Thursday, January 17, 2013

If You Understand Nothing Else About Evolution Understand IFF

Christians (And Everyone Else) Should Know This

Should Christians reject evolution because it violates the Bible by leaving no room for Adam and Eve and the Fall, or should Christians accept evolution because it is the obvious scientific conclusion? That, according to one history professor, is how the debate will be framed at an upcoming conference. If so, it would be an unfortunate repeat of a centuries old false dichotomy and what would be missing would be any discussion of what evolution really is.

Evolution does not necessarily exclude Adam and Eve and the Fall, and evolution is not a scientific conclusion, obvious or otherwise. For Christians to reckon with evolution they must understand evolution. And to understand evolution, they must understand IFF. Understanding IFF does not force one’s position on evolution, but it does force one’s understanding of evolution.

What is IFF and why does it matter?

IFF is a logical connective and is shorthand for “If and only IF.” For example, if and only if it is Saturday, then I eat pizza. This not only means that I eat pizza on Saturdays. It also means I don’t eat pizza on any other day.

And while this is a perfectly good use of IFF, IFF has no place in scientific hypotheses. A scientist would never say “if and only if my hypothesis is true, then we will observe a certain observation.”

Scientists use hypotheses to make predictions, but they cannot know that a particular hypothesis is the only explanation for a observation. So scientists say “If hypothesis H, then observation O,” but they never say “if and only if H, then O.”

IFF is a religious truth claim, and not scientific statement, because it entails knowledge of all possible explanations. And science affords no such knowledge.

But while IFF is not scientific, it lies at the very heart of evolutionary thought. For example, the practically official motto of evolution is that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” This phrase shows up repeatedly in evolutionary papers and every evolutionist believes it. Yet it is an IFF statement (you can see why here).

Pop quiz

Here is a typical example, from this week, of how evolutionary thinking entails IFF and how, for evolutionists, it proves evolution to be true. See if you can find the IFF statement in this quote (hint: I’m giving you some help):

Why am I as sure as I could be of any thing in science that humans and other primates have common ancestors? There are millions of complex mutations (transposable element insertions and other insertions or deletions as well as multiple point mutations in proximity) that are exactly reproduced at the corresponding (orthologous) locations in the human genome and in chimp and in many cases gorilla, orangutan and even gibbon and other monkey genomes. In the case of individual transposon insertions, the peculiarities of the particular event, e.g. the degree of truncation or the specific rearrangement of the element, the exact length of the short direct repeats that flank the insertion, are reproduced in the genomes of different species. The age of the insertion, as estimated by the sequence divergence of the transposable element sequence, matches the age determined by which species contain the insertion (the phylogenetic age) of the insertion. The same kind of observations on the inactivating mutations in unitary pseudogenes that are shared by multiple species confirm that these are records in multiple species of the same mutation events occurring millions of years ago during the branching descent of these species. If you look at really ancient transposon insertions, they tell the same story about mammals in general. There is no way to account for these millions of genomic observations in multiple species except common descent. That is what biologists are talking about when they say evolution is a fact. It is possible to argue from now on about mechanisms of evolution, but the starting point is common descent. These observations about genomes don’t depend at all on any theory of the mechanism of evolution, whether all the mutations are really “random,” or whether the elements involved have since acquired some function. The process of insertion of these elements has been very thoroughly studied for several decades and the results are clear.

There you have it. This is the essence of evolutionary thought, and it is not scientific. Here the evolutionist explains that there is “no way” to account for observations O, except for on his hypothesis, H. This is equivalent to claiming that if and only if H, then O.

Science simply cannot provide this sort of knowledge. And likewise, science cannot be used to refute such a claim. Evolutionary truth claims are not vulnerable to science, for they are not scientific to begin with.

Indeed from a purely scientific perspective the notion that the entire biological world (and by extension everything else for that matter, because evolutionary thought is by no means limited to the origin of species) arose spontaneously is silly.

But from a religious perspective it is true. That religious perspective, however, is not biblical. It may be challenging to fit the gospel message into evolution, but that doesn’t begin to address the real conflict between evolution and the Bible.

There will always be evolutionists and there will always be evolution skeptics. Let’s at least be clear about what evolution is.

136 comments:

  1. Hunter, you're amazing. I hope your target audience is not the evotards. Let's see how long it takes one of the the psychos who frequent your blog to start relieving themselves on your carefully crafted argument?

    PS. I would normally phrase the above differently but I respect your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Geoff Barnard notes, "the wide variety of chromosomal variations that clearly exist between the human and chimpanzee, dictate against the thesis that these species have common ancestry." In another, Nevin and Phil Hills show that "the fused chromosome is unique to the human and is not found in the great apes . . . the numerous chromosomal variations between the human and chimpanzee suggest that these species do not have common ancestry."
    http://www.worldmag.com/articles/18207

    ReplyDelete
  3. Humans and other primates have common ancestors IFF the physical transformations required can be achieved via reachable genetic changes.

    Similarities in genetic sequences point to a common design in the same way similarities between two different cars does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. joey, if you believe that COMMON design is real, why are you so against a close relationship between humans and chimps?

      If you believe that COMMON design is real, why are you against any relationships between any living things both now and in the past?

      If you're not anti-evolution, why are you so against a close relationship between humans and chimps?

      If you're not anti-common descent, why are you so against a close relationship between humans and chimps?

      Delete
    2. TWiT:
      if you believe that COMMON design is real, why are you so against a close relationship between humans and chimps?

      Who said that I am against it? Common design is a relationship, moron.

      Why do you think that your belligerent ignorance means something?

      Why are you such an ignorant coward?

      Was that inherited from your cowardly and ignorant parents?

      Delete
    3. "Who said that I am against it?"

      You say it, joey-the-chimp-faced-boy. You belligerently argue against a close relationship between humans and chimps, just like you belligerently argue against everything else that doesn't adhere to your fanatical, fairy tale religious beliefs.

      Delete
    4. By the way joey, when it comes to ignorance and cowardice, you're unsurpassed.

      Delete
    5. TWiTTY boo-boo- you are a known cowardly liar, loser and retarded freak.

      I don't argue against close relationships between chimps and humans. We are closely related via a common design.

      Delete
    6. Actually you do belligerently argue against it joey, but just for lolz please describe just how closely humans and chimps are related by "common design", and describe the details of "common design" in regard to humans and chimps and every other organism that has ever lived.

      Delete
  4. Right BA. The approach mentioned above is similar to that used by those who assumed that most "junk" DNA was junk, and then used it to "demonstrate" that ONLY common ancestry could account for it. But that approach is continually being contradicted by new findings. We don't know where it will end up. There is no trend of discoveries supporting "non-functionality" and "randomness." They're even finding that the so-called "redundancy" in the code is not totally redundant after all.

    Now take the one above:

    "The age of the insertion, as estimated by the sequence divergence of the transposable element sequence, matches the age determined by which species contain the insertion (the phylogenetic age) of the insertion."

    First of all, we can't predict phenotypes, so it is mere circular reasoning to ASSUME that "estimated" mutational rates magically correlate with phenotypical-variation-sequences. Second, they are "estimated" rates (what is assumed in the estimation methods?). Third, I've read where different rate estimates are unexpectedly compelled by different sequences in the same organism for the methodology. Fourth, we're learning about possible Lamarckian-style epigenetic sequence changes, etc that may have implications on rates we don't yet fully understand. Fifth, we have found putatively ultra-conserved elements that, of themselves, have problematic probabilistic implications for current speculation. Finally, what is assumed in the phylogenetic age determination method (i.e., other than the magic correlation of phenotype-variation-sequence with mere mutational accumulation)?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hunter: Indeed from a purely scientific perspective the notion that the entire biological world (and by extension everything else for that matter, because evolutionary thought is by no means limited to the origin of species) arose spontaneously is silly.

    Cornelius, maybe you should define what exactly you mean by "arose spontaneously." I will help you clarify your definition by giving several examples.

    When a crystal of salt forms out of a saturated solution, is this spontaneous formation?

    When a star and its planets form out of a molecular cloud, is this spontaneous formation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LoL! Buy a dictionary, oleg.

      When a crystal of salt forms out of a saturated solution, is this spontaneous formation?

      That would depend if an agency was involved or not.

      It would have been better had to just copied the definitions of the word and asked him which he is using.

      But then again I wouldn't expect you to do the right thing.


      Delete
    2. So, if I understand you correctly, Joe, a crystal can form spontaneously.

      Delete
    3. Yes, in a designed universe.

      Delete
    4. And why do you need the hypothesis of a designed universe? We understand fully how crystals form and that theory does not have any reference to a designed universe. It's basic thermodynamics.

      Delete
    5. oleg:
      And why do you need the hypothesis of a designed universe?

      Because there wouldn't be any laws in an undesigned universe- such a thing wouldn't even exist.

      We understand fully how crystals form and that theory does not have any reference to a designed universe.

      We wouldn't be here if the universe wasn't designed. Crystals wouldn't form in an undesigned universe- an undesigned universe cannot exist.

      It's basic thermodynamics.

      Thermodynmaics is only possible in a designed universe.

      Delete
    6. OK, suppose, arguendo, that someone has designed our universe. Are the two processes I referred to represent spontaneous formation?

      Delete
    7. The first one, sure. The second we cannot observe so we do not know and cannot say.

      (yeah I know you are going to say that we see stars forming- maybe we do and maybe we don't- we just don't know if they are and what is causing it)

      Delete
    8. Good. Crystals can form spontaneously.

      As to stars, not only can we observe stars in various stages of formation, we also understand the process. It is, in fact, not complicated.

      A molecular cloud is inhomogeneous. Its denser parts attract gravitationally gas from other parts of the cloud and become even denser. This is an unstable situation called gravitational collapse. The collapsing cloud becomes a star when temperature at its center becomes high enough to start thermonuclear reactions. Again, basic physics.

      Delete
    9. Joe,

      Because there wouldn't be any laws in an undesigned universe- such a thing wouldn't even exist.

      How could you tell, Joe? I've heard you say that nature can't create nature, what is your line of reasoning?

      Delete
    10. We can observe ice crystals forming, we can recreate the process to create ice crystals, and we can clearly define the laws of physics which explain the process. We can do none of these with OoL and genuine speciation. That's what makes OoL and evolution different and that is why the skeptics won't give you guys a free pass.

      Delete
    11. What do you think of plate tectonics, Neal? In the 1960s, when the theory was accepted, scientists could not observe the motion of plates directly. (Now we can by using GPS. These direct measurements tell us that various plates move at speeds like 1 cm a year.) There was other, indirect evidence in favor of the theory.

      Same with black holes. You can't observe a black hole directly. It's black. You have to rely on observations of objects orbiting it and inferring its mass from those observations.

      Much as these issues are interesting, they are a distraction. Cornelius stated that it is preposterous to believe that evolution can happen spontaneously. And he does not limit his ridicule to only biological evolution, but also to the development of the solar system and the universe. I would like him to clarify what exactly he means by a spontaneous process. If by that he means a star just popping up in the middle of empty space, that is of course ridiculous. But if he accepts formation of a star from a molecular cloud as a spontaneous process, there is nothing ridiculous about that.

      Delete
    12. Oleg,

      Your statements reflect the materialist framework that "if I understand how something works, therefore its not special anymore, and therefore no design involved".

      Delete
    13. lcplusplus

      Your statements reflect the materialist framework that "if I understand how something works, therefore its not special anymore, and therefore no design involved"


      How do you do science in a non-materialistic framework?

      How do you do repeatable experiment if you must account for some Loki God who can change the laws of chemistry and physics on a whim? How do you trust the results you do get?

      Delete
    14. lcplusplus,

      It's a bit more subtle. If we understand how something works, we say that a magical explanation is no longer required. Magic might still be a valid explanation: I cannot prove that the world was not created last Thursday and we were all endowed with memories of nonexistent past events, but I do not take such positions seriously.

      Delete
    15. Thorton, Oleg,

      If a magician pulls off a magic trick, is it not considered magic anymore if we find out how it works?

      How do you know the "magic trick" of x "material" phenomenon wasn't designed from the start?

      Delete
    16. Exactly, lcplusplus. Once we understand how a magician performs the trick by using his human skills, it is no longer considered magic.

      Delete
    17. But that do not eliminate the need of a magician performing a trick that now we know how it works.

      Delete
    18. Magic is a process, understanding the process does not diminish the fact the process was not instantiated via design.

      Delete
    19. oleg:
      As to stars, not only can we observe stars in various stages of formation, we also understand the process.

      We think we do- IOW what you have is "it looks like stars are forming to me".

      Delete
    20. joey said:

      "We wouldn't be here if the universe wasn't designed."

      So, that and your other comments about a designed universe shows that you believe that the entire universe is designed. No wonder you won't name some things that aren't designed, because you believe that everything is designed. Obviously you didn't think before making your comments about a designed universe. Otherwise you would have realized that you killed all of your 'CSI', irreducible complexity, and other 'ID' claims. If everything is designed, there's no way to differentiate between designed and non-designed things. Thanks for showing that the alleged testing methods for 'ID' are useless.

      Delete
    21. TWiT:
      So, that and your other comments about a designed universe shows that you believe that the entire universe is designed.

      THAT is what Intelligent Design posits, moron.

      No wonder you won't name some things that aren't designed, because you believe that everything is designed.

      LoL! I have named things taht were not designed and no I never said, thought nor implied that everything was designed- you are just an ass.

      Your ignorant spewage is duly noted- not that you spew anything but ignorance.

      Delete
    22. ID posits that the entire universe is designed. So the things that were not designed are not a part of the entire universe. Where exactly are those things then?

      Delete
    23. TWiT:
      ID posits that the entire universe is designed. So the things that were not designed are not a part of the entire universe.

      ID says that the universe is designed. Not everything in it is the direct result of being designed.

      You are a moron.

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

      Delete
    25. The entire universe is designed, according to you. The entire universe includes everything in it. Therefor everything in and about the entire universe is designed, according to you. So, joey, explain how NOT everything that is designed in a designed universe is designed?

      And no, moron, your diversionary word games ("direct result of..") just show your desperation to weasel out of what you've said. Besides, if 'the designer' designed everything, the "result" of everything, whether "direct" or indirect, would be a product of design and there would be no such thing as a non-designed "result" and as such there would be no possible comparison between non-designed things and designed things.

      joey g: Dumbest. Creationist. Ever.

      Delete
    26. TWiT:
      The entire universe is designed, according to you.

      The universe is designed. That does NOT mean everything in it is designed.

      The entire universe includes everything in it.

      No, it doesn't.

      People design cars but that doesn't mean that everything in a car is designed.

      IOW you think that your belligerent ignorance means something- you are pathetic.

      Delete
    27. Joe,

      People design cars but that doesn't mean that everything in a car is designed

      What inside a car is not designed? How do you know?

      Delete
    28. Are you saying that automobile accidents never happen?

      Or are you admitting ignorance?

      Delete
    29. C'mon chubs, man up and answer the question.

      What in a car is not designed, and how do you know?

      Delete
    30. LoL! thortty boo-boo never man's up and answers anything.

      A broken belt is not designed. And cars get broken belts all the time. A broken brake line isn't designed. And cars get those, too.

      How do I know those are not designed? i looked at the design specs.

      Delete
    31. Chubby Joke G

      How do I know those are not designed? I looked at the design specs.


      How do you know there's not a spec somewhere for designing something that just looks broken to your uneducated eye?

      Where are the before-the-fact design specs for genetic sequences?

      Fatboy Joe making up BS as he goes again.

      Delete
    32. joey g: Dumbest. Arguments. Ever.

      Delete
    33. How do I know those are not designed? I looked at the design specs.

      thortyy coward boo-boo:
      How do you know there's not a spec somewhere for designing something that just looks broken to your uneducated eye?

      I don't have an uneducated eye. I bet that I have forgotten more about cars then you will ever know.

      But anyways nice to see you meltdown again when your ignorance is exposed.

      Delete
    34. Chubby Joke G

      I don't have an uneducated eye. I bet that I have forgotten more about cars then you will ever know


      We'll add that to your ever growing resume Chubs. Let's see, over the years you've claimed to be:

      Wounded Iraqi War hero
      Multi-engined plane Pilot
      Olympic caliber athlete
      Research biologist
      Top secret GA writer/Cryptologist
      Chemical/biological warfare specialist
      Expert floor tile layer
      Dental/ TMJ expert
      Antenna expert
      Accomplished ice hockey player
      Expert Astronomer
      Ace auto mechanic
      toaster repairman

      I'm sure I missed some.

      Wow Chubs, you've had more full time careers than a dozen people put together. When do you sleep?

      Oh, and you forgot to answer

      Where are the before-the-fact design specs for genetic sequences?

      Delete
    35. Some more for the list, that joey claims or portrays himself as:

      baraminologist

      tick researcher

      dragonfly researcher

      big game hunter

      expert animal tracker

      legal expert

      world traveler

      biblical expert

      tough guy

      physics expert

      archaeological expert

      geological/paleontological expert

      state of the art basement science lab owner

      expert on ghosts, UFOs, ancient aliens, pyramids, etc.

      Delete
    36. thortty coward boo-boo:
      Where are the before-the-fact design specs for genetic sequences?

      How is that relevant to anything? Please explain.

      And why is it that when all you have to do to refute ID is to actually step up and present positive evidence for your position, you choose the coawrdly approach instead?

      Delete
  6. The reason why scientists didn't contemplate the mind-boggling complexity of how sequence-based function interacts is because it is SO complex. And we're still learning how complex it is. But there have always been problems in the simplistic approaches that were never solved anyway. They were just brought along as anomalous data and/or kazillions of ad-hoc hypotheses. Kuhn has explained how these problems can finally become so overwhelming that it renders current speculation merely speculative and of no predictive value whatsoever. We've never been able to predict anything inconsistent with SA as it is.

    But UCA'ists will never embrace ID for metaphysical and/or professional reasons. So the normal correction that Kuhn talked about can never occur for this IFF "science" called the UCA ToE. UCA'ists claim they will choose "I don't know" when they can't win consistently with their own metaphysics. They already AREN'T winning. But do they say they don't know? NO!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      The reason why scientists didn't contemplate the mind-boggling complexity of how sequence-based function interacts is because it is SO complex. And we're still learning how complex it is.


      Sorry LFJJ but according to your best buddy Joe G that means you're a flaccid ignorant puke moron who likes little boys. Joey already told us that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with complexity.

      Joe G wouldn't lie about such things, now would he?

      Delete
    2. Thorton,

      Sorry LFJJ but according to your best buddy Joe G that means you're a flaccid ignorant puke moron who likes little boys. Joey already told us that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with complexity

      It is irresistible isn't it?

      Delete
    3. velikovskys

      is irresistible isn't it?


      To paraphrase the late great Robert Palmer:

      "Gonna have to face it I'm addicted to tard" :)

      Delete
    4. Jeff,


      The reason why scientists didn't contemplate the mind-boggling complexity of how sequence-based function interacts is because it is SO complex. And we're still learning how complex it is.


      Who exactly is doing the research which results in the learning if not those scientists? What are you criticizing them for, revising their view when additional data is discovered? Or not contemplating it?


      We've never been able to predict anything inconsistent with SA as it is.

      Lacking a specific theory how could you?

      Delete
    5. Thorton,


      "Gonna have to face it I'm addicted to tard" :)


      Acknowledgement is the first step, perhaps a visit to Tardanon

      Delete
    6. Jeff,

      Thanks for the lead to Kuhn .

      Delete
    7. liar loser brown nose:
      Joey already told us that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with complexity.

      I didn't say that. I said the desin inference requires more than mere complexity, ie mere complexity is not an indication of design.

      Both specified complexity and irreducible complexity are forms of complexity that do indicate design

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

      Delete
    9. Chubby Joke G

      Both specified complexity and irreducible complexity are forms of complexity that do indicate design


      You already admitted that your "programmed evolution" can create IC features through stepwise evolutionary processes, so IC is out.

      You can't provide any before-the-fact specifications for anything associated with biological life, only describe what already exists and falsely call it a specification. Like shooting a wall, then painting a bulls-eye around the hole and declaring you hit the target. SC is out too.

      Sorry Chubs, your ID-Creation stupidiy fails again.

      Delete
    10. brown nose ignoramus:
      You already admitted that your "programmed evolution" can create IC features through stepwise evolutionary processes, so IC is out.

      Only if you don't understand IC.

      You can't provide any before-the-fact specifications for anything associated with biological life

      Are you retarded? How is that even relevant? Was the theory of evolution produced before-the-fact?

      We OBSERVE biological function and we OBSERVE that not any sequence can produce biological function. It needs to be explained and your position's "it just happened man" isn't science.

      Delete
    11. V: Who exactly is doing the research which results in the learning if not those scientists? What are you criticizing them for, revising their view when additional data is discovered? Or not contemplating it?

      J: I'm criticizing them for saying evidence mounts all the time for naturalistic UCA when in fact there is no inductive evidence for it at all YET.

      J: We've never been able to predict anything inconsistent with SA as it is.

      V: Lacking a specific theory how could you?

      J: I didn't mean that SA predicts anything per some naturalistic theory (which involved event regularities). I meant that humans can't predict phenotypes in a way that is contradictory to HISTORICAL SA.

      Delete
    12. V: Thorton,

      Sorry LFJJ but according to your best buddy Joe G that means you're a flaccid ignorant puke moron who likes little boys. Joey already told us that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with complexity

      It is irresistible isn't it?

      J: So the kind of complexity entailed in cellular processes is no harder to explain naturalistically because of it's complexity? Why then don't we already have an at least modestly corroborated naturalistic explanation of it like we do for other phenomena?

      Delete
    13. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      So the kind of complexity entailed in cellular processes is no harder to explain naturalistically because of it's complexity? Why then don't we already have an at least modestly corroborated naturalistic explanation of it like we do for other phenomena?


      We do. It's called the theory of evolution. You should read up on it sometime.

      Delete
    14. LoL! The theory of evolution starts with living organisms- ie the very specified complexity that needs explaining in the first place.

      And unguided evolution can't even get beyond prokaryotes.

      The point being is reading about the "theory" of evolution is like readin Aesop's Fable's, just not as good.

      Delete
    15. LOL! Go ahead Chubs, tell us again how ToE has less evidence than pyramid antennas for space aliens, reincarnation, and ghosts.

      Watching you stick both pudgy feet into your gaping mouth never gets old!

      Delete
    16. LoL! I don't have to tell anyone, they already know. And your posts confirm that evolutionism is useless and evidence-free.

      Watching you spew your retarded ignorance used to be entertaining. Now it's just boring.

      Delete
    17. Chubby Joke G

      I don't have to tell anyone, they already know.


      OK, let's see a show of hands!

      How many other people think Chubby Joe's claim that the pyramids were giant antennas used to contact space aliens has lots of positive scientific evidence?

      Anyone?

      Anyone?

      Gee Chubs, looks like your sugar induced hallucinations from eating that case of Twinkies just don't extend to anyone else.

      Maybe you could get a few of your sock-puppets to support you like you usually do.

      Delete
    18. Hey Thorton, have you noticed that joey resorts to the "mere complexity" crap, even though neither Jeff nor anyone else said anything about "mere complexity"? Jeff is obviously talking about what he thinks is very complex complexity ("mind-boggling complexity"), not "mere complexity".

      Hey joey, your evasive, dishonest, diversionary games are obvious, and really lame.

      Delete
    19. I don't have to tell anyone, they already know.

      dipstick
      OK, let's see a show of hands!

      OK-

      How many people think that evolutionism is evidence-free nonsense?

      Delete
    20. TWiT,

      You moron- thorton was talking about mere complexity. And my response was to thorton.

      You are the most ignorant freak, ever.

      Delete
    21. Hmm, I don't recall Thorton saying anything about "mere" complexity. That's your term joey. Just one of the terms you play games with to try to divert attention away from your dishonesty and stupidity.

      joey g: Dumbest. Pseudo-authority. Ever.

      Delete
    22. TWiT:
      Hmm, I don't recall Thorton saying anything about "mere" complexity.

      That is because you are an uneducated moron. When he posts "complexity" that = mere complexity, moron.

      Delete
    23. So then, whenever one of you IDiots posts "complexity", I can safely assume that you mean "mere complexity"?

      I'm curious about something else too, joey. How can there be "mere complexity" in a universe that is allegedly designed? Do you claim that some things were/are not specified by 'the designer'? Do you claim that some things are not a specified and/or irreducible result of 'the design'? If so, did 'the designer' specify the designed unspecified slop or is 'the designer' just sloppy?

      You usually stick to living things when pushing "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity". What about everything else, joey? Is there any "specified complexity" and/or "irreducible complexity" in anything other than living things? Does the "specified complexity" and/or "irreducible complexity" in living things immediately cease to exist when they die? Does it matter how they die?

      When a species goes extinct, does the "specified complexity" and/or "irreducible complexity" of the universe decrease? If so, where does that "specified complexity" and/or "irreducible complexity" go and what does it become?

      Delete
    24. TWITTY boo-boo:
      How can there be "mere complexity" in a universe that is allegedly designed?

      Very easily. Look up "chaos theory".

      Do you claim that some things were/are not specified by 'the designer'?

      Always have. Again your ignorance is astounding.

      But anyways, you are a belligerent coward. You couldn't support your position if your life depended on it.

      That you think your ignorant questions actually mean something prove that you are nothing but a demented buttwiper.

      Your ignorant attacks on ID will NEVER be evidence for your position.

      Delete
  7. Hey guys,

    How do we though, explain the existence of multiple fixed alu repeats in our genome?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well unguided evolution can't account for genomes. That said we would have to wait until we undersatnd what ALUs really are.

      Delete
  8. Cornelius Goebbles Hunter

    Here the evolutionist explains that there is “no way” to account for observations O, except for on his hypothesis, H. This is equivalent to claiming that if and only if H, then O.


    Back to the big lie again I see! I guess you only know a few sleazy propaganda tricks, right CH?

    The poster you quoted didn't say or imply what you claim at all about IFF, that evolution was the only possible cause ever. He merely explained that evolution is the only possible answer GIVEN THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE NOW. There's nothing in there that says our scientific understanding can't change with the introduction of new evidence. You've obviously forgotten if you ever knew, but that's how science works.

    But it's a nice lie you told, for you a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie. I'm sure your bosses at the DI will feel their propaganda money was well spent this week.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hunter, I hate to say 'I told you so' but I did. Psycho evotard Thorton just relieved himself publicly on your well crafted argument. Psychos have no shame. LOL.

      Delete
    2. brown noser:
      He merely explained that evolution is the only possible answer GIVEN THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE NOW.

      Intelligent Design evolution is the only possible answer GIVEN THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE NOW

      Delete
    3. Chubby Joke G

      Intelligent Design evolution is the only possible answer GIVEN MY TOTAL IGNORANCE OF THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE NOW


      Fixed it for you Chubs.

      Delete
    4. LoL! You can't even tie your own shoes, so forget about you fixing anything. Everything you are involved with turns to excrement.

      Delete
    5. Chubby Joe G

      Everything you are involved with turns to excrement.


      Well, I have been involved with you for a few years, correcting your Creationist stupidity. Reading you scatological outpourings I see what you mean.

      Delete
    6. LoL! You couldn't correct 1st grade level math.

      But you sure can kiss butt. Is that a brown ring around your neck?

      Delete
    7. joey, I see that you're supporting your 'position'. The thing is, your 'position' is a cesspool.

      Delete
    8. TWiT,

      You couldn't support anything if your life depended on it. YOU are just an ignorant coward.

      Delete
  9. Dr Hunter,

    In your highlighted qoute the author write' as sure as I could be of anything in science " , this seems a strange construction ,it is as if certainty has a particular meaning in science.Do you find that strange as well? Why not just " I am sure that human and other primates have common ancestors" , with no conditional? This would be closer to a IFF construct, or perhaps " it is impossible for chimps and humans not to have a common ancestor." , this would nail it. Else it could be, unfairly, thought that you are hammering a square peg into a round hole in order to get it to fit.

    There is no way to account for these millions of genomic observations in multiple species except common descent. That is what biologists are talking about when they say evolution is a fact

    Since we are pretty sure he is talking about science, what is the scientific evidence for separate creation of man, or cats or dogs that better explains all those observations?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vel, common design. This is another case of evolutionists cherry picking the data and emphasizing what they want to. That life is designed on a common basic platform easily and elegantly explains similarities. But, what of the patterns of how differences and similarities are scattered throughout the mosiac of life forms?

      The bold assertions about "there is no way to account for..." come from the same folks that brought you the whole junk-DNA folly. They are speaking of things that they know little about and making bold assertions.

      Delete
    2. I could use a little more proofreading

      Delete
    3. V: Since we are pretty sure he is talking about science, what is the scientific evidence for separate creation of man, or cats or dogs that better explains all those observations?

      J: If by science you mean natural science, there is no natural explanation of the origins of any species in terms of historical SA or historical UCA. Thus, there is no BETTER natural explanation. ID posits libertarian causality which is not natural, but is nevertheless CAUSALITY. Now if you, like Dennett, Shermer, etc, deny libertarian causality, you have nothing to argue against with ID'ists unles you can PROVE libertarian causality is non-existent.

      Delete
    4. Neal, if it's "common design", maybe you can explain how it is separate design or separate creation, especially when considering joey g's claim that 'ID' is not anti-evolution?

      Delete
    5. All kinds of designoids are designed by different designers. But they use "common" design features. Thus, those common features are not inherited GENEALOGICALLY in those cases.

      Delete
    6. Neal ,

      Vel, common design. This is another case of evolutionists cherry picking the data and emphasizing what they want to. That life is designed on a common basic platform easily and elegantly explains similarities. But, what of the patterns of how differences and similarities are scattered throughout the mosiac of life forms?

      ToE also predicts common designs with variations by virtue of its mechanisms. But common design doesn't provide support for SA, unless there is a reason that the designer must use common design?Why would an unknown designer with unknown abilities for unknown goals be limited to common design? Common design doesn't disqualify Inteligent Being Design but since all possibilities of design are equally possible doesn't support the theory either.

      Delete
    7. Jeff, are you saying that there are/were a bunch of designers of the universe and/or the life forms in it?

      And you're sounding like joey with the "features" bit. He adds words like "mere" and you add "features". You wouldn't be trying to distort the relevant definition of "common", would you? Oh hell no! LOL

      Delete
  10. oleg, what do you mean by "magical"? Acts of a magician can all be documented and understood. Or, do you mean as in fairy tale?

    I think that evolution would fall easily into the fairy tale and superstition category for the following reason: Evolutionists ascribe powers to nature that are way beyond what we can observe or measure of nature. It's only going to get worse for evolutionists as more knowledge of how biological systems operate is acquired.

    You seem to be living with a 19th century understanding of life because you make comparisons with plate movements. A closer comparison would be to a self-replicating super computer smaller than the size of the period at the end of this sentence.

    Theories on how a laptop computer can slide down a hill can't be compared to the theory of computer design and manufacturing. Life is composed of immense quantities of information and logical relationships, wherein that information and logic is highly integrated, multi-dependent, and shared across that biological system, and even to other systems.

    If the most basic life form is ever manufactured from scratch by man, it will not be "add water and bake at 120 degrees for 20 minutes" recipe. It will involve more guided and intelligent steps than are involved in making the IBM Watson supercomputer. If we ever do reach this point where we understand, then that understanding will include the knowledge that the only way to make life is via intelligent design. What then for you? More just so stories and fairy tales?

    Ironically, the reason we can't manufacture a basic life form from scratch is because the technology and complexity of the biological system is presently beyond our reach.

    If we ever do this, it will not be like plate movement from A to B and here is the natural processes that cause it. It will be here is basic life from scratch and here are the 10 millions steps that our lab technicians followed carefully to create it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shorter Tedford the Slow:

      "It's soooooooo complex, more complex than I can understand, therefore GAWDDIDIT!"

      Same old argument from ignorance-based personal incredulity Tedford's been pushing for years.

      Delete
    2. "Ironically, the reason we can't manufacture a basic life form from scratch is because the technology and complexity of the biological system is presently beyond our reach."

      Neal, what makes you think that humans should easily be able to produce or duplicate life forms from scratch? Yeah, some things are "presently" beyond human reach and some things will likely stay that way, but that doesn't mean that "complexity" should scare anyone or convince anyone to believe that 'god-did-it'.

      Believe it or not there are some real smart people who are working at figuring out how nature works. As time goes on more and more will be understood and explained, and many future scientists will build on that with even more understanding and explanations. Most people don't understand anything about nature and the scientific investigations of it. Many people are downright terrified of nature/reality. They turn to and promote stuff like religion because it's comforting and anyone can join without going through a difficult educational process. Many people fear and hate science (or at least certain aspects of it) because it challenges or refutes their comforting religious beliefs and of course many religious people fear and hate science because it challenges their ability to control people and con them out of their money.

      Have you ever really thought about why so much money is involved in religion? Would the biblical character 'Jesus' have approved of that?

      Delete
  11. Thank you so much for this article. I have discussions on this topic so often, and it is so frustrating, because people really can't understand the concept that a scientist might be able to manipulate 'facts' to prove their own theories.

    I do think that various concepts relating to evolution as a possible origin of life should be explored by the science community (though it has such glaring difficulties that I feel like that simple statement sounds like an oxymoron), AS SHOULD intelligent design. But when you mention bringing intelligent design into the mix you feel a little like a 'pagan' in an ancient Christian arena. At least we don't have to worry about lions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not yet.

      Evolutionists argue from ignorance time and time again only to be shown to be wrong (Tiktalik, Junk-DNA, peppered moth, miller-urey, piltdown man, etc). They put both feet in their mouths only to be reminded later by skeptics that they will now need to eat them.

      As we learn more about the complexity of life, and perhaps even begin to copy some of it, it becomes clearer that the origin of such systems must be via guided design. We copy them intelligently and carefully, not seeing them grow under a full moon at high tide or something like that. Not by magic. Not from ignorance. Just uber high tech systems that just don't come together like ice crystals or move like continental plates, but only by design.

      Delete
  12. Since everything here at 'Darwin's God' goes off-topic almost immediately, let's get back to the claim CH is making and the evolutionist's claim he quotes.

    Over at ENV, Klinghoffer ---[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/publish_the_cla068361.html]---
    has a blurb about the lack of evidence for Phylogenetic Trees. Near the end he talks about a recent article which concludes that the only explanation they have for the genomic evidence they uncovered was HGT. This horizontal gene transfer occurred in vertebrate genomes. Retrotransposons are involved in this gene switching. This completely undermines the evolutionist's claim, which highlights what CH is saying: i.e., evolutionists don't think like scientists; rather, they're dogmatic. And, of course, when we think of dogmatism, doesn't religion come to mind?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Evolutionism should win or lose its position as a scientific theory on the quality and quantity of the evidence.
    In fact theories claiming to be scientific should have scientific evidence .
    To crush a wrong idea like evolution one just needs to target the evidence methodology.
    Wrong ideas couldn't possibly have evidence backing them up.
    This is why small numbers of ID people, like the host here, have had such a impact on origins issues .
    The lack of evidence for evolution has been revealed by ID thinkers reaching audiences.
    YEC did a great job but only reached our own audience and were not degree ed enough to frighten the establishment.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Another point of clarification. Evoking God as creator is not a magic wand. God does not use magic. The founders of the modern scientific movement based their very successful and proven methodology on the principles that God is rational and consistent and that his creation then follows laws that are consistent and rational... and therefore (and this is why they were so successful) natures laws can be discovered by objective research.

    Secondly, evolutionists need to seriously consider that how something functions is usually much different that how it originated. Why and how a canvas was painted is not found on the canvas, but in the mind of the artist. While we can't read the mind of the artist, we can know that when we look at a painting, the paint didn't paint the picture, an artist did. Focusing on all the different color paints on the canvas, all the similar colors, how their arranged, and how paint bonds and dries does not tell us how and why the paint is on the canvas in the first place. If people lived on Canvas-land in 2-D they would be not see the artist or his tools. Something to think about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "God does not use magic."

      Oh really? Who or what is this "God" thing you're referring to and how do you know what it does or doesn't use?

      Delete
  15. Robert Byers January 17, 2013 at 5:31 PM

    Evolutionism should win or lose its position as a scientific theory on the quality and quantity of the evidence.


    If you're talking about the theory of evolution then you're quite right.

    And it has.

    Whether you or I like it or not, it's the most widely-accepted theory in biology.

    That leaves you with a problem.

    If, as you believe, its success is not based on its explanatory power, its fecundity and the evidence then there must be other reasons.

    One possibility is that a motley collection of dissident scientists, assorted other academics, lawyers, engineers and so on understand biology better than millions of professional biologists worldwide.

    Another is that those millions of professional biologists have engaged in an international conspiracy to suppress the truth and knowingly promote a lie.

    So which is it?

    The small number of ID people does include a few with respectable credentials - some even scientific - but they aren't really that bright.

    As for conspiracy theories, they're the last resort of cranks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "theory" of evolution can't even muster a testable hypothesis based on its posited mechanism. So THAT leaves YOU with a problem.

      This allegedly widely accepted "theory" is too vague to even be a theory. It is totally useless. So that leaves you with another problem.

      Delete
  16. Whether you or I like it or not, it's the most widely-accepted theory in biology.

    So? Just because a theory is accepted by a gang of dishonest and gutless cretins does not mean others have to do the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL. Millions of scientists are not a "gang".

      To be accurate your statement should say: Just because the so-called 'ID inference' is pushed by a fanatically religious gang of dishonest and gutless cretins does not mean others have to do the same.

      Delete
    2. LoL! Those alleged millions of scientists cannot support their position with positive evidence.

      Delete
    3. Chubby Joke G

      EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!


      You'd think the Fatboy would learn another tune by now, but no.

      Delete
    4. thorton-

      I told you not to sniff your fingers after scratching your butt-crack.

      That is just plain disgusting.

      Delete
    5. What a fine spokesman for ID you are joey. With your stimulating, intellectual dialogue I'm sure that you're in high demand for elite speaking engagements the world over. And Cornelius, gordon e. mullings , ba77, and all the other IDiot-creationists must be very proud to be associated with you.

      Delete
    6. TWiTTY boo-boo, is just another butt crack sniffer

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

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ian H. Spedding
    Evolutionary biology is not a theory of biology but the about the origins of observed biology. The origins were not observed. Biology is about observed life. Its truly a different species here.

    This unobserved origin is only investigated by small numbers of people who just ALSO are learned in biology.
    How many people get paid to do evolutionary biology research!!
    I say only a remnant of those who get paid to research biology!
    Lets see some stats!!

    Therefore its very few people and so even a smaller group of people can easily overthrow them.
    This is what is happening today.
    ID (well degree ed) folks are making it impossible for thinking people just accept what billions of scientists think on these origin issues.
    They are demonstrating its small circles of very limited information and and little or no evidence to justify the name of theory.
    Evolution can only be a open hypothesis if that.

    You stressed here the problem by invoking authority.
    Its the quality and quantity of the evidence that must decide if evolution is a viable idea or theory.

    Its reasonable to think you and the rest sense the evidence isn't there and instinctually grasp for a priesthood of superior intelligence.

    therfore iD/YEC folks must be denied to be in these heights of intelligence.
    ID folks are therefore a major problem and accordingly have become famous as a threat despite their small numbers.

    The math works.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert Byers January 18, 2013 at 2:27 PM

      Ian H. Spedding
      Evolutionary biology is not a theory of biology but the about the origins of observed biology. The origins were not observed. Biology is about observed life. Its truly a different species here.


      You are confusing two different fields of research.

      The theory of evolution is an explanation of how the life we observe now came to be what it is. It has nothing to say about how life itself began.

      Abiogenesis is a separate, although obviously related, branch of biology which is trying to explain how life began.

      It is perfectly possible to study how living things have changed over time without knowing anything about how life started.

      Pointing out that we have no real idea about how life began has no bearing on what we know about how life has evolved.

      This unobserved origin is only investigated by small numbers of people who just ALSO are learned in biology.
      How many people get paid to do evolutionary biology research!!
      I say only a remnant of those who get paid to research biology!
      Lets see some stats!!


      Yes, the number of scientists working on abiogenesis is a small subset of the population of biologists. It still has no bearing on evolutionary theory.

      Therefore its very few people and so even a smaller group of people can easily overthrow them.

      This is not about overthrowing a group of people, it's about trying to overturn an established theory. That takes the sort of research heavy-lifting and evidence that ID just doesn't have.

      This is what is happening today.

      What is happening today is that, having lost all its court cases, ID is now just losing ground.

      ID (well degree ed) folks are making it impossible for thinking people just accept what billions of scientists think on these origin issues.

      As before, challenging abiogenesis does nothing to undermine evolutionary theory.

      They are demonstrating its small circles of very limited information and and little or no evidence to justify the name of theory.
      Evolution can only be a open hypothesis if that.


      There is plenty of evidence there. That you don't want to look at it doesn't change that fact

      You stressed here the problem by invoking authority.
      Its the quality and quantity of the evidence that must decide if evolution is a viable idea or theory.


      The argument from authority is a fallacy only when it cites inappropriate authority. The most appropriate authorities on biology are biologists and they are overwhelmingly persuaded that the theory of evolution is the best we have at the moment.

      ID folks are therefore a major problem and accordingly have become famous as a threat despite their small numbers.

      Unfortunately for ID proponents, not only are their numbers small but so is the threat they pose to evolutionary biology.

      Delete
    2. Ian,

      If the OoL was designed then it is a given that organisms were designed to evolve/ evolved by design.

      IOW the whole deal rides on the origin of living organisms.

      Blind watchmaker evolution requires a blind watchmaker OoL.

      Intelligent Design evolution requires a design OoL.

      Delete
    3. So then, according to your assertions, if the entire universe, which includes everything in and about it, was/is designed then it is a given that the result of everything was/is the product of design, therefor a comparison/differentiation between non-designed things/results and designed things/results is impossible because every thing/result in and about the entire universe was/is the product of design. The whole deal of every "result" in and about the entire universe rides on the origin of the entire universe. If any thing/result is not a product of design by the alleged designer, nothing is a product of design by the alleged designer.

      Thanks again joey for revealing that ID claims such as CSI, irreducible complexity, the explanatory filter, etc., are useless.

      Delete
    4. TWiT:
      So then, according to your assertions, if the entire universe, which includes everything in and about it,

      Nope, I never said that. You are just a dishonest butthead.

      Delete
    5. Joe GJanuary 18, 2013 at 8:56 PM

      Ian,

      If the OoL was designed then it is a given that organisms were designed to evolve/ evolved by design.

      IOW the whole deal rides on the origin of living organisms.

      Blind watchmaker evolution requires a blind watchmaker OoL.

      Intelligent Design evolution requires a design OoL.


      There's basically two way life might have started.

      Either an Intelligent Designer put the whole thing together - or the basics, anyway - and then followed the old firework instructions - lit the blue touchpaper and retired to a safe distance. He she or it set the ball rolling and let it go where it may.

      Or Life emerged through natural processes that we do not yet understand and then went merrily on its way, evolving.

      Either way, here we are, billions of years later, trying to unravel the whole mystery.

      We see all this life around us, mutating, changing, adapting to environmental challenges - or not, as the case may be - and we see the processes are there for evolution of some sort to take place.

      How it started doesn't really matter when you're trying to understand what is happening now, even though it's a fascinating problem in itself.

      And if evolution is taking place in the way that is thought, then all signs of how it started may have been obliterated by all the changes that have happened since.

      Delete
    6. joey, the entire universe includes everything in and about it. In and about means every thing, process, event, result, etc., etc., etc. You claim that ID posits that the entire universe was designed.

      Delete
    7. TWiTTY boo-boo:
      the entire universe includes everything in and about it.

      No, it doesn't.

      By your "logic" tyhat means car designers designed broken belts, flat tires and every break-down that ever occurred.

      IOW you are just an ignorant troll.

      Delete
    8. Ian:
      How it started doesn't really matter when you're trying to understand what is happening now, even though it's a fascinating problem in itself.

      Again if living organisms were designed then they were designed to evolve/ evolved by design.

      Dawkins said it would make all the difference in the world if biology was designed.

      Delete
    9. "By your "logic" tyhat means car designers designed broken belts, flat tires and every break-down that ever occurred."

      Actually joey, it's your claim that any results are due to the original design. You claim that all of the results from GAs are designed because the GAs are designed by people. You claim that evolution and the resulting diversity of life are due to the original design by 'the designer'. You make many other such claims. Do you want to now claim that your ID arguments are not based on results from the original design of everything by 'the designer'? And do you want to now claim that your 'designed' and 'finely tuned universe' assertions have all been wrong?

      Oh, by the way joey, humans are not 'the designer'. Humans are not perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient as 'the designer' is alleged to be. The materials humans work with are not perfect, and humans often design things poorly. Humans also have to be concerned with cost and availability and humans can't always design the conditions that a designed thing (like a car) will encounter. Humans have many limits. Putting limits on 'the fine-tuning designer-allah' is blasphemy, joey.

      And one more thing for now, joey. For someone who chides others about the English language you sure are good at butchering it.

      joey g: Dumbest. Bumpkin. Ever.

      Delete
    10. TWiTTY buttwipe:
      By your "logic" tyhat means car designers designed broken belts, flat tires and every break-down that ever occurred."

      Nope, that doesn't follow from anything I have said.

      You are just a demented buttlicker.

      You claim that all of the results from GAs are designed because the GAs are designed by people.

      Nope, all results of GAs are designed because they are the result of a designed process.

      Ya see dipsquirt, if someone writes a program to design something, or find a solution, and it does, then it did so BY DESIGN you ignorant little punk.

      But OK TWIT I will make you the same offer coardly thorton refused-

      I will put up thousands of dollars to meet you for a fight and then a scientific debate.

      Delete
  19. Joe,

    Ian,

    If the OoL was designed then it is a given that organisms were designed to evolve/ evolved by design.


    A roulette table is designed, that doesn't mean that the designer knows the outcome of the spin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So what? You couldn't play roulette without that designed table.

      Delete
    2. According to Jeff, unless you can forecast the result of every spin of the wheel, design is not an adequate explanation.

      Delete
    3. So you are saying that roulette wheels are not designed?

      Delete
    4. Compulsive liar "Topper" Joe G

      So you are saying that roulette wheels are not designed?


      He already said the roulette equipment is designed Chubs. LFJJ is demanding an algorithm to give you ahead of time the outcome of every spin.

      But you're "Topper". You have to toss in a lie about everything.

      Delete
    5. Shut up thorty boo-boo, coward of the year 20 years in a row

      Delete
    6. Joe G January 19, 2013 at 9:00 AM

      So you are saying that roulette wheels are not designed?


      No, Jeff is.

      Delete
    7. Jeff argues that the theory of evolution is inadequate as an explanation because it cannot be used to predict specific phenotypes.

      Generalizing that, Jeff holds that a theory which purports to explain a process is inadequate if it cannot account for each and every outcome of that process.

      By that standard, the theory that roulette tables are intelligently designed is inadequate if it cannot forecast the outcome of every turn of the wheel.

      Delete
    8. Ian:
      Jeff argues that the theory of evolution is inadequate as an explanation because it cannot be used to predict specific phenotypes.

      It can only "predict" change or stasis. It is useless.

      Delete
  20. Ian H Spedding
    Nothin to do with origin of life.
    I still say few people get paid to research/study evolution!
    What are the stats?
    Therefore its easy for a few other, even if smaller, folks to overturn ideas held by so few.
    A claim is made against us that billions of scientists have put their minds to evolution and found it true.
    In reality its a small gang and we only fight a small gang. The size of our gang relative to theirs is not that different.
    Its still invoking authority , by numbers and profession, to make evolutions case.

    Authority must not make scientific theories viable but the merits of the evidence.
    Why do feel you need to shy away from this!

    ID/YEC investigation is very heavy hitting and thats why its a threat today.
    Creationism always has great numbers behind it and now with well degree-ed scientists backing anti-evolution ideas its built a movement historic and dangerous to the old guard.

    THis is why ID researchers must be hit hard about their intellectual credibility.
    Evolution has rested its case on its intellectual credibility and not on the merits.
    ID folks undercut their case just by being sMART scientists.
    The merits of both side are only a minority of thye reason why ID is famous and important today.

    We are watching the end of evolutionary biology or then end of criticism of it.
    Someone is going down and I think it will be in the next 15 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert Byers January 19, 2013 at 2:45 PM

      [...]

      I still say few people get paid to research/study evolution!


      "Few" is a relative term. "Few" compared to what?

      Therefore its easy for a few other, even if smaller, folks to overturn ideas held by so few.

      If that were true, how did Christianity survive? In the beginning, according to the Bible, there as only Jesus and his disciples. They were just a few. Their idea should have been easy to overturn.

      A claim is made against us that billions of scientists have put their minds to evolution and found it true.

      Almost.

      The claim is that millions of biologists have looked at the few available alternatives and concluded that the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have at the moment

      Authority must not make scientific theories viable but the merits of the evidence.

      That's right. And the millions of research biologists who accept evolution do so because of the evidence.

      Why do feel you need to shy away from this!

      It is my observation that it is creationists who shy away from any data which is inconsistent with their beliefs.

      [...]

      Evolution has rested its case on its intellectual credibility and not on the merits.

      The case for evolution rests on the evidence as it should do.

      We are watching the end of evolutionary biology or then end of criticism of it.
      Someone is going down and I think it will be in the next 15 years.


      ID has failed to make its case so far and there is no reason to think it will be any different in the future but only time will tell.

      Delete
    2. This is a good conversation.
      You agree that the numbers of biologists researching evolution matters to its credibility as a theory in good standing.
      Again.
      I say few people get paid to "do" evolutionary research.
      Its not biologists.
      Its only evolutionary biologists. A sub set.
      The other 98% understanding and thumbs up to evolution is no more relevant then mechanics of the cars.
      Truly.
      biologists do biology.
      Biology is not evolutionary biology.
      This is creationists important point to any audience we reach.
      We are fighting very few people who have 'scientific" credibility to discuss evolutions merits.
      I struggle always with evolution supporters in making myself understood on this point.
      You seem to understand there are real stats here.
      What do you think are the stats!

      The biology used to heal us has nothing to do with evolution of life.

      I bet their isn't 10,000 people who do actual serioius intellectual thought/research and get paid for it.

      This is why its so few ideas to beat for us.
      everyone is reading their teachers stuff.
      its small circles and our smaller circles don't have much to overcome.
      Right or wrong this is few thinking about a few observations and conclusions.
      holding a bridge.

      Delete