ones, the weakest, who most undermine life among human beings, who in the most perilous way poison and question our trust in life, in humanity, in ourselves. Where can we escape it, that downcast glance with which people carry a deep sorrow, that reversed gaze of the man originally born to fail which betrays how such a man speaks to himself—that gaze which is a sigh. “I wish I could be someone else!”— that’s what this glance sighs. “But there is no hope here. I am who I am. How could I detach myself from myself? And yet—I’ve had enough of myself!”. . . On such a ground of contempt for oneself, a truly swampy ground, grows every weed, every poisonous growth, and all of them so small, so hidden, so dishonest, so sweet. Here the worms of angry and resentful feelings swarm; here the air stinks of secrets and duplicity; here are constantly spun the nets of the most malicious conspiracies—the plotting of suffering people against the successful and victorious; here the appearance of the victor is despised. And what dishonesty not to acknowledge this hatred as hatred! …

Take a look into the background of every family, every corporation, every community: everywhere you see the struggle of the sick against the healthy—a quiet struggle, for the most part …

Sedgwick’s unfortunate vision was not long in its fulfillment.

Next Sedgwick again sensed a trend that would extrapolate beyond Darwin when he warned the younger Darwin about his “tone of triumphant confidence.” If ever there was a consistent thread amongst evolutionists, aside from their metaphysics, it would be their incredible “tone of triumphant confidence” when proclaiming that the world came from nothing. The more absurd the theory, the greater the sound and fury with which it is proclaimed.

For Darwin, warned Sedgwick, had made claims well beyond the limits of science. Darwin issued truths that were not likely ever to be found anywhere “but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.”

The fertile womb of man’s imagination. What a cogent summary of evolutionary theory. Sedgwick made more correct predictions in his short letter than all the volumes of evolutionary literature to come.

But Sedgwick would not sign off before offering his friendship and good will. It was in the “spirit of brotherly love” that Sedgwick wrote and he asked forgiveness for any sore points he may have left. Sedgwick spoke the truth as he saw it, but at the same time held no grudges.

192 comments:

  1. "Sedgwick correctly foresaw the terrible consequences of the modern day resurrection of the Epicurean idea that something, and in fact everything, came from nothing. Humanity would suffer damage that “might brutalize it” and sink the human race “into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen.” Today we witness a never-ending road of killing and destruction."

    Darwin = early virus
    Sedgwick = early antibody

    where's the white blood cell when we need it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. wow...thanks C.H. Amazing to see just how little the debate regarding the adequacy of RM/NS to deliver the full scope of biological diversity has changed since 1859. From a materialist persepctive NS/RM (or something like it) *must* be responsible...to the point of it being assumed as "fact". From an ID perspective (or even a world view that allows for some form of ID), NS/RM appears as an elegant but ultimately trivial mechanism that allows creatures to adapt to changes in their environements, but is laughably inadequate to...say...build eyes from light sensitive patches of skin. the 160+ yr stalemate continues...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the 160+ yr stalemate continues...

      Because that stalemate is between two different, incommensurate, worlds: science versus religion. The science says "no," but the religion insists "yes."

      Delete
    2. Yet, for the ID'ist, the science says "no" for now. It does not mean that naturalistic UCA, consistent with current event regularities, is currently known to be impossible.

      On the other hand, the religion of UCA'ists seems to be non-tentative. It's as though they're either too simple-minded to see that ...

      1) the conceivability of libertarian free-will not only grounds the intelligibility of ID, itself, but it grounds the logical possibility of a teleological theodicy,

      or

      2) that a generic teleological theodicy is seemingly impossible to disprove on logical grounds alone.

      Thus, it always get back to how many ad-hoc hypotheses is necessary for the competing approaches. Virtually all else has nothing to do with rational criteria, just as Segwick was indicating.

      Delete
  3. When Sedgwick said "Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?" ...

    ... he was not suggesting that all mega-views don't posit ad-hoc hypotheses to some extent. He was saying, seemingly, that the sheer number of ad-hoc hypotheses required once you rule out final causes is infinite unless you posit uncaused origins, like the Big Bang theory, etc. And even when you posit uncaused origins and events, unless you do it ubiquitously, the final causality approach will always require less ad-hoc hypotheses for those whose conscious experience is consistent with significantly ORDERED event sequences.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And little background

    He strongly believed that species of organisms originated in a succession of Divine creative acts throughout the long expanse of history. Any form of development that denied a direct creative action smacked as materialistic and amoral. For Sedgwick, moral truths (the obtainment of which separates man from beast) were to be distinguished from physical truths, and to combine these or blur them together could only lead to disastrous consequences. In fact, one's own hope for immortality may ultimately rest on it.

    How many ad hoc is that ,Jeff?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. V, it's less, by far, than naturalistic approaches. So it matters not how many. How many "non-caused" singularities do you have to posit as a naturalist to get the number of ad-hoc hypotheses to a finite number? As a naturalist, there is no epistemology that even warrants our inference to "orders" (e.g., regularities) of any kind. The mind IMPOSES orders to get a handle on moral and natural inferences in a rational way.

      But if there is no intuitively known teleological FIT between what the mind imposes and what actually IS, each particular belief about anything beyond mere subjective conscious experience is essentially arbitrary, since it is not an instance of corroboration of any theory that starts with intuitively known axioms and/or virtually intuitive inferences.

      See this, e.g. -- http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/an_acceptable_i067711.html. In short, even teleology is allowed once it's consistent with an illusory view of a putatively objective reality. Talking about ad-hoc hypotheses!!!!!

      Delete
    2. To correct myself, I don't think naturalism has any definable meaning other than determinism. But I will use it sometimes, as others do, to mean that there is no Designer of those orders we infer exist in an objective, extra-ego (i.e., non-solipsistic) "world" of beings with causal capacity, etc.

      Delete
    3. Jeff,
      As a naturalist, there is no epistemology that even warrants our inference to "orders" (e.g., regularities) of any kind

      Explain,please ,how a non naturalist avoids this trap. As for your link I thought ID had no interest into who the Designer was or how or when he did his designing,this story is whining that science doesn't investigate God( which one?) , perhaps you might lay out a procedure to to that as well if you have time. I am interested in your reasoning

      Delete
    4. Here is a meaning that applies to science,

      Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. The genesis of nature, e.g., by an act of God, is not addressed.

      This second sense of naturalism seeks only to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge

      Delete
    5. Jeff

      velikovskys: "How many ad hoc is that ,Jeff?"

      V, it's less, by far, than naturalistic approaches. So it matters not how many.


      If you can't quantify the numbers for the two positions even to a first order approximation, how do you know it's less?

      Delete
    6. Thorton, because I know finite is less than infinite. And I know positing uncaused events is less rational than positing libertarianly-caused events. Because positing uncaused events is both counter-intuitive and unnecessarily complicating. It requires an intuitive criteria that allows us to distinguish between the 3.

      Delete
    7. V: Explain,please ,how a non naturalist avoids this trap.

      J: Later this afternoon ...

      V: As for your link I thought ID had no interest into who the Designer was or how or when he did his designing,this story is whining that science doesn't investigate God( which one?),

      J: I agree with Steve Fuller that ID requires a theodicy. I go further and say ID requires that I, myself, must be known to be libertarianly free. This would be the case even if the Designer is a physical being. A simulation doesn't involve libertarianly-free processes. I will explain further later.

      V: quote: "Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature."

      J: As opposed to non-nature? What does this mean?

      V: quote: "It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events."

      J: Does this mean determinism or not? If not, what does "natural" mean.

      V: quote: "The genesis of nature, e.g., by an act of God, is not addressed."

      J: And this is because God is non-deterministic or what?

      V: This second sense of naturalism seeks only to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge

      J: Does this mean that libertarianly-free causality doesn't exist? If not, then science doesn't rule out libertarianly free agents as explanatory, in part, of SOME events, at minimum. When courts infer whether persons lacked self-control, do they do this arbitrarily? Is self-control distinguishable from libertarianly-free causality?

      Delete
    8. Jeff

      Thorton, because I know finite is less than infinite.


      But you haven't demonstrated infinite anything. Pulled out of your butt claims don't get very far in the real scientific world.

      Where is your quantification for your claimed ad hoc hypotheses? Please list them.

      Delete
    9. But it's easy to do, Moronton. I there's an infinite set of histories of the class, "The first beings popped into existence a-causally n microseconds ago, and all subsequent conscious experience has no knowable correpondence to the events entailed in the actions of those beings." You can change "n" indefinitely--i.e., infinitely. And Moronton, that's just ONE class of merely logical possibilities once you allow for uncaused events. There are MORE of such infinite sets. THINK, MORON!!!!

      Delete
    10. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      But it's easy to do


      Then why can't you do it LFJJ?

      If your Magic Designer can POOF multiple separately created kinds into existence, kinds which then evolved and diverged, now is that LESS complicated or involve LESS ad hoc assumptions than if just one UCA was POOFED and then evolved and diverged?

      That's not even touching on the fact you haven't provided a single piece of evidence for any separate kinds being created.

      You really are incredibly stupid and clueless of both science and logic.

      Delete
    11. YOU have provided the evidence for separate ancestry, thorTARD.

      And you don't have any evidence to account for the differences observed. So yes, UCA would require many untestable assumptions and many magical mystery mutations.

      Delete
    12. Fatboy Joke Gallien

      EVOLUTION DOESN'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE!!!!


      Go eat another five pound of Oreos porky.

      Fatboy Joke Gallien, dumbest Creationist of them all.

      Delete
    13. Cowardly thorton sock puppet, closet YEC-

      Mommy Joe keeps exposing my cowardice and ignorance. Please protect me!

      Delete
    14. Joe, Moronton is so moronic he has poo-poo'ed logic books on the ground that logic is philosophy and not science. And then he acts like logic is all of a sudden relevant to the topic at hand.

      But I agree with him. What he calls science has nothing to do with logic. That's why every detail he believes about earth history is an arbirtrary assumption. None of it is inductive in nature. For we all know that induction has to do with that nasty philosophical stuff called LOGIC.

      Moronton is so confused he thinks positing that a single UCA existed INDICATES that:

      1) it DID exist

      and

      2) the genealogical trajectories are not only logically possible in terms of event regularities he chooses to assume were in play over the time-frame, but actually occurred.

      It's no wonder he would never tell me "how" data INDICATES an hypothesis is valid, true or most plausible. It must be nice to affect history by wishful thinking. Even God can't do that!

      Delete
    15. Jeff,

      Yes, I understand. If you go to my blog and search on "thorton" you will read some real winners.

      Delete
    16. BIG LOL!

      Liar for Jesus Jeff and Fatboy Joke Gallien, you two make the sweetest Creationist couple!

      While you boys are busy giving each other reach-arounds the scientific community is still laughing at then ignoring your impotent grandstanding and stupidity.

      Been seven years since Kitzmiller v. Dover, what have you Creationists come up with new? Anything? Breakthroughs in Baraminology? The paradigm-shaking science from Axe and Gauger's "green-screen" fake ID lab?

      You guys were clowns then, you're clowns now, you'll be clowns tomorrow. But thanks for all the belly-laughs you provide.

      Delete
    17. Cowardly thorton sock puppet, closet YEC-

      Mommy, Joe keeps exposing my cowardice and ignorance. Please protect me!

      Your position didn't have any positive evidence in 2005 and it still doesn't.

      Delete
    18. Hey Fatboy, tell me again what theory of biological change and diversity is still taught in colleges and universities and used successfully by millions of researchers in the world every day?

      HINT: It's not Intelligent Design Creationism.

      Delete
    19. What "theory"? It can't even muster a testable hypothesis. And how can it be of any success when it is too vague to be of any use?

      Delete
    20. Tell us again about these predictions based on accumulations of genetic accidents.

      Tell us what use it is to any researcher saying that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of prokaryotic-like organisms via accumulations of genetic accidents.

      You are nothing but a lowlife equivocating momma's boy and your response to this post will prove it

      Delete
    21. The perpetual refrain of Moronton is basically, "I'm a pathetic fideist, I'm a pathetic fideist, I'm a pathetic fideist! Now don't you feel stupid for not joining me?"

      Well, Moronton, no, I don't. No rational person does.

      Delete
    22. Hey Liar for Jesus Jeff, why don't you tell me what theory of biological change and diversity is still taught in colleges and universities and used successfully by millions of researchers in the world every day?

      Your boyfriend Chubby Joe won't.

      Delete
    23. V: Explain,please ,how a non naturalist avoids this trap.

      J: First of all, explanation for a finite being must have finality. It can't involve an infinite regress. To get around an infinite regress, we have to accept that for any explanation to be doable, we must accept some constraining beliefs as axioms.

      But first of all, why would I assume that explanations ARE doable in any knowably warranted way? If the doability of explanations is a necesssary condition to my teleological attainment of satisfaction (and it certainly seems to be in my case), and if I seem to be impelled by my very nature to seek satisfaction, then the generic hypothesis is this:

      H: I'm designed to seek and attain long-term, worthwhile satisfaction ...

      Then, the fact that I can conceive of how I can do doable explanations (by inferring inductively) that advance my satisfaction is just a corroboration of my generic hypothesis. Now, as it turns out, the very inductive criteria I apply to generate doable explanations sufficient to advance my satisfaction implies that the designer that designed me to seek satisfaction is sympathetic. Because I can't think of naturalistic explanation of my capacity to attain satisfaction, and the inductive criteria of analogy compels me to believe that a teleological designer of my satisfaction-attaining capacity must be sympathetic. What else would analogy get me? Sympathetic beings get satisfication FROM the satisfaction of others.

      Note, the satisfaction here is long-term, teleological satisfaction that renders existence worthwhile. This is why people infer post-mortem satisfaction--because it is a necessary ad-hoc hypothesis to render the hypothesis H coherent in all respects.

      Now, V, start WITHOUT the hypothesis that you are designed to attain teleological satisfaction and show me how you can get around positing innumerable ad-hoc hypotheses. I can't see how that's doable.

      Delete
    24. Hey momma's boy thorton-

      Tell us again about these predictions based on accumulations of genetic accidents.

      Tell us what use it is to any researcher saying that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of prokaryotic-like organisms via accumulations of genetic accidents.

      You are nothing but a lowlife equivocating momma's boy and your response to this post will prove it
      - thanks for coming through, again

      Delete
    25. Total number of 4-year colleges and universities in the U.S. that offer courses in evolutionary biology: Approx. 4000

      Top U.S. Schools for Biology

      Caltech
      MIT
      Yale
      Harvard
      Wisconsin
      UC San Diego
      UC Berkeley
      U Colorado
      Columbia
      Stanford
      U Washington
      U Chicago
      Duke
      Wash U St Louis
      UCLA
      U Michigan
      Cornell
      U Penn
      Purdue
      Indiana U
      UNC Chapel Hill
      U Utah
      Johns Hopkins
      Northwestern
      Princeton
      UC Irvine
      Notre Dame
      UC Santa Barbara
      UVA
      Brown
      U Illinois Urbana Champaign
      U Pittsburgh
      Vanderbilt
      U Oregon
      SUNY Stony Brook
      U Rochester
      Tufts
      U Minnesota
      SUNY Buffalo
      U Texas Austin
      Florida State
      Michigan State
      USC
      U Connecticut
      UC Riverside
      Rice
      Iowa State
      SUNY Albany
      Case Western
      Boston U
      Ohio State
      NYU
      U Iowa
      Penn State
      Emory
      Brandeis
      U Kansas
      Rutgers New Brunswick
      Tulane
      US Air Force Academy
      U Missouri Columbia

      Total number of 4-year colleges and universities in the U.S. that offer courses in Intelligent Design Creationism: 0

      Hey Fatboy, what's the score?

      Delete
    26. WHAT do they offer, exactly?

      Tell us again about these predictions based on accumulations of genetic accidents.

      Tell us what use it is to any researcher saying that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of prokaryotic-like organisms via accumulations of genetic accidents.

      You are nothing but a lowlife equivocating momma's boy and your response to this post HAS proven it
      - thanks for coming through, again

      Delete
    27. What they offer:

      The theory of evolution says that somehow, some things happened at some point in time, things kept happening and things keep happening to make things the way they are now.

      Delete
    28. Chubby Joke G

      WHAT do they offer, exactly?


      LOL! I can tell you for sure what they don't offer.

      (points at the long list of top Biology schools again)

      C'mon Fatboy, what's the score?

      Delete
    29. Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks



      Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks Continued


      More evidence for Intelligent Design in biology textbooks

      So yeah, every college and university that teaches biology, teaches the evidence for Intelligent Design.

      And they sure as shit don't offer any evidence for the blind waychmaker.

      Go figure...

      Delete
    30. Sorry Fatboy, a link to your own bunghole blog won't do it.

      What's the score Fatboy?

      Delete
    31. LoL! Those are links to EVIDENCE, something your position doesn't have. So that is why it won't do.

      So the score is 100% of the colleges and universities present the evidence for Intelligent Design and not one presents any for the blind watchmaker.

      Delete
    32. Go ahead, thorton, and post a course syllabus that mentions evidence for the blind watchmaker.

      C'mon momma's boy put up the data.

      Delete
    33. ID all of them- blind watchmaker zero

      Delete
    34. So the score is 100% of the colleges and universities present the evidence for Intelligent Design and not one presents any for the blind watchmaker.

      Delete
    35. Chubby Joe G

      So the score is 100% of the colleges and universities present the evidence for Intelligent Design and not one presents any for the blind watchmaker.


      LOL! Right Chubs. Just like 100% of the colleges and universities present the evidence for pyramid antennas and reincarnation and all the other woo you swallow.

      Go ahead fatty, give us your standard gas passing: "THEY HAVE MORE EVIDENCE THAN EVOLUTION BECAUSE EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!"

      Delete
    36. Moronton: why don't you tell me what theory of biological change and diversity is still taught in colleges and universities and used successfully by millions of researchers in the world every day?

      Jeff: My dear moron, there is no "theory" of biological change and diversity that is "successful" at anything. What exists to date are on-going attempts to come up with a cladistic classification scheme that can generate a single tree in a non-arbitrary way. If they succeed at that (they haven't yet, because the more they learn about actual DNA sequences, the more they realize that applying non-arbitrary classification rules to different DNA sequences results in different trees for different molecular sequences), there next step will be to show that the phenotypical/extinction effects of mutations+environment have any relevant correlation or correspondence to the cladistic tree methodology rules.

      There is no reason yet to assume any such correlation or correspondence will ever be discovered. But we realize that pathetic fideists like you aren't worried about facts and reason. That would be too much like a science that could be demarcated from pseudo-science.

      Sweet dreams you little hyper-sensitive fideist, you.

      Delete
    37. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      there is no "theory" of biological change and diversity that is "successful" at anything.


      BIG LOL! Keep telling yourself that LFJJ. If you close your eyes and wish hard enough that nasty old reality stuff like evolution will surely go away.

      Still waiting for you to identify the separately created kinds BTW, but you won't. Ever. Ignorant Creationist philosophy students like you will never commit yourself to anything that can be checked or tested.

      Delete
    38. Still waiting for Moronton to give one example of his claims. Still waiting for Moronton to explain to me how I'm obligated to identify common ancestors when he's not under a similar obligation to explain how he identifies (as opposed to wildly speculates) the genealogical relatedness of vastly different organisms. Moronton is about as stupid as they come.

      Delete
    39. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      Still waiting for Moronton to explain to me how I'm obligated to identify common ancestors when he's not under a similar obligation to explain how he identifies (as opposed to wildly speculates) the genealogical relatedness of vastly different organisms


      But LFJJ, that's already been explained to you! It's through the objectively determined and extremely closely correlating twin nested hierarchies based on genetic characteristics and morphological characteristics.

      Consilience of independent phylogenies

      Now mouthy little Creationist LFJJ, where's your evidence for separately created kinds?

      Delete
    40. But moron, I've already explained to you that the phylogenetic methodolgy involves a calibration of the fossil record TO the cladistic methodology, so there is no independent TWIN nested hierarchies. You're just an idiot.

      Furthermore, there is no known correspondence of the cladistic methodology to the actual natural phenotypical/extinction effects of mutations+environment.

      Finally, the cladistic methodology has been tweaked continuously and shows no promise of accomodating the rapidly accumulating DNA data in a non-arbitrary way, despite the other problems mentioned above.

      Moron, you have NOTHING but a working hypothesis. Absolutely ZERO evidence has been accumulated for that hypothesis. YOu're just an idiot.

      Delete
    41. Furthermore, even if morphological nested hierarchies correlate significantly with molecular ones for those organisms for which we can observe both morphology and molecules, this implies absolutely nothing about HOW that correlation came about. If you can't see that, you're so stupid it's utterly mind-boggling. You are right to divorce science from logic, moron. Because that's the only way anything you say has anything to do with science. Of course, the problem there is that you can't demarcate science from non-science. You're a moron.

      Delete
    42. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      I've already explained to you that the phylogenetic methodolgy involves a calibration of the fossil record TO the cladistic methodology, so there is no independent TWIN nested hierarchies.


      LOL! You didn't explain it LFJJ, you asserted it. The whole scientific community thinks you're wrong. But feel free to write up your 'disproof' of the congruence of the twin nested hierarchies and submit it to any mainstream scientific journal. You are confident enough in your assertions to do that, aren't you? Why not?

      Your big problem LFJJ is that you say lots of incredibly stupid, easily refutable things based on your woeful ignorance. Sadly you're also too lazy to learn from your mistakes. In that respect you're like every other arrogant but ignorant Creationist mouth that posts online.

      Now where's your empirical scientific evidence for separately created kinds?

      Delete
    43. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      Furthermore, even if morphological nested hierarchies correlate significantly with molecular ones for those organisms for which we can observe both morphology and molecules, this implies absolutely nothing about HOW that correlation came about.


      LOL! So the evidence indicates either the UCA hypothesis is correct, or the Magic Designer for some unknown reason POOFED all the millions of pieces of empirical evidence to look like UCA is correct.

      Which is the better explanation LFJJ?

      Delete
    44. Demonstrate that you have a clue what you're talking about by articulating HOW this data that you keep insisting INDICATES UCA is true actually DOES indicate it? By what criteria? Certainly not by any logical criteria. So what irrational or a-rational criteria are you using moronic idiot? How do I prove, by reason, to people who don't use reason that they are wrong? You're literally stupid beyond belief.

      Delete
    45. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      Demonstrate that you have a clue what you're talking about by articulating HOW this data that you keep insisting INDICATES UCA is true actually DOES indicate it?


      Pretty easy LFJJ, not that you'll understand any of it:

      Hypothesis: All life on earth is related by a UCA.

      Empirical observation 1: The process of common descent always creates a distinctive branching nested hierarchical pattern.

      Prediction: If life is related by a UCA we'll see a single distinctive branching nested hierarchical pattern in the independently generated genetic and morphological data.

      Empirical observation 2: We do find a correlating single distinctive branching nested hierarchical pattern in the independently generated genetic and morphological data.

      Logical Conclusion: The data supports the hypothesis of a UCA.

      You're way too stupid to understand, but the scientific community gets it.

      Now where's your empirical evidence for separately created kinds?

      Delete
    46. Liar for Jesus Jeff, please examine this

      Interactive Tree Of Life

      "ITOL is an is an online tool put together by NIH geneticists for the display and manipulation of phylogenetic trees. It provides most of the features available in other tree viewers, and offers a novel circular tree layout, which makes it easy to visualize mid-sized trees (up to several thousand leaves). Trees can be exported to several graphical formats, both bitmap and vector based"

      Instead of just running your ignorant mouth why don't you demonstrate your separately created lineages in the data.

      Barring that, why don't you show how the geneticists got all the science wrong.

      Ball's in your court Creationist idiot.

      Delete
    47. Empirical observation 1: The process of common descent always creates a distinctive branching nested hierarchical pattern.

      LoL! Strange that a family tree, which is produced by the process of common descent, does NOT create a distinctive branching nested hierarchal pattern.

      You lose you ignorant coward.

      Delete
    48. BTW we are STILL waiting for answers to:

      Tell us again about these predictions based on accumulations of genetic accidents.

      Tell us what use it is to any researcher saying that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of prokaryotic-like organisms via accumulations of genetic accidents.


      Please tell us or admit that your position is nothing but sewage

      Delete
    49. LOL! You can always count on Fatboy Joke Gallien to post some Creationist stupidity in every conversation.


      Delete
    50. LoL! You can always count on cowardly thorton to never support its claims and to spew insults every time its ignorance gets exposed- which is something that happens every time it posts...

      Balls' in your mouth evoTARD moron...

      Delete
    51. Sing it again Fatboy

      "EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE"

      The only song your lardass knows.

      Delete
    52. Moron: Hypothesis: All life on earth is related by a UCA.

      Jeff: Actually, you're wrong already. What you hypothesize is that UCA happened such that the genealogical lineages occurred completely naturalistically. I.e., some set of event regularities operating on initial conditions and beyond (until the present) deterministically produced all the fossil and extant phenotypes in the posited time-frame unless the origin of libertarianly-free organisms affected the lineages in a non-deterministic way. Of course no naturalistic theory can predict libertarianly-free events, so that's off the table. So naturalistic UCA can only apply up to any putatively free organism unless it is known that libertarianly-free causality can not effect lineage trajectories.

      Moron: Empirical observation 1: The process of common descent always creates a distinctive branching nested hierarchical pattern.

      Jeff: Depending on how you define nested hierarchy, this could be true for rat terriers. But it doesn't imply rat terriers can evolve into anything other than a canine organism. But of course you're too stupid to understand what is and isn't implied by propositions.

      Moron: Prediction: If life is related by a UCA we'll see a single distinctive branching nested hierarchical pattern in the independently generated genetic and morphological data.

      Jeff: That doesn't follow at all. Hence, it's not a prediction of UCA at all. A nested hierarchy doesn't imply the lineages you posit can occur naturalistically. And UCA could be true with radical saltations or divine interventions. But I realize you're too stupid to understand the meaning of most propositions. A prediction, moron, is a logical IMPLICATION. The meaning of UCA doesn't IMPLY that any of the lineages you posit actually occurred. UCA could be true if a trilobite begot a male and female fish.

      Moron: Empirical observation 2: We do find a correlating single distinctive branching nested hierarchical pattern in the independently generated genetic and morphological data.

      Jeff: Again, even if such a correlation exists, that correlation has to be explained. Explaining it naturalistically means applying a naturalistic THEORY about mutational/environmental causality to relevant initial conditions such that the subsequently extant correlated pattern in extant biological data FOLLOWS DEDUCTIVELY. There is NO SUCH THEORY!!!

      Moron: Logical Conclusion: The data supports the hypothesis of a UCA.

      Jeff: Conclusion: Moronton is an absolute MORON!!!

      Delete
    53. LOL! Poor Liar for Jesus Jeff just doesn't get this science stuff at all. You should stick to writing love poems to Fatboy Joe. You two ignorant Creationist clowns are just made for each other.

      When will you be submitting your philosophical disproof of common descent to a professional science journal?

      Where's your evidence for separate created kinds from the Interactive Tree Of Life data I showed you?

      Why is it that every time I post some scientific data you find somewhere to run and hide?

      Delete
    54. Moronton: When will you be submitting your philosophical disproof of common descent to a professional science journal?

      Jeff: Let's see. You say logic (that which is dealt with in logic books) is philosophy rather than science as if logic has no relevance to science (and it certainly doesn't to what YOU call science). Then you ask me to PROVE something to people who don't think logic (of the kind in logic books) has anything to do with science. Once you eliminate deductive and inductive reasoning (which is what logic books are about), how do you prove a-rational people are wrong TO those a-rational people? You really are a complete idiot, Thorton.

      Delete
    55. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      You say logic (that which is dealt with in logic books) is philosophy rather than science as if logic has no relevance to science (and it certainly doesn't to what YOU call science). Then you ask me to PROVE something to people who don't think logic (of the kind in logic books) has anything to do with science.


      LOL! I guess you're not very sure of yourself if you won't publish your amazing disproof of common descent. Easier to just post your philosophical idiocy on backwater Creationist blogs then run away bawling when called on it.

      Where's your evidence for separate created kinds from the Interactive Tree Of Life data I showed you?

      Little philosopher puppy has big bark but pees on the rug and runs when challenged to produce evidence.

      Delete
    56. The powers that be have decided by vote, not reason or definition, that ID inferences in biology are non-scientific. This arbitrariness is why science can't be demarcated anymore. Reason has no role in adjudicating the question for those who wield power arbitrarily.

      But it's better for some, in the short term, in some respects, to be on the side of those who are wielding power in the short term. Who knows, maybe you'll benefit from it in the short term. I'm not seeing how, though, unless you're making a living off of tax-payers propagandizing idiocy for the idiot-savants. Best I can tell you're not benefiting from their arbitrary wielding of power anymore than I am.

      As for tree-building, it has nothing to do, per se, with SA or UCA. Tree-building rules have no known correspondence to mutational/environmental effects upon phenotypical variation or extinction. You're just a complete idiot.

      Delete
    57. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      The powers that be have decided by vote, not reason or definition, that ID inferences in biology are non-scientific.


      LOL! Tell us what empirical evidence would falsify the claim that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for all life. Keep in mind that a powerful enough Designer could always produce objects that looked 100% as though they had evolved.

      If it's not falsifiable, it's not science.

      Go ahead LFJJ, dazzle us with your logic and philosophy, tell us how we can falsify ID.

      As for tree-building, it has nothing to do, per se, with SA or UCA. Tree-building rules have no known correspondence to mutational/environmental effects upon phenotypical variation or extinction.

      Branching nested hierarchical trees are objectively determined empirical observations in the data you idiot. They need an explanation. UCA is the most parsimonious conclusion, a conclusion supported by ALL the available data. You'll never get it because you're too stupid to get it.

      Your Creationist stupidity isn't science's problem

      Delete
    58. Thorton: Branching nested hierarchical trees are objectively determined empirical observations in the data you idiot. They need an explanation.

      Jeff: Moron, all hierarchical classification trees branch. That branching, per se, has nothing to do with genealogical branching. You have to demonstrate it in this case, idiot. You are truly stupid beyond comprehension.

      Delete
    59. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      all hierarchical classification trees branch. That branching, per se, has nothing to do with genealogical branching. You have to demonstrate it in this case,


      Already been done idiot.

      Interactive Tree Of Life

      If you weren't such a willfully ignorant cowardly Creationist you'd look at the data being held right under your nose instead of wetting yourself and running away.

      But you are, and you do.

      Spineless Creationist idiot.

      Delete
    60. Oh, and Liar for Jesus Jeff, you forgot to tell us what can falsify ID.

      Put on a dry diaper and give us an answer.

      Delete
    61. Moronton: Already been done idiot.

      Jeff: You're stupidity knows no limits. That can only be done by conceiving of a naturalistic causal theory that both predicts current variation AND implies post-precambrian phenotypes when applied to precambrian initial conditions with a relevant degree of success. Moron, there IS NO SUCH THEORY. You're just an idiot.

      Moronton: Oh, and Liar for Jesus Jeff, you forgot to tell us what can falsify ID.

      Jeff: People who use logic realize that naive falsificationism is not doable. And even by that criteria, naturalistic UCA is not falsifiable. Because a single proposition hypothesis doesn't imply anything other than that the negation of it contradicts it. You need a THEORY to EXPLAIN how UCA can be true.

      You're just an idiot. Because you've bought the Hitlerian BIG LIE that classificational rules correlate to natural causality regularities simply because the Nazi's say so. What a complete idiot you are.

      Delete
    62. tard:
      Tell us what empirical evidence would falsify the claim that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for all life.

      We have already told you but you choose willful ignorance over reality.

      Once it is demonstrated taht blind and undirected processes can produce it Newton's four rules of scientific investigation step in and say there is no designer requirement so we do not add one.

      Do you REALLY think that your ignorance means something?

      And until you have some data that the phyical changes required for the UCA to be true are even possible, you don't have any science.

      If you don't have any way to quantify your position's bullshit, you don't have any science.

      Saying "It looks like it evolved to me" is NOT science.

      Delete
    63. Jeff,

      You're just an idiot. Because you've bought the Hitlerian BIG LIE that classificational rules correlate to natural causality regularities simply because the Nazi's say so. What a complete idiot you are

      What are you talking about? Science is run by Nazis?

      Joe,

      Saying "It looks like it evolved to me" is NOT science

      Neither is " it looks designed to me" science. Perhaps actual positive evidence rather than asserting would be more convincing,as well as quit using words that Dr Hunter find distasteful, that is if you have any respect for his wishes and the capability to control yourself

      Delete
    64. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    65. Moronton: What are you talking about? Science is run by Nazis?

      Jeff: I'm saying that believing that cladistic tree-generating rules correlate with natural event regularities and their phenotypical/extinction effects merely because idiot-savants arbitrarily choose to believe that, even though there is ZERO evidence for such a correlation, is analogous to believing Hitlerian BIG LIES merely because he asserted them. You're a moronic fideist.

      Delete
    66. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      You're stupidity knows no limits.


      LOL! That would be "your". What a tool.

      there IS NO SUCH THEORY.

      Still with the same stupid Creationist claim that ToE must predict specific phenotypes to be correct. Even Fatboy Joe says that his claimed "guided" evolution results are not predictable, that there's more than one solution to the problem and all that matters is survival.

      Six weeks and hundreds of posts in and the clown still doesn't get it. Sad.

      And even by that criteria, naturalistic UCA is not falsifiable.

      Sure it is. Having the phylogeny created from genetic features be vastly discordant with the one created from morphological features would falsify the idea of a UCA instantly. You're just too stupid to get that not falsified doesn't mean not falsifiable. Now what would falsify ID?

      You need a THEORY to EXPLAIN how UCA can be true.

      We've got one, had it for 150+ years now. Evolution through common descent. Damn well supported one too. Whatta you got?

      Because you've bought the Hitlerian BIG LIE that classificational rules correlate to natural causality regularities simply because the Nazi's say so.

      LOL!! LFJJ the Creationist chump has totally lost it. Now ToE is the product of Hitler and the Nazis. I guess that's marginally better than the usual Creationist claim that ToE is based on false evidence planted by Satan.

      Congratulations LFJJ. You're now dead even with Chubby Joke Gallien for the title of world's dumbest Creationist.

      Delete
    67. Liar for Jeff Jesus

      I'm saying that believing that cladistic tree-generating rules correlate with natural event regularities and their phenotypical/extinction effects merely because idiot-savants arbitrarily choose to believe that, even though there is ZERO evidence for such a correlation, is analogous to believing Hitlerian BIG LIES merely because he asserted them.


      LOL! First he mistakes velikovskys for me, then he claims that all the millions of scientists who accept ToE are idiot-savants.

      Where does the Creations Clown Circus find these guys?

      Hey LFJJ, why don't you list for us your understanding of what the cladistic tree-generating rules used by science actually are. I bet you don't have a clue.

      Delete
    68. Moronton: Still with the same stupid Creationist claim that ToE must predict specific phenotypes to be correct.

      Jeff: The predictions would not have to be exact to be evidential, but they would have to be relevant to the hypothesis. We can't predict ANYTHING that isn't consistent with AIG style SA. That's how bankrupt your idiot-savants hypothesis is of evidence. If there are no predictions, there is no way to corroborate the hypothesis. You're oblivion to rationality is utter.

      Moronton: Having the phylogeny created from genetic features be vastly discordant with the one created from morphological features would falsify the idea of a UCA instantly.

      Jeff: No, because the hypothesis that extant and "fossil" organisms have a common ancestor doesn't IMPLY that there even be a nested hierarchy of the kind biologists talk about or even genes, much less that morphological trees would correlate with gene trees. You're an idiot. If a hypothesis implies nothing that can be tested, it is UNFALSIFIABLE, BY DEFINITION.

      Moronton: We've got one, had it for 150+ years now. Evolution through common descent.

      Jeff: Nope. SA is consistent with evolution through common descent. It just involves more ancestors than does UCA. You're an idiot.

      Delete
    69. Yes velikovskys, perhaps some actual positive evidence for unguided evolution actually constructinf something would be a step in the right direction for your position.

      And it is very telling that none of you ever ante up any positive evidence for your position.

      Delete
    70. Moronton: he claims that all the millions of scientists who accept ToE are idiot-savants.

      Jeff: I'm talking about people so mentally weak that they can trick their own minds into believing that the single-proposition hypothesis of UCA is falsifiable per naive falsificationism AND that there is evidence for that hypothesis per a non-arbitrary definition of evidence. So you may have a point. Maybe I'm being too charitable.

      You, on the other hand, make it obvious that you have not an ounce of "savant," yet TONS of idiocy.

      Delete
    71. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      We can't predict ANYTHING that isn't consistent with AIG style SA.


      Which is exactly why Intelligent Design isn't science. There is no conceivable piece of evidence that can't be credited to the Designer's "He works in mysterious ways" whim. ID can't be falsified because an Omnipotent Designer literally could produce anything.

      What is "AIG style SA"? Are you talking about a literal Noah's Ark? You're even dumber than I thought possible.

      the hypothesis that extant and "fossil" organisms have a common ancestor doesn't IMPLY that there even be a nested hierarchy of the kind biologists talk about

      Yes idiot, it does. Common descent through branching evolutionary processes always produces nested hierarchies, ALWAYS. It's one of the hallmarks of the processes and forms the basis for the entire field of cladistic analysis. You can learn about it in any Biology 101 class, something you've obviously never been within 1000 yard of.

      LLFJ, where is your explanation of the cladistic tree-generating rules used by science?

      LFJJ, where is your evidence for separately created kinds in the Interactive Tree Of Life data set?

      LFJJ, where is your way to falsify ID?

      You better hope Santa brings you some new brain cells and some honesty, because right now you're clean out of both.

      Delete
    72. Moronton: There is no conceivable piece of evidence that can't be credited to the Designer's "He works in mysterious ways" whim. ID can't be falsified because an Omnipotent Designer literally could produce anything.

      Jeff: You're an idiot. Any time a naturalistic theory can be corroborated significantly, that naturalistic theory is considered "better," by inductive criteria, than an alternative explanation that posits libertarianly-free causality in an ad-hoc fashion. But in this case, there IS no naturalistic theory that explains the existence of the relevant phenotypes, much less in the posited time-frames. You're an idiot.

      Moronton: What is "AIG style SA"?

      Jeff: AIG SA'ists would probably posit more separate ancestors than, say, Casey Luskin.

      Moronton: Yes idiot, it does. Common descent through branching evolutionary processes always produces nested hierarchies, ALWAYS.

      Jeff: No Moron, it doesn't. The hypothesis of UCA, per se, doesn't mean or imply THAT descent ALWAYS occurs such that nested hierarchies of the kind biologists are interested in can be generated from the phenotypes, etc. Moreover, any tree generated from actual empirical data is necessarily consistent with SA simply because all the hypothetical traits are NOT empirical data. You're an absolute moron.

      Moronton: where is your explanation of the cladistic tree-generating rules used by science?

      Jeff: Humans conceive of them for their own ends. That's why they are not known to be relevant to natural causality, idiot.

      Moronton: where is your evidence for separately created kinds in the Interactive Tree Of Life data set?

      Jeff: Those trees, when generated from actual empirical data, can not distinguish between UCA and SA except in terms of parsimony applied to them.

      Moronton: where is your way to falsify ID?

      Jeff: Naive falsificationism is based on an arbitrary epistemology. But one could with warrant reject SA on parsimony grounds if one could conceive of a naturalistic theory that relevantly corroborates UCA. We have no such theory, moron.

      Delete
    73. 1- Intelligent Design can be falsified and IDists, including Behe, have said how to falsify it.

      Common descent through branching evolutionary processes always produces nested hierarchies, ALWAYS.

      2- Just about ANYTHING can produce a nested hierarchy. Nested hierarchies do NOT = common descent.

      Now thortard has made a cliam he cannot support. Watch as he ignores reality:

      OK tard boy Common descent through branching evolutionary processes always produces nested hierarchies,BASED ON WHAT, EXACTLY?

      Linnean taxonomy, the observed nested hierarchy, has NOTHING to do with common descent. A family tree, which is common descent, does NOT produce a nested hierarchy based on characteristics traits.

      The point being is thorton is an ignorant turd who just blindly spews the party propaganda

      Delete
    74. It's true what they say, Creationist stupidity never sleeps.

      Liar for Jesus Jeff once again ignores all the scientific data presented, cowardly avoids answering the questions he was asked, continues his philosophy screaming ignorance-fest.

      Fatboy Joke Gallien joins the dummy duet with the only thing he knows, just re-posting the same IDiot PRATT claims he's vomited out for a decade.

      Sorry IDiots. While you two Creationist imbeciles are busy stroking each other the scientific community keeps using ToE to make new discoveries and increase our knowledge of the natural world without the slightest pause. You guys can lie and scream and beat your chests all you want but Intelligent Design Creationism is dead, as dead as dead can be.

      Take a look around at reality clowns. Look at the thousands of schools, research labs, professional scientific organizations that use ToE every day. Then look at the handful of pitiful Creationist IDiot barely hanging on at AIG, the DI, and Uncommonly Dense.

      What's the score?

      Delete
    75. Moronton: the scientific community keeps using ToE to make new discoveries and increase our knowledge of the natural world without the slightest pause.

      Jeff: You've provided not one example of this that renders SA less plausible than UCA. What an idiot.

      Delete
    76. And as predicted thorton spews more lies than once thought possible

      Delete
    77. And yet I doubt he's consciously lying. His pontificated absurdities are more parsimoniously explained as the mental flatulence of sheer and utter stupidity.

      Delete
    78. Creationist IDiots, what's the score?

      Delete
    79. On the other hand, it's exceedingly difficult to explain the origin of such extreme stupidity apart from ubiquitous lying, if only to himself.

      Delete
    80. The score- blind watchmaker, still 0

      Delete
    81. LOL! You two BFF Bozos are funnier than the Christmas day Three Stooges marathon!

      Liar for Jesus Jeff, tell us more about the separately created kinds that lived on Noah's Ark. Tell us more about how Hitler and the Nazis came up with the theory of evolution.

      Fatboy Joke, tell us more about how the Great Pyramid is actually an antenna to contact space aliens. Tell us how many times you've been reincarnated. Tell us how you're going to crush all the Evos at the next Dover trial.

      ALL SCIENCE SO FAR! from the retard twins.

      Delete
    82. A-teleological evolution, as a mega-origin myth, preceded Darwin and, hence, the Nazis. You're clueless, Moronton.

      Delete
    83. C'mon Liar for Jesus Jeff, tell us all about the separately created kinds that were on Noah's Ark.

      We both know you're dying to.

      Delete
    84. And thorTARD goes into its daily meltdown.

      Delete
    85. And thorTARD is still upset that there is more evidence for pyrmids being antennas and reincarnation than there is for his position.

      That is still a great christmas present

      Delete
    86. Seriously, Moronton, the best you can come up with is conflating a flood account with SA? Can you even get more stupid than you already are? What an idiot.

      Delete
    87. Tell us about this evidence for pyramid antennas and reincarnation Chubs. In which colleges and university courses is it taught? Probably the same courses that teach your "evidence" for ID Creationism, right? LOL!

      What were you in your past life Chubs? A 500 lb. hog? Looks like you kept the tradition going. Or maybe a dung beetle? You sure love the taste of shit in your mouth.

      Delete
    88. It's official. You can't get more stupid than you already are, Moronton.

      Delete
    89. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      Seriously, Moronton, the best you can come up with is conflating a flood account with SA?


      You're the one who brought up the Answers In Genesis account of separately created kinds as your evidence LFJJ, not me.

      Go ahead, give us the evidence for Noah's Flood and Noah's Ark along with your other separately created kinds stupidity. Make Baby Jesus proud!

      Delete
    90. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      It's official. You can't get more stupid than you already are


      Funny then that I'm the only one who posts research papers and analytical tools from the primary scientific literature, and you're the one who keeps soiling his pants and running away from all technical discussion.

      Why is that LFJJ?

      Delete
    91. BTW we are STILL waiting for answers to:

      Tell us again about these predictions based on accumulations of genetic accidents.

      Tell us what use it is to any researcher saying that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of prokaryotic-like organisms via accumulations of genetic accidents.


      Please tell us or admit that your position is nothing but sewage

      And yes your equivocation is funny, in a sad way. Why is it taht not one of your research papers have anything to do with accumulations of genetic accidents?

      Delete
    92. Oops no courses mentioning the blind watchmaker from thorton, the momma's boy.

      Maybe some other evoTARD sock puppet will post some, momma's boy, because you sure can't

      Delete
    93. LOL! Fatboy Joe Gallien the reincarnated pile of walrus blubber is so funny when he has his daily meltdown!

      Delete
    94. LoL! So now continuing to expose thorton's ignorance, lies and cowardice means I am having a meltdown.

      More christmas presents!

      Delete
    95. thorton, screaming like the wicked witch of the west:

      HELP ME I'M MELTing.....

      Delete
    96. LOL! But Fatboy, I have all the scientific positive evidence.

      You Creationists have none.

      You lose.

      Delete
    97. LoL! Liar- there isn't any scientific evidence that supports evolutionism.

      Heck you can't even produce a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution

      Delete
    98. Tell us again about these predictions based on accumulations of genetic accidents.

      Tell us what use it is to any researcher saying that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of prokaryotic-like organisms via accumulations of genetic accidents.

      Please tell us or admit that your position is nothing but sewage

      Delete
    99. velikovskys...: What are you talking about? Science is run by Nazis?

      Jeff: I'm saying that believing that cladistic tree-generating rules correlate with natural event regularities and their phenotypical/extinction effects merely because idiot-savants arbitrarily choose to believe that, even though there is ZERO evidence for such a correlation, is analogous to believing Hitlerian BIG LIES merely because he asserted them. You're a moronic fideist.

      Perhaps it is time for a deep breath, you have ceased to make rational arguments if accuse your opponents of being Nazis unless they advocate gassing millions of people,torturing millions,complete abrogation of human rights. For instance ,children who believe in Santa are Nazis, my dogs are Nazis because they believe the big lie that they are good boys.It is a lazy argument, demonstrating exactly the problem with arguing by analogy, it rests on the premise that if things are similar in one way you can extrapolate similarity in other ways. Of course you may argue that you did not mean that biologists were homicidal maniacs,you just meant they were just like them in at one or more ways.

      I doubt I am any kind of fideist, after all I would be willing to refuse to kill a child just because God commanded it. My question is becoming are you a fideist? It is completely false that there is zero evidence supporting the "tree of life ", it may not be convincing to you but it is an absurd contention that it does not exist . Your absolutism is more consistent with fideism than those who you accuse of moronic fideism

      Delete
    100. There is zero evidence that genetic changes can produce the alleged tree of life.

      Delete
    101. Chubby Joke G

      EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!!!


      Go take your meds Chubs.

      Delete
    102. And thorton continues to prove my point-

      Thank you

      Delete

    103. Joe GDecember 26, 2012 4:43 PM
      And thorton continues to prove my point-


      You better hope so Joe, because you haven't

      Delete
    104. Yes, I have- and you have also helped. Thank you, too.

      Delete
  5. Here is a related note Dr. Hunter:

    Anti-Science Irony
    Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” Darwin was “anti-Science”.
    When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution.
    http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/10/anti-science-irony/

    And exactly where Darwinism fails to have any rational basis in science, ("how came it about?" - Sedgwick), is precisely where Intelligent Design does have a solid basis:

    Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design - video
    https://vimeo.com/32148403

    further notes:

    "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    Philip S. Skell - (the late) Professor at Pennsylvania State University.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

    Podcasts and Article of Dr. Skell
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/giving_thanks_for_dr_philip_sk040981.html

    Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096

    Is evolution pseudoscience?
    Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other pseudosciences - astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many.
    http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience

    “In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.”
    ― Jerry A. Coyne - evolutionist - professor at the University of Chicago

    "nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin(ism) can be described as scientific" - Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BA, look at how the quote you mentioned above is discussed under "Quote # 2.1" in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html. These people literally don't know the difference between a natural (i.e., deterministic) explanation and a libertarianly-free explanation. It's astonishing how clueless these people are. If naturalistic explanation is the equivalent of story-telling the past independent of event regularities, we can all tell whatever story we want, and no can be deemed less plausible than any other.

      Delete
  6. Dr Hunter,

    Sedgwick correctly foresaw the terrible consequences of the modern day resurrection of the Epicurean idea that something, and in fact everything, came from nothing. Humanity would suffer damage that “might brutalize it” and sink the human race “into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen.” Today we witness a never-ending road of killing and destruction.

    As opposed to the good old days,when human life was precious? American Indians, Southern slaves,Chinese railroad workers ,Australian aborigines, etc, might differ.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And which consequences were wrought by greed (a sin) and which consequences were wrought in the name of science (supposedly a good)? Or have you lost all sense of moral compass?

      Delete
    2. So is science a sin? And no I don't believe it is permissible to killed 6 year olds even if God says to.

      Delete
    3. So is science a sin? No!

      Proverbs 4:7
      Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.

      Has God ever told you to kill 6 year olds?,,, But, hypothetically, if you knew for a fact, without any doubt whatsoever, and I mean ZERO doubt, that God, the creator of the universe and all life it, asked you to sacrifice your son, as he tested Abraham for obedience with, what reason would you answer Him for not doing it?

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. BA,

      that God, the creator of the universe and all life it, asked you to sacrifice your son, as he tested Abraham for obedience with, what reason would you answer Him for not doing it?

      I'd ask Him if I could take a multiple choice test instead.

      Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
      Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
      God say, "No." Abe say, "What ?"
      God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
      The next time you see me comin' you better run"
      Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done ?"
      God says. "Out on Highway 61"

      No BA I would not kill my child even to placate the Creator of the Universe's insecurities

      Delete
    6. I would not kill my child even to placate the Creator of the Universe's insecurities

      So you think the Creator of the universe has insecurities?

      Delete
    7. velikovskys December 22, 2012 10:37 AM

      [...]

      As opposed to the good old days,when human life was precious? American Indians, Southern slaves,Chinese railroad workers ,Australian aborigines, etc, might differ.


      Not to mention Sodom and Gomorrah, the Amalekites, the Midianites, the Canaanites and practically all life on Earth in the Great Flood.

      But they all deserved it.

      According to the killers, that is. We don't get to hear the victims side of the story.

      Delete
    8. Ian H Spedding

      Not to mention Sodom and Gomorrah, the Amalekites, the Midianites, the Canaanites and practically all life on Earth in the Great Flood.

      But they all deserved it.


      Just think of all those pregnant women and their unborn babies that God supposedly cares so much about. He loved those unborn babies so much that he killed them all in their mothers' wombs.

      But I'm sure they had it coming.

      Delete
    9. bornagain77 December 22, 2012 2:37 PM

      [...]

      But, hypothetically, if you knew for a fact, without any doubt whatsoever, and I mean ZERO doubt, that God, the creator of the universe and all life it, asked you to sacrifice your son, as he tested Abraham for obedience with, what reason would you answer Him for not doing it?


      Do you have any idea of how absurd that sounds?

      According to Christian doctrine, God is, amongst other things, all-knowing. He doesn't need to run some perverted test to check Abraham's faith. He already bloody knows it beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's just a pointless exercise in cruelty.

      As for some voice booming out of the sky telling me to kill children, I would immediately assume on that evidence alone that this is not the Christian god of the New Testament because He would not and could not do such a thing and it is blasphemous to suggest otherwise.

      Delete
    10. BA,

      Vel...I would not kill my child even to placate the Creator of the Universe's insecurities

      BA.....So you think the Creator of the universe has insecurities?

      Which one,there are so many to choose from. The OT one seems very high maintenance

      Delete
    11. Ian,

      According to Christian doctrine, God is, amongst other things, all-knowing. He doesn't need to run some perverted test to check Abraham's faith. He already bloody knows it beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's just a pointless exercise in cruelty

      An object lesson to the audience, Obedience to God is supercedes even the love of a parent for a child, and God rewards the obedient,just as He punishes the disobient .

      Delete
    12. velikovskys December 22, 2012 9:48 PM

      [...]

      An object lesson to the audience, Obedience to God is supercedes even the love of a parent for a child, and God rewards the obedient,just as He punishes the disobient .


      Yup, I'd say being a control freak is a sign of insecurity.

      Delete
    13. If you believe every bit of the Bible is the inspired Word of God, remove that premise and it changes the focus from God to man's ideas of God

      Delete
    14. Vel, et. al.

      You seem to me to be saying that the Bible contains things that you consider immoral. What exactly is your basis for saying that something is moral or not? What is your basis for saying that your morality is superior to the Bible's? What is your basis for saying morality even exists at all?

      Delete
    15. Oh dear,are we going to have that discussion again?

      You seem to me to be saying that the Bible contains things that you consider immoral

      We have done slaughtering all the children of an enemy because they might turn out bad, killing your child as a test of loyality and unblinking obedience, should we bring up 2 kings 2: 23- 24?

      . What exactly is your basis for saying that something is moral or not?

      God told me.

      What is your basis for saying that your morality is superior to the Bible's?

      God told me

      What is your basis for saying morality even exists at all?

      God told me

      Ok Nat your turn ,is it ok to kill a child if you believe without a doubt that God told you to?

      Delete
    16. Yes, it is moral.

      What is your basis for saying it isn't moral.

      Delete
    17. natschuster December 23, 2012 10:39 AM

      Vel, et. al.

      You seem to me to be saying that the Bible contains things that you consider immoral. What exactly is your basis for saying that something is moral or not? What is your basis for saying that your morality is superior to the Bible's? What is your basis for saying morality even exists at all?


      The Golden Rule and empathy are where morality is grounded for me.

      Dr McCoy Suffer the death of thy neighbor, eh Spock? Now, you wouldn't wish that on us, would you?

      Mr Spock It might have rendered your history a bit less bloody.


      -- Star Trek, TOS, S2E18. The Immunity Syndrome

      Morality exists as a topic of discussion and as guidelines on how to behave towards one another in the minds of human beings. The same is probably true of other intelligent species elsewhere in the galaxy.

      My morality is superior to the Bible's insamuch as it prohibits rape and the abuse of women and children. Neither of those is included in the Ten Commandments, even though the much less serious offense of coveting your neighbor's oxen is.

      Are you saying you wouldn't know what is right or wrong, what is moral or immoral, unless God told you? Are you saying you would steal, commit adultery and murder if God hadn't told you they were wrong?

      Delete
    18. Why is the Golden rule more logical than Dog eat Dog?

      Why is rape wrong, logically? Rapist don;t think rape is wrong. I think it is wrong, but I can't prove it logically.

      And if it wasn't for the Bible, I imagine I would have some sort of moral sense. But I couldn't prove it was better than the Bible's. I might even be one of those people who think rape is okay.

      Delete
    19. Lol,

      Yes, it is moral.

      What is your basis for saying it isn't moral.


      I said I wouldn't do it because God commanded it.

      If the only requirement for morality is that a god requires or condones an action,then morality is merely the whim of the Gods as interpreted by man.

      The choice of Gods are at the whim of the follower

      Therefore morality is at the whim of the follower. Explain how this more substantial and less subjective basis than the logic of self interest and compassion,if you please.

      Delete
    20. Nat,

      Why is the Golden rule more logical than Dog eat Dog

      There is a whole field of game theory which studies different strategies and resulting outcomes. Logic also might apply in the short term or long term success.

      Why is rape wrong, logically? Rapist don;t think rape is wrong. I think it is wrong, but I can't prove it logically.

      Sure you can.Legally. Rapists don't care if it is wrong,in fact that might be part of their motivation, to cause another human to suffer.

      And if it wasn't for the Bible, I imagine I would have some sort of moral sense. But I couldn't prove it was better than the Bible's. I might even be one of those people who think rape is okay.

      What do you think happened to those women who weren't slaughtered like the men and children in the Bible,Nat? The morality of the Bible reflect it's times, it is subjective.

      So what was your answer, would you kill a child because God ordered it? Blow up a school bus? If God orders it ,per lol , it is " moral ".

      Delete
    21. "Yes, it is moral.

      What is your basis for saying it isn't moral.

      I said I wouldn't do it because God commanded it."

      I asked what was your basis for saying the the Bible was immoral.

      Delete
    22. """""Why is the Golden rule more logical than Dog eat Dog

      There is a whole field of game theory which studies different strategies and resulting outcomes. Logic also might apply in the short term or long term success."""""

      Are you saying that if I believe in taking whatever I can and not caring about the results that the best way to do it to use game theory? What about a case of someone who wants to hurt people? What about suicidal person who wants to take some people with him, so he decides to shoot up a school?

      Why is rape wrong, logically? Rapist don;t think rape is wrong. I think it is wrong, but I can't prove it logically.

      """""""Sure you can.Legally. Rapists don't care if it is wrong,in fact that might be part of their motivation, to cause another human to suffer."""""""

      I didn't say I can't prove it legally. I said I can't do it logically. And how can you prove that it is wrong to want to hurt people? I agree that it is, but I can't prove it.

      Delete
    23. """""So what was your answer, would you kill a child because God ordered it? Blow up a school bus? If God orders it ,per lol , it is " moral "."""""""

      I imagine that I would. It would go against my own intuitive sense of morality. But since I can't prove anything is moral or immoral, I woudl assuem that God knows better than I do, so I would dfer to God.

      Delete
    24. Natschuster

      < I imagine that I would. >

      Great. So you are ready to give up your opinions (you admit that your intuition say that is immoral), and ignore that your action can cause pain to other humans (no compassion or humanity if God orders this).

      I hope for you that you have sure criteria to recognise if this order comes really from your God. Are you in direct contact with Him, or have you trust in God’s representatives on this world that ensure this direct contact?
      Which a pity (for you and also for your victims) if you would make a little mistake of interpretation.

      Delete
  7. Sedgwick was arguing with a psychopath. All evolutionists are psychopaths to one degree or another. And the severity of the malady is directly proportional to his/her fame. Arguing with a psychopath is an exercise in futility. This is a lesson that ID proponents have not learned.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Louis( voice of reason)

    . Arguing with a psychopath is an exercise in futility. This is a lesson that ID proponents have not learned.

    A lesson for us all ,Louis

    ReplyDelete
  9. Louis Savain

    Sedgwick was arguing with a psychopath. All evolutionists are psychopaths to one degree or another. And the severity of the malady is directly proportional to his/her fame. Arguing with a psychopath is an exercise in futility. This is a lesson that ID proponents have not learned.


    If that is so, why do you suppose Intelligent Design Creationists spend 100% of their time and money producing anti-evolution propaganda like this blog and 0% on research that may provide some positive evidence for their claims?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Louis Savain

      The resident psycho has spoken.


      Yes fruit loop, you sure have!

      Delete
    2. What is worse than a psychopath?

      Answer: a sycophant psychopath, of course. LOL.

      Delete
  10. Anyone else read the comments just to see how worked up Thorton will get?

    Sometimes I think this has go to be a troll, no one actually is like this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She actually thinks that because I am 5'2" and weigh 347 pounds, that I am fat and that can be used against me.

      Heck I don't even eat donuts and twinkies.

      Delete
    2. LOL! How cute! Fatboy made himself another sock puppet!

      I bet he tells you how smart and strong and dominating you are and how you make all the evos flee, right Fatboy?

      Delete
    3. Thorton, I think you need some help, pal.
      Socially acclimated people typically don't need to act the way you repeatedly do.

      For your own sake; shed the sneer and hate. By all means, disagree with the content of the discussion. But you're well beyond that.... You are coming unhinged.

      Delete
    4. LOL! Sure thing Mr. Sockpuppet. I'll get right on emulating Joe G's Christian behavior.

      Delete
    5. I am not a christian so why would I behave like one?

      Delete
  11. Anyone keeping a running tally of how often Thorton gives the title "Liar for Jesus" to someone?

    ReplyDelete
  12. To all who post here,

    I hope you all have a very Happy Christmas and a Joyous and healthy New Year.

    See you all in the New Year.


    Nic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic

      To all who post here,

      I hope you all have a very Happy Christmas and a Joyous and healthy New Year.

      See you all in the New Year.


      Thanks Nic, and a safe and prosperous holidays too you too.

      Delete
    2. Same to you Nic, also to everybody here.

      Thorton say it... Christ-mas
      :)

      Delete
  13. natschuster December 23, 2012 8:30 PM

    Why is the Golden rule more logical than Dog eat Dog?


    I didn't say it was more logical, I said that it was better in my opinion. My rationale is that people have a number of common interests, such as a long and healthy a life, a secure environment in which to enjoy that long life and all the resources needed to sustain that long life. Individually, human beings are weak, fragile and vulnerable creatures. In society with their fellows they have a much better chance of protecting those interests. Moral codes are guidelines on how to behave towards others in society with the purpose of ensuring everyone's interests are respected as far as possible. Since they are not claims about how the world is, they are not capable of being proven right or wrong.

    Why is rape wrong, logically? Rapist don;t think rape is wrong. I think it is wrong, but I can't prove it logically.

    Rapists may not think rape is wrong but the victims certainly do. It is the victims who have suffered a violation of their person and their rights and who will, in all probability carry that trauma with them for many years to come. A society is stronger for its members knowing that they will be protected from that kind of suffering.

    And if it wasn't for the Bible, I imagine I would have some sort of moral sense. But I couldn't prove it was better than the Bible's. I might even be one of those people who think rape is okay.

    I doubt if you would think rape okay if you were confronted with consequences to the victim. Of course, you might be some sort of psychopath who is utterly indifferent to the suffering of others but I doubt it.

    As for the Bible, the reason I say it is inferior is that, certainly in the Old Testament, it endorses behavior that today we would find offensive, immoral, criminal and, in some cases, outright atrocities. That is not to say that the Bible does not offer some good moral guidance but it would be better if the OT stories were repudiated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I a world ruled by Darwinism there isn't any such thing as rape. There is no such thing as murder and whatever you do is moral.

      Delete
    2. Joe G December 25, 2012 7:32 AM

      I a world ruled by Darwinism there isn't any such thing as rape. There is no such thing as murder and whatever you do is moral.


      The theory of evolution is a description and explanation of what is, not a prescription for how things should be. You cannot derive any form of moral guidance from the theory without committing the naturalistic fallacy.

      As for a world ruled by Darwinism, this is what the arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins said in an interview with a German publication:

      No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am an passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state.

      Delete
    3. Umm there isn't any morality in a world formed by Darwinsm. And Dawkins is right- that was my point.

      IOW if the ToE is true then there isn't any such thing as morality.

      Delete
  14. Joe,


    Umm there isn't any morality in a world formed by Darwinsm. And Dawkins is right- that was my point.

    IOW if the ToE is true then there isn't any such thing as morality.


    Do you mean God derived morality? God's existence doesn't depend on the truth of the ToE or the Bible or the Koran.

    I a world ruled by Darwinism there isn't any such thing as rape. There is no such thing as murder
    Rape is defined by man as is murder.In atheistic countries laws still recognize rape and murder.
    and whatever you do is moral.
    Individuals are perfectly capable of consructing a moral code.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you mean God derived morality?

      No evil without good.

      God's existence doesn't depend on the truth of the ToE or the Bible or the Koran.

      If the ToE is true then there isn't any God requirement.

      Rape is defined by man as is murder.

      In a darwinian world definitions are meaningless (pun intended).

      Individuals are perfectly capable of consructing a moral code.

      That doesn't make it moral. Who are they to say? They are just an accumulation of genetic accidents. And until they can stop wasps from laying their eggs in caterpillar brains then they have no right to tell us what to do, so there.

      Delete
    2. God's existence doesn't depend on the truth of the ToE or the Bible or the Koran.

      Joe....if the ToE is true then there isn't any God requirement.


      So what's that got to do with existence of God,just because God isn't required to move the planets doesn't mean God is non existent


      Rape is defined by man as is murder.

      Joe ...in a darwinian world definitions are meaningless (pun intended).


      How do you figure, societies which are atheistic have prohibitions on certain antisocial behavior ,rape ,murder, theft.

      Individuals are perfectly capable of constructing a moral code.

      Joe. That doesn't make it moral. Who are they to say? They are just an accumulation of genetic accidents


      So what makes it moral, Joe? Rules which humans say are God's rules? Japanese believed they were following God's will.
      .
      Joe......and until they can stop wasps from laying their eggs in caterpillar brains then they have no right to tell us what to do, so

      I realize this may make sense to you but not to me. Religion hasn't stopped wasps,so they shouldn't have the right to tell us what to do? Who does have that right?

      Delete
    3. So what's that got to do with existence of God,just because God isn't required to move the planets doesn't mean God is non existent.

      How do you know that God isn't required to move planets? Please demonstrate tat gravity could exist in a universe without God.

      How do you figure, societies which are atheistic have prohibitions on certain antisocial behavior ,rape ,murder, theft.

      So what? That doesn't mean anything.

      So what makes it moral, Joe?

      A designer who makes it so.

      Delete
  15. velikovskys,

    "Individuals are perfectly capable of consructing a moral code."

    Based on what?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Based on any set of rules, the God of the OT or Star Trek or Golden rule or more absurd the writings of Ayn Rand.

      Delete
    2. Exactly- morality would be whatever we say it is.

      Delete

    3. Joe GDecember 26, 2012 5:25 PM
      Exactly- morality would be whatever we say it is.


      Who else is there,even God speaks thru man.

      Delete
    4. If God speaks through men then men are NOT the ones coming up with the concept, duh.

      Delete

    5. Joe GDecember 27, 2012 6:37 AM
      If God speaks through men then men are NOT the ones coming up with the concept, duh.


      It is men who say it is God,duh.

      Delete
    6. If God speaks through men then men are NOT the ones coming up with the concept, duh.

      If it is just men claiming that it is God then we are back to square one- morality is whatever we say, duh.

      Delete
    7. Joe,

      If it is just men claiming that it is God then we are back to square one- morality is whatever we say, duh

      Fast learner, so you now agree that whether the ToE is true has no bearing on morality?

      Delete
    8. If the ToE is true then "rape" is just another mechanism of the selfish gene and morality is an illusion.

      Delete
    9. Joe,

      If the ToE is true then "rape" is just another mechanism of the selfish gene
      An unacceptable one to the person raped or society in general,but interestingly one that is not completely condemned by the Bible,source of God inspired morality

      and morality is an illusion.

      Morality is no more illusion than language, it is rules for human interactions, ethics.

      Delete
  16. velikovskys,

    "Based on any set of rules, the God of the OT or Star Trek or Golden rule or more absurd the writings of Ayn Rand."

    Why not Adolph Hitler or Genghis Khan? What do you suppose would happen if someone basing their morals on those characters got into power. Exactly how would you oppose their actions? To what would you appeal to stop their atrocities?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic,
      Why not Adolph Hitler or Genghis Khan?
      Possible,the Germans certainly did. Didn't work out too well in short term.

      What do you suppose would happen if someone basing their morals on those characters got into power
      Perhaps start a World War and kill many of its citizens and many non citizens
      Exactly how would you oppose their actions?
      Do we have to discuss what the basis of their morals are,whether their wanting to kill you and ensalve you is moral? I don't think it is a question that wold pop into your mind. Just because someone believes what they do is moral doesn't mean you can't object to it.After all the Japanese believed God ( their emperor) approved their actions.It didn't stop American action.
      To what would you appeal to stop their atrocities?
      Protect those things I value. Once they stop we can discuss motivation but first you have to stop the action. Whether they believe their action moral or immoral doesn't matter if someone is trying to kill you.

      Delete
  17. An unacceptable one to the person raped or society in general

    Meaningless drivel in a Darwinian world.

    Morality is no more illusion than language, it is rules for human interactions, ethics.

    That is because we do NOT live in a darwinian world. The darwinian world is an illusion.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Joe,

    An unacceptable one to the person raped or society in general

    Meaningless drivel in a Darwinian world.


    Why? My life is just as valuable to me no matter to path it took to get here. It is a bit scary that without a religious orthodoxy for some ,they revert to complete nihilism.The only thing that prevents them from heinous acts is fear of eternal punishment

    Morality is no more illusion than language, it is rules for human interactions, ethics.

    That is because we do NOT live in a darwinian world. The darwinian world is an illusion


    Language is not possible in a world where the ToE is true? Language is only possible by design?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why? My life is just as valuable to me no matter to path it took to get here.

      That is meaningless in a darwinian world.

      Language is not possible in a world where the ToE is true?

      Living organisms are not possible in such a world, duh

      Delete
  19. Velikovskys,

    "Protect those things I value."

    The things you value will be meaningless.

    "Once they stop we can discuss motivation but first you have to stop the action."

    And how would you do that? By appealing to your moral standards? They mean nothing to them. Might makes right in your world of moral relativism.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Nic,
    "Protect those things I value."

    The things you value will be meaningless.


    Perhaps to you,they certainly would have meaning to me by definition.I appreciate that in a divine centered philosophy God is the source of all,but even in that ethic certain things some people value are meaningless to others. The question for me do what do most people value in common?


    "Once they stop we can discuss motivation but first you have to stop the action."

    And how would you do that? By appealing to your moral standards? They mean nothing to them. Might makes right in your world of moral relativism.


    Pick your method, the God of the OT preferred the big stick, Jesus ,turning the other cheek. Might has nothing to do with the correctness of an ethic,it does allow for survival. You seem to believe that only God gives value and authority to ethics. There are many different Gods, how does one objectively decide which one is true and objectively know His wishes? Were the Japanese pilots ,by virtue of believing in the divinity of the Emperor, morally good? Then was it moral for America to attack them for it?

    But perhaps there are ways to logically find common basis of ethics beyond the authority of a belief in a particular God,after all people who believe in the same God have differing ethics. Unless one can prove objectively that they can know God wishes? Can you?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I still don't see any basis in logic or science for saying that one ethic is superior to Biblical ethics. All I see is people saying that there ethic is better according to their own subjective moral intuition. Hitler had a moral intuition, too. So did Jeffrey Daumer. So it seems that the most you can say is that you don't like Biblical morality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right, there is no basis in science for ethics and morality. Science studies the way the world is. It's not concerned with how people should behave towards one another.

      On the other hand, it's quite possible to construct various moral systems that are perfectly logical in that they follow necessarily and correctly from the basic premises.

      An interesting point about both Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer is that their moral intuitions, such as they were, ultimately led to their own destruction. Just as society could not tolerate a mass killer like Jeffrey Dahmer in its midst, so the society of nations could not tolerate someone who struck down other nations at will.

      Delete
    2. Nat,
      I still don't see any basis in logic or science for saying that one ethic is superior to Biblical ethics.

      Unquestioning obedience? Can't see anything that could wrong with that ethic. Rape is acceptable if you only do it to bad people? Don't get me wrong,lots in the Bible is good , but if you accept it is the inspired word of God then it needs to be 100% good for all times and all people otherwise it is not universally good. Can a objective moral be good for one and bad for another? Sounds pretty relativistic

      All I see is people saying that there ethic is better according to their own subjective moral intuition. Hitler had a moral intuition, too. So did Jeffrey Daumer. So it seems that the most you can say is that you don't like Biblical morality.

      Parts are good and parts not very much, killing people for uncommitted or unknown sins seems more human than Godlike

      Delete
    3. Vel:

      I still don't see any logic or science. All I see is your opinion bases on your subjective moral sense. Nothing wrong with that. I happen to agree with you on most things. My own moral sense is troubled by someof the stuff I see in the Bible. It's just that I know that my moral sense is subjective, and therefore God probably has a better moral sense than I do. After all, I can't create a Universe.

      Delete
    4. Nat,
      My own moral sense is troubled by someof the stuff I see in the Bible. It's just that I know that my moral sense is subjective, and therefore God probably has a better moral sense than I do. After all, I can't create a Universe.

      I think that is entirely reasonable, the question is how do you find out what God's moral sense is. I think the choice of using the Bible is subjective, just as believing that the Emperor is Divine. Since that is the case there is no way,unless you know a way, to know what which moral code is really Truly God's. It is true some believe in the power of revelation to overcome this problem, that revelation is unmistakable,of course they rely on the same method to prove the method sound.

      My contention is it is all subjective,but not all equal. There are objective,at least to most, values, some of which are beautifully articulated in the Bible.

      Delete
  22. velikovskys,

    "Perhaps to you,they certainly would have meaning to me by definition."

    You simply don't get it do you? It's irrelevant as to whether your morals are meaningful to you if someone like an Adolph Hitler is dictating moral standards. Your moral protestations would fall on deaf ears and you would have no right to object as you don't hold to an absolute standard for morals. What right would you have to say what Hitler did was wrong?

    "Might has nothing to do with the correctness of an ethic,...'

    No it doesn't, but relative morality will inevitably lead to such ends.

    "You seem to believe that only God gives value and authority to ethics."

    Name a moral standard which does not have its roots in religious philosophy.

    "Were the Japanese pilots ,by virtue of believing in the divinity of the Emperor, morally good?"

    No, they were brainwashed.

    "Then was it moral for America to attack them for it?"

    The US had the moral right to defend themselves.

    "Unless one can prove objectively that they can know God wishes?"

    God makes it very clear what he accepts as moral behaviour and what he considers immoral.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nic,
      You simply don't get it do you? It's irrelevant as to whether your morals are meaningful to you if someone like an Adolph Hitler is dictating moral standards.

      That is your deal not mine, I already said I wouldn't kill a child just because God ordered it. Why would I accept morals from a person who I would consider as homicidal? I have tried to tell I am disinterested in someone's moral theory if it involves killing me or my country. My morals are meaningful to me,and as of yet no one has convinced me that supposedly objective morals are in fact objective.

      our moral protestations would fall on deaf ears and you would have no right to object as you don't hold to an absolute standard for morals. What right would you have to say what Hitler did was wrong?

      Who in in charge of granting me the right? Again it is fascinating that without God's authority you guys are lost. It goes directly to Lord of The Flies. Personally I think my life has value to me, I am sure. One data point. My wife and child's life has value for me . One data point. The best way to ensure that value is to live a society which doesn't arbitrarily kill us, a efficient way to accomplish that is a society where no one is killed arbitrarily ,morally or legally whichever accomplishes that goal best.

      "Might has nothing to do with the correctness of an ethic,...'

      No it doesn't, but relative morality will inevitably lead to such ends.


      So does moral absolutism. How do you enforce disobedience to Bible's morals? The threat of eternal pain, question God and pay the price. Hitler wasn't a relativist but an absolutist

      "You seem to believe that only God gives value and authority to ethics."

      Name a moral standard which does not have its roots in religious philosophy.


      Virtue ethics

      "Were the Japanese pilots ,by virtue of believing in the divinity of the Emperor, morally good?"

      No, they were brainwashed.


      Are you being purposely ironic? Explain the difference between your belief and theirs

      "Then was it moral for America to attack them for it?"

      The US had the moral right to defend themselves.


      Only because of God? Otherwise our lives are valueless? Not mine. If you believe that it is good you have your faith

      "Unless one can prove objectively that they can know God wishes?"

      God makes it very clear what he accepts as moral behaviour and what he considers immoral.


      Just like he did to the Japanese, why is your God the true one? It is your belief,just like the Japanese.

      Delete
  23. velikovskys,

    "Why would I accept morals from a person who I would consider as homicidal?"

    If that person happened to be the creator of the universe and all that is in it, including you, on what basis would you consider yourself justified to reject his wishes?

    "Again it is fascinating that without God's authority you guys are lost."

    Without God's authority the entire world is lost, including you. What authority do you appeal to for your moral basis?

    "Personally I think my life has value to me,..."

    Certainly it does, no one said anything to the contrary.

    "The best way to ensure that value is to live a society which doesn't arbitrarily kill us,..."

    Like the one in which millions of Jews were living in the early 20th century?

    "How do you enforce disobedience to Bible's morals? The threat of eternal pain, question God and pay the price."

    Man is given a free choice, accept God or reject him. Free will carries natural consequences. Do you discipline your child, or let them do whatever they wish with no consequences?

    "Hitler wasn't a relativist,..."

    I never said he was. But if you are going to argue for relative morality, you have no basis on which to criticize his moral standards. If all morality is relative, why was Hitler wrong?

    "Virtue ethics."

    What is the source of these virtues?

    "Are you being purposely ironic? Explain the difference between your belief and theirs."

    Show me where the Judeo-Christian God teaches man to commit suicide for his gain.

    "why is your God the true one? It is your belief,..."

    Yes, it's a matter of faith, just as your position is a matter of faith.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Nic,
    "Why would I accept morals from a person who I would consider as homicidal?"

    If that person happened to be the creator of the universe and all that is in it, including you, on what basis would you consider yourself justified to reject his wishes?


    Maybe if he wanted blind obedience He should have had a better design, He could of course cause my muscles to perform any act or cause me to hallucinate,but if He wants me to freely choose, the criteria for my choice are mine and I am not good at unquestioning obedience.

    "Again it is fascinating that without God's authority you guys are lost."

    Without God's authority the entire world is lost, including you. What authority do you appeal to for your moral basis?


    So you say, again why your God? Why not the emperor of Japan? God of Baal?A disinterested God? What authority do you have to declare your God the true God? The same God? A bit circular

    The best way to ensure that value is to live a society which doesn't arbitrarily kill us,..."

    Like the one in which millions of Jews were living in the early 20th century?


    No,unlike the one in Nazi Germany, a nation which was familiar with the morality of the Bible, believed without question in another's authority.Perhaps less obedience would have been morally correct

    I never said he was. But if you are going to argue for relative morality, you have no basis on which to criticize his moral standards. If all morality is relative, why was Hitler wrong?

    I don't care about Hilter's moral standards,just his action. Westboro Church's moral standards are an interpretation of the Bible, who are you to say their's is wrong? The issue for me is what people do with their morals

    "Are you being purposely ironic? Explain the difference between your belief and theirs."

    Show me where the Judeo-Christian God teaches man to commit suicide for his gain.


    It was a freely given sacrifice of one's life to save many, does that ring a bell?

    "why is your God the true one? It is your belief,..."

    Yes, it's a matter of faith, just as your position is a matter of faith.


    And faith is subjective which is my point. As an aside,it is a pleasure to have a thought provoking civil discourse ,thanks Nic

    ReplyDelete
  25. Nic,

    I've been thinking of a possible way to make faith objective, miracles. While it is possible that what we perceive is miraculous is not, miracles could lend supporting evidence. Just a thought

    ReplyDelete
  26. velikovskys,

    "It was a freely given sacrifice of one's life to save many, does that ring a bell?

    That is not suicide.

    ReplyDelete