Thursday, January 10, 2013

When I Pointed Out the Absurdity an Evolution Professor Gave Me Pushback

More Religion and More Denials

Perhaps the biggest myth in today’s origins debate is that evolution is the result of good, objective scientific research. And so anyone who would reject evolution’s mandate that the world arose spontaneously must be religious while those who, on the other side, insist on our modern-day Epicureanism are simply all about science. In order to prop up this myth we must tell ourselves that all those scientific arguments against evolution are nothing more than disingenuous ploys by those religious rascals, and that all those religious mandates for evolution also don’t matter because they are nothing more than helpful explanations offered up by the secular good guys. Both of these are false of course. The significant scientific problems with evolution are not contrived, they are real. And the religious mandates for evolution are not a sidebar, they underwrite evolutionary thought. Without them there would be no evolution. So maintaining this myth requires some effort. We must deny the obvious scientific problems while at the same time presenting evolution as good science. And we must deny any religious mandate while at the same time proclaiming our metaphysical certainties that require evolution. I repeat this sad state of affairs not only as a public service, but also because two convenient examples presented themselves yesterday. Let’s look at the first one.

First, an evolution professor told me I was all wrong about this. This professor had made the non scientific statement that “the gap in understanding of the molecular evolution of eye components is all but closed.” You can read about this here.

But when I pointed out that this was another example of religion driving science the professor pushed back. That was before he made his religious pronouncement for evolution. Here is what he wrote:

“Religion drives science and it matters,” Is completely false, and opposite to the truth. Throwing up our hands and saying “God did it” gets us no farther, gains us nothing. … “Godddidit” gets us nowhere. With that attitude, we’d all still be hunter-gatherers allowing our fates to be determined by superstitions.

That, in case you didn’t notice, is a religious argument. And it’s not just any religious argument. It is one of the dozen or so metaphysical pillars that motivated evolutionary thought and justify it to this day.

Evolution’s metaphysical arguments and mandates fall into two broad categories, one about God and one about man. I use the labels “Greater God” and “Intellectual Necessity” for these two categories and you can see my phylogeny here.

The professor’s argument, that appealing to special divine action is not allowed, is a classic religious claim squarely within the various Intellectual Necessity traditions such as the seventeenth century Protestant doctrine of cessationism, religious rationalism and deism, all of which eschewed miracles.

In the eighteenth century various versions of the argument were heavily promoted by Lutherans on the continent and Anglicans in England. By Darwin’s day any such “Godddidit” explanations were increasingly out of vogue and at Oxford Baden Powell gravely warned that they would “endanger all science.”

And so not surprisingly this Intellectual Necessity of evolutionary thinking was a recurring theme for Darwin in his formulation and justification of his new theory. Later in the nineteenth century Joseph Le Conte at Berkeley continued the theme:

the origins of new organic forms may be obscure or even inexplicable, but we ought not on that account to doubt that they had a natural cause, and came by a natural process; for so to doubt is also to doubt the validity of reason

The very validity of reason was at stake and in the twentieth century evolutionists continued to issue their metaphysical warnings for the Intellectual Necessity of their theory.

And so when the professor insists that “Godddidit” gets us nowhere and would lead to primitive superstitions, he is simply regurgitating the same old metaphysics that evolutionists have been proclaiming for centuries.

That, after assuring us that religion certainly does not drive science, and that any such thinking is “completely false, and opposite to the truth.”

Right. Completely false.

Of course the professor is an evolutionist. Of course he believes that the eye, and everything else for that matter, arose spontaneously. His religion requires it. Only religion could produce such absurdity.

That evolution is a scientific theory is the biggest myth in today’s origins debate.

192 comments:

  1. That evolution is a scientific theory is the biggest myth in today’s origins debate.

    But somehow, the only people who are capable of recognizing this deep truth are Christian fundamentalists. How odd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But somehow, the only people who are capable of recognizing this deep truth are Christian fundamentalists. How odd.

      HMMM, and yet,,,

      Evidence for Creation now banned from UK religious education classes - July 2012
      Excerpt: Recently, evolutionist Suzan Mazur published a book entitled, The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry.,, The Altenberg 16 is a group of top university academics who met together at a symposium held at Altenberg in Austria in 2008. According to Mazur, these leading evolutionary scientists ‘recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence.’ Some of the delegates would clearly go further. According to molecular biologist, Professor Antonio Lima-de-Faria, not only is the Darwinian paradigm wrong, but it ‘actually hinders discovery of the mechanism of evolution.’ Professor Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini spoke for a number in stating simply that natural selection ‘is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated.’ Professor Jerry Fodor confessed, ‘I don’t think anybody knows how evolution works.’ If scientists can’t point to a natural process that can drive evolution, why should evolution be taught as science in school classrooms?
      http://creation.com/creation-religious-education

      Nobel laureate physicist that you sure won’t read on a Darwin pressure group Web site
      Excerpt: Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! -
      Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69)

      Delete
    2. There speaks a veritable caricature of a secular fundamentalist, who plainly is incapable of understanding the difference between a metaphysical contention and a scientific one. Wonderful stuff! Any more incisive analyses in your armoury?

      Delete
    3. Shallit is a typical lying psychopath of the evolutionist camp.

      Know who you're fighting against.

      Delete
    4. Why are evolutionists so scared of Christian fundamentalists? Since when has science benefited from attacking non-scientists? The truth is, science advances solely through self-criticism. The pathological and obsessive hatred that evolutionists have for Christianity will cause their downfall.

      What a bunch of gutless cowards!

      Delete
    5. Hi Jeffrey,
      just as your assertion above is wrong so to your considering evolution good science is wrong.
      I am Jewish and know the Modern Theory of Evolution is a big lie, plus I know what theory is consistent with valid science and true facts ' the recent complex creation'. knowing the truth will make you a person of faith based on knowledge. Then just because you find G-d those still secular should not allow any science you learn/teach to be considered?
      real science validates those who kept the faith in the interim between direct knowledge at the mass clear pubic revelation at Sinai, the unbroken chain of factual history from Adam (Year 1) till then (year 2448) and now (year 5773), and recent advances in science that are most consistent with that Torah revelation.

      Delete
    6. If all you have is an ad hominen then don't expect to change anybodies mind. So please share with us your scientific proof of evolution so that we may understand. We are all adults here and can take criticism of our point of view. Please explain complicated first living organisms, the Cambrian explosion with no prior fossil evidence, the complexity of life. I am sure with you mathematical understanding you should have no problem explaining to us how random chance created dna, the cell, and entire ecosystems. We would very much like to see your explanation. Name calling is for high school bullies.

      Delete
  2. JS: Two probs there, (i) ad hominem circumstantial, (ii) factually false. For instance, here is Martin Mahner of the Centre for Inquiry Europe, who fondly imagined he was laying out the patent truths that underlie Science:

    _________

    >>This paper defends the view that metaphysical naturalism is a constitutive ontological principle of science in that the general empirical methods of science, such as observation, measurement and experiment, and thus the very production of empirical evidence, presuppose a no-supernature principle . . . . Metaphysical or ontological naturalism (henceforth: ON) [["roughly" and "simply"] is the view that all that exists is our lawful spatiotemporal world . . . ON rather is a tacit metaphysical supposition of science, an ontological postulate. It is part of a metascientific framework or, if preferred, of the metaparadigm of science that guides the construction and evaluation of theories, and that helps to explain why science works and succeeds in studying and explaining the world. >>
    __________

    That is a creedal, religious declaration and we have a name for it: scientism.

    GEM of TKI

    ReplyDelete
  3. Semi OT:
    Hugh Ross PhD. - Scientific Evidence For Cosmological Constant (Expansion Of The Universe)
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347218/

    Here is the paper from the atheistic astrophysicists that Dr. Ross referenced in the preceding video:

    Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant - Dyson, Kleban, Susskind - 2002
    Excerpt: "Arranging the universe as we think it is arranged would have required a miracle.,,,"
    "A external agent [external to time and space] intervened in cosmic history for reasons of its own.,,,"

    (Thus since in their atheistic religion 'miracles' are not allowed, they conclude)

    Page 21 "The only reasonable conclusion is that we don't live in a universe with a true cosmological constant".
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013.pdf

    The problem is, besides the evidence that Dr. Ross listed in the video for the expansion of the universe, this following paper which came out yesterday clearly indicates that we do live in universe with a 'true cosmological constant'. Thus, the atheistic astrophysicists are at a complete loss to explain why the universe expands in such a finely tuned way, whereas Theists are vindicated once again in their beliefs!

    Unchanging universal constant rules out materialistic theories for Dark Energy:

    Dark energy alternatives to Einstein are running out of room – January 9, 2013
    Excerpt: Last month, a group of European astronomers, using a massive radio telescope in Germany, made the most accurate measurement of the proton-to-electron mass ratio ever accomplished and found that there has been no change in the ratio to one part in 10 million at a time when the universe was about half its current age, around 7 billion years ago. When Thompson put this new measurement into his calculations, he found that it excluded almost all of the dark energy models using the commonly expected values or parameters.
    If the parameter space or range of values is equated to a football field, then almost the whole field is out of bounds except for a single 2-inch by 2-inch patch at one corner of the field. In fact, most of the allowed values are not even on the field. “In effect, the dark energy theories have been playing on the wrong field,” Thompson said. “The 2-inch square does contain the area that corresponds to no change in the fundamental constants, (a 'true cosmological constant'), and that is exactly where Einstein stands.”
    http://phys.org/news/2013-01-dark-energy-alternatives-einstein-room.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Shallit:
    But somehow, the only people who are capable of recognizing this deep truth are Christian fundamentalists.

    Nope. I am not a christian and I recognize that evolutionism is an untestable and useless heuristic.

    ReplyDelete
  5. At least the theodicy argument for naturalism is superficially impressive to shallow-thinking people. The view that the intellect is only valid if even humans aren't free is so self-evidently absurd it's mind-boggling.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just give us all a brief account of how nothing turned itself into everything, will you, Jeffrey? That makes miracles seem pretty banal, to put it mildly. Surely, only an idiot would make such a claim without being able to give a brief explanation of the process?

    ReplyDelete
  7. It doesn't have to be scientific. We know the limitations of the scientism, crafted so perceptively by the secular fundamentalists.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What's with the picture of angry Cardinal Dolan, Cornelius? Your Catholic friends snubbed you lately?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dolan,

      By the way,you asked him a religious question,correct? Just curious,what response would have been non religious in nature? Stare blankly at you,uncomprehending even the definition of religion? Seems like" have you stopped beating your wife question?".

      The picture reminds me of when the model sees Jerry scratching his nose in the taxi. It looked like he was doing something else.

      Delete
    2. The model was in the taxi. Jerry was driving a car- well he was stopped at a light.

      Just sayin'...

      Delete
    3. You are absolutely correct, glad the message made it thru

      Delete
    4. You are absolutely correct,

      That happens more than you think....

      Delete
    5. Once was more than I thought:)

      Delete
    6. A well hidden sense of humor is revealed, kudos

      Delete
    7. And your well-hidden brain remains hidden

      Delete
    8. Hope dashed on the rocks of reality again

      Delete
    9. Yes, all of your hopes are dashed on the rocks of reality. Your position is dashed on the rocks of reality.

      Deal with it...

      Delete
    10. Joe,

      Yes, all of your hopes are dashed on the rocks of reality. Your position is dashed on the rocks of reality.

      It wasn't my " position" I was hoping for

      Delete
    11. Then was it a brain, a heart or some courage? Or maybe a pair of ruby slippers?

      Delete
    12. Why should I hope for what I have already? it is was that kind of hope I'd chose sitting on a horse in the middle of Monument Valley or at a campfire with friends in the Weminuche or anywhere in Arches.Or a boulangerie in Montmatre, yes that would be it.

      Delete
    13. All you have is hopelessness...

      Delete
    14. Freedom just another word for nothing left to lose

      Delete
    15. And yet you are STILL a loser...

      Delete
  9. Evolution is pantheism disguised as science.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Evolution’s metaphysical arguments and mandates fall into two broad categories, one about God and one about man. "

    It's no coincidence that the two broad categories of truth in the Bible are: 1. What does God's Word say about God and 2. What does God's Word say about man.

    The lie of evolutionists is just another manifestation of the very first lie, namely, "Did God really say?"

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ah, another day of the Godbotherers screaming that the science they don't understand must be religion.

    Different circus, same clowns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It still ain't science. Obviously thorton doesn't know what science is...

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. Thorton,

      "Different circus, same clowns."

      You must really enjoy us, however. You keep coming for the show. Don't get me wrong, we're glad to have you and we're glad you find us so entertaining.

      Delete
    4. Nic

      You must really enjoy us, however. You keep coming for the show. Don't get me wrong, we're glad to have you and we're glad you find us so entertaining.


      Mainly I do it because I love the natural sciences - I'm a science guy. Do it for a living, do it for a hobby, love talking about and explaining concepts. I know I won't make a dent in the Creationist titanium skulls here but every once in a while you'll get a lurker genuinely interested in learning. That makes it all worthwhile.

      I do admit I get guilty pleasure out of poking Chubby Joe. He's pretty much a legend on C/E discussion boards for his woeful ignorance coupled with his filthy mouth. His language usually makes me laugh - I've been trash talked lots worse that he could ever do on the field and rink. The only reason I ride him so hard is about 4-5 years ago during one of his screaming meltdowns he made a physical threat against me and my family. That's something I won't forget.

      Delete
    5. Liar for liars:
      Mainly I do it because I love the natural sciences - I'm a science guy.

      BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAAAAAHAAHAHAHAAAAAAA

      YOU ARE A LIAR and nothing more.

      and more LIES:

      The only reason I ride him so hard is about 4-5 years ago during one of his screaming meltdowns he made a physical threat against me and my family.

      Reference please- your lies mean NOTHING and we all know that you can't support that last bit of BS.

      Delete
    6. thorton's ignirance exposed:

      Thorton is so freaking stupid he should learn to shut up.



      Now he is proving that he doesn't even understand the theory of evolution!



      Over on Cornelius Hunter's blog Thorton tried to put me in my place when I had said:



      There isn't any evidence that genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans




      Good thing then that the actual scientific theory doesn't posit life evolving through genetic 'accidents'.



      Have you ever read a college level biology book in your life? Have you ever read any science textbooks?





      Unfortunately for Thorton I understand the ToE and science better than he does:



      Thorton shot down by reality



      So now what does Throton do?



      Why it throws a hissy fit as expected...



      Evotards are sooo predictable.

      Delete
    7. And let's not forget this gem:

      Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, I give you Thorton, the amazing EvoTard and its incredible math/ information formulation:



      tardtard had sed:


      I start with a gene of length 32 base pairs. I give it to IDCer One and he uses your formula for determining CSI from the number of base pairs as 5 bits



      The gene then undergoes a duplication event to length 64 base pairs. I give it to IDCer Two and he uses your formula for determining CSI from the number of base pairs. He gets a CSI value of 6 bits, or one bit larger than IDCer One's case.



      I didn't understand that as each nucleotide = 2 bits. 4 possible nucleotides = 2^2 = 2 bits. So, to me, a gene with 32 base pairs would have the information carrying capacity of 64 bits.



      Back to tardtard. So I asked it about its math. tardtard responded with:


      2^5 = 32, 2^6=64



      That is so wrong it is pathetic. tardtard is proud to be an ignorant piece of shit liar.



      So according to thorton if I have 32 bits of information and someone gives me 32 more bits of information, I only have 6 bits of information.



      Thanks for the continued entertainment thorton. Now I understand why you won't support your position.

      Delete
    8. LOL!

      Ladies and gentlemen, I give you

      Fatboy Joke Gallien, the dumbest Creationist of them all!

      in all his ranting, ignorance-embracing, obscenity-spewing, "space alien pyramid antennas, reincarnation, bigfoot, ghosts have lots of positive evidence" splendor!

      The only question - is this a new meltdown or should it be counted as just a continuation of the last meltdown?

      Delete
    9. LoL! A proven ignorant liar calling me dumb.

      Life is good...

      Delete
    10. Thorton,

      "but every once in a while you'll get a lurker genuinely interested in learning. That makes it all worthwhile."

      Funny, that's the same reason I do this.

      "I've been trash talked lots worse that he could ever do on the field and rink."

      Sports provide many a good life lesson, do they not?

      "The only reason I ride him so hard is about 4-5 years ago during one of his screaming meltdowns he made a physical threat against me and my family. That's something I won't forget.'

      That type of thing is totally unacceptable and I can understand your feelings in that regard.

      I wouldn't really worry though, guys who do that type of thing are almost always full of bluster and nothing more. Such actions only display a lack of confidence in ones arguments.

      Delete
    11. Nic

      I wouldn't really worry though, guys who do that type of thing are almost always full of bluster and nothing more. Such actions only display a lack of confidence in ones arguments.


      I don't worry about Chubs. You and I both know the type - guys you skate against on the other team who can't play the game worth spit but do nothing but chirp chirp chirp the whole time. The ones who demand you "meet them in the parking lot" but after the game are nowhere to be found.

      LOL! Once when someone (not me) called Chubs' bluff after he physically threatened them too, Chubs gave out an address where he supposedly lived. Turns out it was a bogus address in an empty parking lot. Everyone had a great laugh with that one!

      He's a real internet tough guy, our Chubby Joe G. :D

      Delete
    12. LoL! thorton the liars liar keeps the lies rolling.

      Notice that the liar NEVER references anything he sez?

      Why do you think that would be?

      thorton is just upset because I have exposed his lies and ignorance basically on a daily basis. So all he has is to continue the lies. That is why he remains an anonymous sock-puppet.

      Delete
    13. But I would absolutely LOVE to skate against thorton. Show him how we play hockey here in New England. I would bet he wouldn't last one shift.\

      Calfornia "hockey" isn't any match for Hockey East, occam/ thorton/ sock-puppet

      Delete
    14. Hockey is that one played on ice right?

      Delete
    15. Ice hockey is played on ice- street hockey is not

      Delete
    16. Louis,

      This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Karma

      Delete
  12. Could you give us a brief rundown of how nothing turned itself into everything, thorton? There's a good chap. We'd be terribly grateful, as at the moment all we can get from y'all are puerile jibes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not to interfere with your puerile jibes but how did the Designer?

      Delete
    2. Paul

      Could you give us a brief rundown of how nothing turned itself into everything, thorton?


      Where in the world did you ever get the stupid idea that biological evolution posits "nothing turned itself into everything"?

      Delete
    3. LoL! He was referring to materialsim in general.

      Nice to see that you are still unable to follow along

      Delete
    4. Thorton,

      Where in the world did you ever get the stupid idea that biological evolution posits "nothing turned itself into everything"?

      Creation Comics issue 3 " The Day That Nothing Turned Into Something"

      Delete
    5. No vel- just read Hawking, or Weinberg- It goes something like this

      "In the beggining there was nothing. Then, there was something and the universe goes on with the business of getting on."

      Delete
    6. Still no answer from either of them, Joe G. Velinkovskys seems to think answering a question with another question settles the whole matter.

      'After you.'
      'No. After you. I asked first.'
      'Well, my dad's a policeman and he's got a hundred guns.'

      Oh, well, that settles it, Veliskovskys. QED. You win. Not.

      Well, as regards everything trying to turn itself back into nothing, desperately envious of nothing turning itself into everything, I imagine you must fancy that 'the last man standing', i.e. the last item of matter remaining - mebbe a battle-field tank - would have to commit suicide and in order to dispose of its remains (kind of in advance of 'demising'), and in imitation of the oogly-oogly bird, would make the necessary dispositions for it to disappear up its own fundament. Except that I don't believe armoured vehicles have digestive systems and excrete stuff.

      But, I'm not letting you off the hook. If God didn't create the universe, and if you, as a materialist, are not saying that nuthen turned itself into evathang, what was the source of evathang, since there ain't no spirit no ways nohow? D'ye git ma gist? Was it a stone? Or a turtle? Or what?

      Delete
    7. Paul

      Still no answer from either of them, Joe G. Velinkovskys seems to think answering a question with another question settles the whole matter.


      Geez,kinda grumpy. It hardly settles the matter but if you got an idea I would be interested in hearing it. Or is it some kind of secret or better yet a Mystery? I once had a discussion with FFM who believes that until God became incarnate He was unable to create the universe.

      But, I'm not letting you off the hook. If God didn't create the universe, and if you, as a materialist, are not saying that nuthen turned itself into evathang, what was the source of evathang, since there ain't no spirit no ways nohow? D'ye git ma gist? Was it a stone? Or a turtle? Or what?

      What's with the dialect? Perhaps the materialist would say" I don't know,get back to us in a 100 years, we're working on it". Then would it be alright to ask you what you know, y'all?

      Oh, well, that settles it, Veliskovskys. QED. You win. Not.

      I like you ,Paul .That dialect stuff is class A material. I am sure Thorton is speechless with rage.

      Delete
    8. Joe


      No vel- just read Hawking, or Weinberg- It goes something like this

      "In the beggining there was nothing. Then, there was something and the universe goes on with the business of getting on."


      I only heard it came from a super dense single point. Neither believes a multiverse is possible? So if one believed God started it ,does he have to be a meddler?

      Delete
    9. I only heard it came from a super dense single point.

      No, that is just evo-thinking- a super dense single point.

      Neither believes a multiverse is possible?

      Yes a designer or designers could have designed a multiverse system.

      Or do you think that mother nature just farted them out?

      So if one believed God started it ,does he have to be a meddler?

      Define meddler.

      Delete
    10. Joe,

      No, that is just evo-thinking- a super dense single point

      I think that is the source of the big bang in the Big Bang theory

      Yes a designer or designers could have designed a multiverse system

      My position remains that with unknown designer with unknown capabilties and unknown goals anything logically possible is possible.

      The reason I asked was this questionable synopsis of their position ""In the beggining there was nothing. Then, there was something and the universe goes on with the business of getting on." This would seem to imply that they both reject the possibility of something existing before the Big Bang. Do they? If not then there are many theories how this universe came to be as a result of necessity and chance. This would mean according to you that this universe cannot be designed even if the designer created the laws of necessity.Right?


      Or do you think that mother nature just farted them out?


      I was reading WND and they had a story about a remote Amozonian tribe whose diet consisted entirely of legumes. Interestingly, that is exactly their creation myth. I for one think it unlikely except for the fact that the most common substance in the universe is hydrogen gas. But at least it has a mechanism beyond an ambiguous catch all design.

      Define meddler.

      One who meddles .

      Delete
    11. vel:
      My position remains that with unknown designer with unknown capabilties and unknown goals anything logically possible is possible.

      Prove it.

      The reason I asked was this questionable synopsis of their position ""In the beggining there was nothing. Then, there was something and the universe goes on with the business of getting on."

      Read what they wrote.

      This would seem to imply that they both reject the possibility of something existing before the Big Bang.

      Hawking seems to think so. Again you would have to read his stuff- as in his saying "there isn't any point north of the north pole" to indicate there isn't anything before the big bang.

      If not then there are many theories how this universe came to be as a result of necessity and chance.

      There isn't even a testable hypothesis for such a thing.

      BTW mother nature farts hydrogen

      Oh, and define meddles.

      Delete
    12. Joe,

      vel:
      My position remains that with unknown designer with unknown capabilties and unknown goals anything logically possible is possible.

      Prove it.


      Ok,no charge but don't expect it everytime.

      Omnipotence is the power to do anything logically possible by definition

      In the set of all possible attributes of any possible designer is omnipotence. ( see the Five Ways)

      With an unknown designer any possible attribute of that set is possible

      Therefore it is possible for an unknown designer to be omnipotent which by definition means he is capable of anything logically possible


      Read what they wrote.


      Gladly, since you are familiar with this notion, give me a quote where they reject the possibility that something existed before the singularity

      Hawking seems to think so. Again you would have to read his stuff- as in his saying "there isn't any point north of the north pole" to indicate there isn't anything before the big bang.

      I'll check it out, that would be true within this particular universe theoretically,no time before the Big Bang relative to this universe


      There isn't even a testable hypothesis for such a thing.


      Just like a designer, one in a realm of possible explanations.

      BTW mother nature farts hydrogen

      Exactly my point,hard evidence

      Oh, and define meddles.

      The action preformed by a meddler

      Delete
    13. Umm my position deosn't sat anything about the designer, vel. It does not say the designer is omnipotent.

      Delete
    14. Thorton,

      "Where in the world did you ever get the stupid idea that biological evolution posits "nothing turned itself into everything"?"

      That is simply the logical consequence of evolutionary thought. If you deny the existence of a designer, your only alternative is something arising from nothing.

      I know evolutionists try to avoid this situation by putting it off saying origins has nothing to do with evolution in that evolution only deals with things after life has begun. However, this is tantamount to whistling past the graveyard.

      Delete
    15. Nic

      I know evolutionists try to avoid this situation by putting it off saying origins has nothing to do with evolution in that evolution only deals with things after life has begun. However, this is tantamount to whistling past the graveyard


      Origins does have nothing to do with evolution. Even if the first imperfect self-replicators were produced by the Great Green Arkleseizure it wouldn't affect the evidence we have for 3+ billion years of naturally occurring evolutionary processes one iota.

      Tell me Nic, why couldn't an omnipotent God simply create the laws of chemistry and physics that evolutionary processes follow and let them run by themselves since the beginning? Isn't your God capable enough to do that?

      Delete
    16. dumbass:
      Origins does have nothing to do with evolution.

      It has EVERYTHING to do with it. If orgabnisms were designed then it is a given they were designed to evolve/ evolved BY DESIGN.

      It is only if living organisms arose via blind and undirected chemical processes would we say that they evolved via blind and undirected chemical processes.

      Even a child can grasp that. Strange that evos can't....

      Delete
    17. Joe,

      Umm my position deosn't sat anything about the designer, vel. It does not say the designer is omnipotent.

      Sorry about your bad luck, if you don't say anything about the designer then you can't know anything about him. Second,a designer wouldn't even need to be omnipotent to appear that way to primitive humans, increasing the number of possible designers capable of anything logically possible, to us.

      Remember my claim is that with an unknown designer with unknown capabilities and unknown goals is capable of anything logically possible. The possibility of one omnipotent designer makes that true. If I am wrong I would appreciate enlightenment.

      Delete
    18. vel:
      Sorry about your bad luck, if you don't say anything about the designer then you can't know anything about him.

      OK. We don't say anything about teh designer of Stonehenge and many crimes are left unsolved, but they are still crimes, committed by someone.

      Remember my claim is that with an unknown designer with unknown capabilities and unknown goals is capable of anything logically possible.

      But we know the designers' capabilities by what they leave behind. And that is the sme we we try to learn about them.

      The possibility of one omnipotent designer makes that true.

      Is such a designer possible?

      Delete
    19. Joe,

      OK. We don't say anything about teh designer of Stonehenge

      That they were human( most parsimonious ) , it was created with technology of that period. And it seems to be solar calendar at least.

      But we know the designers' capabilities by what they leave behind. And that is the sme we we try to learn about them.

      Then you are saying something about them,their capabilities and possible goals and that you can recognize those artifacts as coming from them.

      Is such a designer possible

      How could you know? Maybe they all are, it is unknown.

      Delete
    20. We don't say anything about teh designer of Stonehenge

      That they were human( most parsimonious ) ,

      Don't know that. How do you know the people of that period had teh capabilities to design and construct sucg a thing?

      <>i it was created with technology of that period.I

      Prove it

      And it seems to be solar calendar at least.

      Maybe, maybe not. We just don't know.

      Then you are saying something about them,their capabilities and possible goals and that you can recognize those artifacts as coming from them.

      From whom? And what are we saying about tem and their possible goals?

      Delete
    21. LoL! No one knows how it was built...

      Delete
    22. No one knows exactly but they have some interesting ideas. Remember your theory has no mechanisms at all.

      Delete
    23. ID has plenty of mechanisms and your ignorance means nothing.

      Delete
    24. Chubby Joe G

      ID has plenty of mechanisms


      Sure Chubs. It's just that you can't name a single one.

      Don't start the idiot evasion by blabbering about computer programs either. Every computer program that interacts with the physical world has mechanisms for those physical interactions - keyboards, microphones, sensors to provide A/D inputs; speakers, monitors, ports that drive electric motor to provide D/A outputs.

      How does your 'guided' evolution provide its physical interaction with the physical world?

      Delete
    25. LoL! lying dumbass:
      It's just that you can't name a single one.

      1- Design is a mechanism BY DEFINITION

      2- a targeted search is a specific design mechanism

      3- Directed mutations is another

      4- built-in responses to environmental cues is yet another.

      How does your 'guided' evolution provide its physical interaction with the physical world?

      Via inputs from the environment, duh. Do you think that organisms cannot sense tehir surroundings?

      James Shapiro has a book out called "Evolution- A View from the 21st Century"- he posits natural genetic engineering- that is organisms do control their genetic changes.

      So again dumbass thorton chokes, and will continue to choke, on reality.

      Delete
    26. Chubby Joe G

      I'm a lying dumbass


      Sorry Fatboy, not one of those is a mechanism that explains how some supposed "guiding intelligence' physically manipulates matter to achieve its desired outcome.

      Try again Fatboy.

      Delete
    27. LoL! Your ignorance and strawman mean nothing to me.

      So suck again limpdick

      Delete
    28. Chubby Joe G

      I suck limpdick


      I'm sure you do, but that doesn't answer the question Chubs.

      How does your supposed "guiding intelligence' physically manipulate matter to achieve its desired outcome?

      Delete
    29. dumbass imbecile:
      How does your supposed "guiding intelligence' physically manipulate matter to achieve its desired outcome?

      You are a moron- the guiding intelligence is programmed into the organisms JUST AS I HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU.

      1- Design is a mechanism BY DEFINITION

      2- a targeted search is a specific design mechanism

      3- Directed mutations is another

      4- built-in responses to environmental cues is yet another.



      Delete
    30. Chubby Joe G

      I sleep with merchant seamen for nickels and give change


      That's nice Chubs, but you still haven't answered the question:

      How does your supposed "guiding intelligence' physically manipulate matter to achieve its desired outcome?

      Delete
    31. thorton,

      we get it- you are a retarded jerk-off. Is that supposed to refute what I said?

      LoL!

      Delete
    32. Chubby Joe G

      When I get my shoes shined I have to take the guy's word for it


      Wonderful Chubs. Now quit evading and answer the question.

      How does your supposed "guiding intelligence' physically manipulate matterto achieve its desired outcome?

      Delete
    33. Thorton,

      "Tell me Nic, why couldn't an omnipotent God simply create the laws of chemistry and physics that evolutionary processes follow and let them run by themselves since the beginning?"

      He could, he just chose not to.

      I'm taking off for a week of holidays tomorrow. I'll check back in next week. Take care of yourself. You and Joe try to be nice to one another while I'm gone.

      Delete
    34. dumbass:
      "Tell me Nic, why couldn't an omnipotent God simply create the laws of chemistry and physics that evolutionary processes follow and let them run by themselves since the beginning?"

      Because laws alone cannot create complex specified information. And living organisms are full of CSI

      Delete
    35. Thorton is so freaking stupid he should learn to shut up.



      Now he is proving that he doesn't even understand the theory of evolution!



      Over on another one of Cornelius Hunter's blog posts Thorton tried to put me in my place when I had said:



      There isn't any evidence that genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery, new body parts and new body plans




      Good thing then that the actual scientific theory doesn't posit life evolving through genetic 'accidents'.



      Have you ever read a college level biology book in your life? Have you ever read any science textbooks?





      Unfortunately for Thorton I understand the ToE and science better than he does:



      Thorton shot down by reality



      So now what does Throton do?



      Why it throws a hissy fit as expected...



      Evotards are sooo predictable.

      Delete
    36. Chubby Joke G

      T: "How does your supposed "guiding intelligence' physically manipulate matter to achieve its desired outcome?"

      How does your supposed "unguiding blind watchmaker" physically manipulate matter to achieve any outcome?


      It doesn't Chubs. Replication with variation is unguided and simply follows the laws of chemistry and physics. Natural selection acts as a filter as pass the variations that work better to the next generation. The net result is an iterative process that tracks changes in the local environment.

      Now Fatboy, quit evading the question:

      How does your supposed "guiding intelligence' physically manipulate matter to achieve its desired outcome?

      Delete
    37. Lair:
      Replication with variation is unguided and simply follows the laws of chemistry and physics.

      Reference please. Your position can't even account for replcation.

      Natural selection acts as a filter as pass the variations that work better to the next generation.

      NS doesn't act and whatever is good enough survives to reproduce. And with cooperation even those not good enough can survive to reproduce.

      The net result is an iterative process that tracks changes in the local environment.

      Changes that do nothing.

      How does your supposed "guiding intelligence' physically manipulate matter to achieve its desired outcome?

      By the DESIGNED laws of physics and chemistry and information. Replication and variation are GUIDED by the laws of physics, chemistry and information.

      Delete
    38. Chubby Joe G

      I say I have supported my claim


      Sure Chubs, just like you supported your claims about pyramid antennas for contacting space aliens, reincarnation, and ghosts.

      Sorry Chubs but no one accepts "Fatboy Gallien says" as evidence.

      Delete
    39. thorton you never supprt anything you post- never- You have been exposed as an ignoramus and liar.

      Delete
    40. And there is STILL more evidence for pyramids being antennas, reincarnation and ghosts than your position has.

      I know that bothers you. Deal with it.

      Delete
    41. Chubby Joke G

      T: "How does your supposed "guiding intelligence' physically manipulate matter to achieve its desired outcome?"

      By the DESIGNED laws of physics and chemistry and information. Replication and variation are GUIDED by the laws of physics, chemistry and information.


      So in Lenski's experiment and the rest of evolution your Magic Designer somehow manipulated the laws of chemistry and physics to achieve its desired outcome???

      How in the work did it do that Chubs? By what mechanism did it externally manipulate the laws of chemistry and physics?

      Your story changes and gets more stupid every day Chubs.

      Delete
    42. dumbass:
      So in Lenski's experiment and the rest of evolution your Magic Designer somehow manipulated the laws of chemistry and physics to achieve its desired outcome???

      Yes, via INFORMATION, just as computers and genetic engineers do.

      Don't blame me for your ignorance and stupidity

      Delete
    43. James Shapiro calls it "natural genetic engineering".

      Delete
    44. Ohs noes- INFORMATION! thorton always chokes on information- always.

      Delete
    45. LOL! You've completely changed your story three times in the last two days Fatboy.

      Let us know when you finally pick one lie to settle on, then try to support it.

      Delete
    46. Liar:
      You've completely changed your story three times in the last two days

      Prove it. We all know that you can't but it would be entertaining watching you try.

      Delete
    47. thorton you never supprt anything you post- never- You have been exposed as an ignoramus and liar.

      Delete
    48. See folks, this is why it's so entertaining to poke the Fatboy and get him talking. You never know what kind of stupidity he'll come up with next!

      Delete
    49. Joe,

      Yes, via INFORMATION, just as computers and genetic engineers do

      Finally, a step . So the designer is a programmer, DNA is the computer. What is the keyboard?

      Delete
    50. LoL! Dumbass cowardly sock-puppet is just another lying wussy who never supports anything it posts.

      See folks, this is why it's so entertaing calling the cowardly thorton on its raw spewage. You nevber know what kind of cowardly evasion he'll come up with next! But it is sure to contain insults and no substance.

      Thank you for not disappointing thorTARD/ OA sock-puppet coward.

      Delete
    51. vel:
      So the designer is a programmer, DNA is the computer.

      The DNA is not a computer. And the environment provides the input, just as I said earlier.

      Delete
    52. STOP THE PRESSES!!!!

      For the first time in ID history, Chubby Joe has provided some information about the capabilities of the Designer!

      Chubs now claims to know the Designer manufactures his designs by locally manipulating the laws of chemistry and physics to get the genetic mutations it desires! I wonder if the rest of the ID community knows about Chubs' remarkable discovery?

      This designer must be pretty powerful because He's doing this to every individual nucleotide in every last reproducing creature in the entire world, untold quadrillions of changes, and doing it simultaneously.

      But gee, that brings up some other questions:

      Joe, how does the Designer know ahead of time what effects his genetic manipulation will have on the phenotype of the animal he's aiming for?

      Joe, if genetic variation is being guided as you claim why does the Designer create so many deleterious mutations, and every once in a while throws in one that's immediately fatal? Just to keep us on our toes?

      Go ahead Chubs - I've got my coffee and bagel - go ahead and make up some more wild and crazy Creation Science to keep us laughing.

      Delete
    53. LoL! Dumbass cowardly sock-puppet is just another lying wussy who never supports anything it posts.

      See folks, this is why it's so entertaing calling the cowardly thorton on its raw spewage. You nevber know what kind of cowardly evasion he'll come up with next! But it is sure to contain insults and no substance.

      Thank you for not disappointing thorTARD/ OA sock-puppet coward.


      Thanks again...

      Delete
    54. Chubby Joe G

      I did? Reference please.


      You did right here Chubs

      T: "How does your supposed "guiding intelligence' physically manipulate matter to achieve its desired outcome?"

      By the DESIGNED laws of physics and chemistry and information. Replication and variation are GUIDED by the laws of physics, chemistry and information.


      Are you going to change your story yet again Chubs? If so, we're back to square one. How does the Designer physically guide the creation of its desired genetic variations? How does it take this magic pre-specified "information" (that you still won't define) for new designs and translate it into the finished physical produce?

      Of course you still have the other questions you ran from too:

      Joe, how does the Designer know ahead of time what effects his genetic manipulation will have on the phenotype of the animal he's aiming for?

      Joe, if genetic variation is being guided as you claim why does the Designer create so many deleterious mutations, and every once in a while throws in one that's immediately fatal? Just to keep us on our toes?

      Keep making it up as you go Chubs. You're hilarious!

      Delete
    55. dumbass:
      How does it take this magic pre-specified "information" (that you still won't define) for new designs and translate it into the finished physical produce?

      Information has been defined. You use information every day. You couldn't live without it.

      As I said you are just a totally ignorant belligerent moron.

      Delete
    56. Chubby Joe G

      Shapiro calls it "natural genetic engineering". Dr Spetner calls it "built-in responses to environment cues". I call it real genetic programming.


      Doesn't matter what you call your imaginary mechanism Chubs. You haven't demonstrated it.

      IOW the designer is no longer required as organisms were DESIGNED TO EVOLVE AND EVOLVE BY DESIGN.

      So you continue to assert with ZERO evidence

      The INFORMATION they contain guides the mutation process but chance errors still do occur.

      HOW Chubs? HOW does it guide what mutations will occur as to get to some pre-specified goal?

      HOW do the organisms know ahead of time what each genetic mutation will do to the resultant changed phenotype?

      You keep making the same stupid fantasy assertion over and over but you crap your pants and run every time you're asked to provide evidence for it.

      Delete
    57. Sorry,Joe,for the confusion

      The DNA is the not the " computer" The design is that the enviroment changes,something senses and relays this information to something. Something contains a designed algorithm which takes the environmental change and " computes a solution" This is relayed somehow to something which somehow causes a specific mutation in the DNA which causes the appropriate change in the organism. Is this generally correct?

      Delete
    58. dumbass:
      Doesn't matter what you call your imaginary mechanism Chubs. You haven't demonstrated it.

      It is demonstrated in the lab- Lenski demonstrated it.

      HOW does it guide what mutations will occur as to get to some pre-specified goal?

      It takes the input from the environment and adjusts its chemistry accordingly.

      HOW do the organisms know ahead of time what each genetic mutation will do to the resultant changed phenotype?

      HOW do the computers know ahead of time what each 1 or 0 will do to the resultant output?

      You keep making the same stupid fantasy assertion over and over but you crap your pants and run every time you're asked to provide evidence for it.

      Nice projection.

      Delete
    59. No vel, but do keep fishing. And if your position had any evidence at all, you wouldn't even have to worry about ID.

      Delete
    60. The mechanism has been demonstrated enough for two scientists to write two books about it.

      For example transposons carry within their sequence the coding for two of the enzymes it needs to do what they do- move around.

      The there is the fact that ribosomes are genetic compilers. And when we synthesize them they do not function- that is because they lack the information, ie the programming.

      Delete
    61. The design is that the enviroment changes,something senses and relays this information to something.

      No vel, we have a pretty good grasp on how external information gets inside, where it goes and what happens.

      Something contains a designed algorithm which takes the environmental change and " computes a solution"

      The organism contains the algorithm- each living cell contains genetic programming.

      This is relayed somehow to something which somehow causes a specific mutation in the DNA which causes the appropriate change in the organism.

      Again we have a pretty good grasp on how information flows in a cell.

      Delete
    62. Chubby Joe G

      T: "HOW does it guide what mutations will occur as to get to some pre-specified goal?"

      It takes the input from the environment and adjusts its chemistry accordingly.


      Ah, now we're back to the Magic Designer adjusting the laws of chemistry to get the pre-specified result again. But of course Chubs can't tell us how.

      T: "HOW do the organisms know ahead of time what each genetic mutation will do to the resultant changed phenotype?"

      The mechanism has been demonstrated enough for two scientists to write two books about it.


      Yet no one has, and Chubs just can't bring himself to tell us.

      Exactly as expected when asked to back up his assertions, Chubs craps his pants and runs away. AGAIN

      Delete
    63. "HOW does it guide what mutations will occur as to get to some pre-specified goal?"

      It takes the input from the environment and adjusts its chemistry accordingly.

      Ah, now we're back to the Magic Designer adjusting the laws of chemistry to get the pre-specified result again.

      NO YOU IGNORANT FREAK. NO DESIGNER REQUIRED. COMPUETRS DO NOT COME WITH PROGRAMMERS.

      But I did miss your original strawman- there isn't any pre-specified result. Just the ability, the designed ability, to adapt/ find solutions.

      AND IF YOUR POSITION HAD ANYTHING, ANYTHING AT ALL, YOU WOULDN'T BE BADGERING ME WITH YOUR IGNORANT BELLIGERENCE.

      The mechanism has been demonstrated enough for two scientists to write two books about it.

      Yet no one has,

      Obvioulsy it has. Your ignorance means nothing. You don;t even know what evidence is. You don't even know what a testable hypothesis is judged by your feable-minded attempt earlier.

      And I am RIGHT HERE exposing your strawman and your ignorance. AGAIN

      But dumbass thorton does expose its ignorance wrt science- his position can't answer any questions and he expects ID to answer all, even the questions that have NOTHING to do with ID.

      I don't need to know anything about how the designer designed and built something BEFORE I can determine it was purposely designed and constructed. The who and how always come AFTER- in every other scientific endeavor that is how it goes.

      Yet somehow thorton is too freaking syphillis ridden to understand how science operates. And his ignorance and cowardice forces it to invent strawman after strawman as if they mean something.

      Hump away occam's afterbirth...

      Delete
    64. Joe,

      The design is that the enviroment changes,something senses and relays this information to something.

      No vel, we have a pretty good grasp on how external information gets inside, where it goes and what happens.


      Ok good, how about lenski's bacteria? What part of the bacteria relays the information, then where does it go, how are mutations created? Have experiments been done to see the response to various inputs? Is this processes explained somewhere easily obtainable?

      Delete
    65. Chubby Joke G

      T: "Ah, now we're back to the Magic Designer adjusting the laws of chemistry to get the pre-specified result again."

      NO YOU IGNORANT FREAK. NO DESIGNER REQUIRED. COMPUETRS DO NOT COME WITH PROGRAMMERS.


      We're not talking about computers Chubs, we're talking about living organisms. How do living organisms adjust the laws of chemistry?

      How do the "designed to evolve" organisms know ahead of time what each genetic mutation will do to the resultant changed phenotype and the subsequent impact on reproductive fitness?

      You crapped your pants and avoided that important question again too Chubs.

      But I did miss your original strawman- there isn't any pre-specified result. Just the ability, the designed ability, to adapt/ find solutions.

      Now we're back to your claimed "Design" behaving exactly like unguided evolution. Why do you need a "guided" design to do that Chubs?

      T: "Yet no one has,"

      Obvioulsy it has.


      Obviously you can't name the books and authors where this "designed physical mechanism for manipulating matter" is described Chubs. Caught lying again I see.

      Fatboy Joke Gallien, dumbest Creationist of them all.

      Delete
    66. ignirant ass:
      How do living organisms adjust the laws of chemistry?

      Via internal programming, just as I have been telling you.

      Again you think that your ignorant belligerence means something. Strange.

      How do the "designed to evolve" organisms know ahead of time what each genetic mutation will do to the resultant changed phenotype and the subsequent impact on reproductive fitness?

      Strawman- not required. How did Dawkins' weasel know ahead of time what each mutation would do?

      You crapped your pants and avoided that important question

      It's a strawman created by an ignorant ass.

      Now we're back to your claimed "Design" behaving exactly like unguided evolution.

      Nope- unguided evolution only breaks or deteriorates.

      Obviously you can't name the books and authors

      I have you moron:

      "Not By Chance" and "Evolution: A View from the 21st Century"




      Delete
    67. vel:
      Ok good, how about lenski's bacteria?

      What about them? Your poistion can't explain the existence of bacteria.

      What part of the bacteria relays the information, then where does it go, how are mutations created?

      Read a biology textbook or peer-reviewed papers.

      Delete
    68. thorton/ occam's afterbirth:

      Your ignorance means nothing. You don;t even know what evidence is. You don't even know what a testable hypothesis is judged by your feable-minded attempt earlier.


      But dumbass thorton does expose its ignorance wrt science- his position can't answer any questions and he expects ID to answer all, even the questions that have NOTHING to do with ID.

      I don't need to know anything about how the designer designed and built something BEFORE I can determine it was purposely designed and constructed. The who and how always come AFTER- in every other scientific endeavor that is how it goes.

      Yet somehow thorton is too freaking syphillis ridden to understand how science operates. And his ignorance and cowardice forces it to invent strawman after strawman as if they mean something.

      Hump away occam's afterbirth...

      Delete
    69. Chubby Joe G

      T: "How do living organisms adjust the laws of chemistry?"

      Via internal programming, just as I have been telling you.


      LOL! Joe craps his pants again, tosses out his latest meaningless buzzword non-answer.

      How does 'internal programming' physically change the laws of chemistry?

      Strawman- not required. How did Dawkins' weasel know ahead of time what each mutation would do?

      CRAAAAAP goes Joe's pants again! The Weasel program has a pre-selected goal you moron. Fitness for each generation is determined against that pre-selected goal

      How does your 'internal programming' know ahead of time what effects on fitness its genetic changes will have?

      Nope- unguided evolution only breaks or deteriorates.

      Explain that for us Chubs

      Say we have a population of insects that live in a large forest. One day a population of birds appears and begins eating the insects - applying population pressure. Evolution predicts that due to natural selection some of the insects that are harder to see - say roughly resemble leaves - will have less of a chance of being eaten that those who don't. On average more of them survive, and the genes that make them resemble leaves spread through the population. Repeat after many generations and eventually you end up with insects with camouflage that looks very much like a leaf:

      leaf mimic katydid

      Walk us through a design scenario Chubs.

      "One day the birds showed up. All the insects though "gee, I better evolve some camouflage, so I'll get my internal programming to change the laws of chemistry and direct my genes to make me look like a leaf"

      Is that how it works Chubs? :D :D :D

      I have you moron:

      "Not By Chance" and "Evolution: A View from the 21st Century"


      LOL! The first is a steaming pile of Creationist nonsense with zero evidence in it, the second has nothing to do with Intelligent Design.

      Fatboy Joke Gallien, dumbest Creationist of them all.

      Delete
    70. thorton/ occam's afterbirth:

      Your ignorance means nothing. You don;t even know what evidence is. You don't even know what a testable hypothesis is judged by your feable-minded attempt earlier.


      But dumbass thorton does expose its ignorance wrt science- his position can't answer any questions and he expects ID to answer all, even the questions that have NOTHING to do with ID.

      I don't need to know anything about how the designer designed and built something BEFORE I can determine it was purposely designed and constructed. The who and how always come AFTER- in every other scientific endeavor that is how it goes.

      Yet somehow thorton is too freaking syphillis ridden to understand how science operates. And his ignorance and cowardice forces it to invent strawman after strawman as if they mean something.

      Hump away occam's afterbirth...

      Delete
    71. fudge packer:
      Say we have a population of insects that live in a large forest.

      Your position cannot account for insects nor forests. And it cannot account for birds either.

      You lose, again, as usual.

      Delete
    72. Fat idiot Joe Gallien

      How did Dawkins' weasel know ahead of time what each mutation would do?


      It doesn't you fat idiot. It doesn't claim to and doesn't need to. It makes changes at random and lets selection do the filtering to determine what gets kept.

      You claim your 'programmed' changes aren't random but directed. That means it has to know in advance what will work.

      How does your 'genetic program' know in advance what will work fatboy?

      Delete
    73. Fat Idiot Joe Gallien

      T: "You claim your 'programmed' changes aren't random but directed. That means it has to know in advance what will work."

      No, it doesn't.


      Chubs directly contradicts himself yet again.

      Now he says his 'directed' program doesn't know what effect its changes will have on reproductive fitness. That means all its changes are random WRT fitness, and that natural selection then filters out what doesn't work.

      We're right back to this "Magic Programmer" making his 'program' produce random effects exactly the same as unguided evolution.

      You aren't just the dumbest Creationist Fatboy, you're one of the world's dumbest humans.

      Delete
    74. flacid coward:
      Now he says his 'directed' program doesn't know what effect its changes will have on reproductive fitness.

      That is irrelevant. Potentiating mutations do not have any effect on current fitness.

      Random wrt fitness is a coward's term and totally meaningless. According to evolutionism all genetic changes are random, as in chance/ happenstance events.

      We're right back to this "Magic Programmer" making his 'program' produce random effects exactly the same as unguided evolution.

      Nope. These changes are directed. they are not chance/ happenstance events.

      You're not just one of the most ignorant evos, flacid thorton, you are also one of the most dishonest.

      Now go run to your surrogate mother and ask for protection.

      Delete
    75. flacid coward:
      You claim your 'programmed' changes aren't random but directed.

      And the mutations in Dawkins' weasel are directed- directed to happen and then directed towards a goal.

      That means it has to know in advance what will work.

      Prove it. All it would really have to know is what changes will be fatal. And avoid those.

      That said:

      Your ignorance means nothing. You don;t even know what evidence is. You don't even know what a testable hypothesis is judged by your feable-minded attempt earlier.


      But dumbass thorton does expose its ignorance wrt science- his position can't answer any questions and he expects ID to answer all, even the questions that have NOTHING to do with ID.

      I don't need to know anything about how the designer designed and built something BEFORE I can determine it was purposely designed and constructed. The who and how always come AFTER- in every other scientific endeavor that is how it goes.

      Yet somehow thorton is too freaking syphillis ridden to understand how science operates. And his ignorance and cowardice forces it to invent strawman after strawman as if they mean something.

      Hump away occam's afterbirth/ flacid coward...


      Be sure to run to your surrogate mother again.

      Delete
    76. It's very revealing when an ID pusher says something like this:

      "I know evolutionists try to avoid this situation by putting it off saying origins has nothing to do with evolution in that evolution only deals with things after life has begun. However, this is tantamount to whistling past the graveyard."

      What it reveals is the IDiots' massive double standard. IDiots (e.g. joey g) say that ID is only about "the design" and that they don't have to produce ANY evidence of and about 'the designer', yet IDiots expect and demand that evolutionary scientists MUST produce evidence of everything that has ever occurred since the beginning of time, right down to the nanoseconds.

      If "origins" is so critical to the ToE then it's just as critical to ID, if not more so. That means that IDiots MUST produce evidence of "origins" at at least the SAME LEVEL that they expect and demand from evolutionary scientists. In fact, IDiots must produce more evidence because they make bigger claims about "origins". They claim that there is a designer-god that is capable of designing and creating the entire universe and DID design and create the entire universe. Who or what is 'the designer? Who or what designed and created 'the designer' and who or what designed and created all the whos or whats, ad infinitum? Precisely how, when, and where did all of the designing and creating take place? Describe every step/process in nitpicking, nanosecond detail. And since you IDiots also expect and demand predictions from evolutionary scientists of everything that will ever happen throughout the universe in the future, you IDiots must do the same thing with ID predictions, at the same or greater level of detail.

      If you IDiots are going to expect and demand absolute proof of the ultimate evolutionary "origins", you're going to have to prove the same thing for your claims about ultimate ID "origins". Otherwise, you're just "whistling past the graveyard".

      Delete
  13. No more soup though, eh? The last one we had to send back to the kitchen with a stinging rebuke for the chef.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If with my certificate in thermos-flask level physics, I understand things aright, even everthang couldn't turn itself into NUTHEN! Nor could any other agency short of our omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving deity.

    Which kinda makes nuthen turnin itself inta everthang seem all the more laughably inconceivable.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You are locked into a universe you understand less than a child.

    ReplyDelete
  16. CH:

    The argument the materialists are making is essentially that 'matter' is completely independent of the Divine. In fact, the independence is of such a degree that 'matter' can be considered the source of its own existence.

    Now, while the materialists would insist they make no such exaggerated claim, for them to insist that all material transformations must have a direct material cause is to concomitantly be insisting that there is no cause outside of 'matter' that can bring 'matter' into existence. It's just there, and it just exists!

    But, of course, if it's just there, then where did it come from?

    Well, the materialist mind set is beginning to reach its ultimate absurd extreme that lies at the heart of this kind of thinking: "something can come from nothing." Some cosmologists and physicists even proclaim this publicly now.

    With this extreme having been reached, we're now witnessing the unraveling of modern scientific thought. We're beginning to see that the judgments of the mind cannot ever be entirely and completely separated from the conditions and states of matter: the mind must always make some kind of judgment about the state of matter, and about causal relationships. And, what is in fact prior, and the ultimate foundation of science, is the operation of the mind.

    Hence, "true" science is that science which seeks ultimate truth in a way that is fully consistent with human reason---that is, philosophy and metaphysics---and no longer the bastions of modern physics.

    With the fall of modern science, and the materialism which drives it, a re-emergence of religion and love of God (the Author of all Truth) is once again possible.

    It's a Brave New World out there!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With the fall of modern science, and the materialism which drives it, a re-emergence of religion and love of God (the Author of all Truth) is once again possible.

      Let's return to medieval times, hallelujah!

      Delete
    2. Let's return to medieval times, hallelujah!

      No, by dropping materialism we will be leaving the medieval times.

      Delete
    3. Chubby Joke G

      No, by dropping materialism we will be leaving the medieval times


      ...and headed back into the early dark ages. Wonderful.

      I'd love to hear any of you clowns explain how to do science when you have to allow for supernatural hobgoblins changing the laws of nature on a whim. How to you guarantee repeatable results? How do you trust the results you do get?

      Delete
    4. Joe,

      No, by dropping materialism we will be leaving the medieval times.


      Actually the medival period was marked by a dominance of religious non materialistic belief. It was the golden age of creationism. Everything was thru God's direct causation. Didn't my church torch someone for heretical scientific views?

      Delete
    5. Umm vel, materialism is as low as we can get on the scientific ladder...

      Delete
    6. Chubby Joke G

      Umm vel, materialism is as low as we can get on the scientific ladder...


      What rung are pyramid antennas to contact space aliens, reincarnation, and ghosts on?

      Delete
    7. What rung are pyramid antennas, reincarnation, and ghosts on?

      Well above materialism- at least they have positive evidence.

      Delete
    8. Chubby Joe G

      What rung are pyramid antennas to contact space aliens, reincarnation, and ghosts on?

      Well above materialism- at least they have positive evidence.


      Really Chubs? You have positive evidence for pyramid antennas to contact space aliens, reincarnation, and ghosts?

      Why did you sell it to The National Inquirer instead of submitting it to any scientific establishments for verification? Did they offer to let you meet Elvis and Bigfoot?

      Why don't you present some of your "positive evidence" here.

      Delete
    9. Joe,

      Umm vel, materialism is as low as we can get on the scientific ladder...

      Any chance for a nested hierarchy of those steps of the scientific ladder?

      Delete
    10. Liar for liars:
      You have positive evidence for pyramid antennas , reincarnation, and ghosts?

      Yes, there is.

      Why don't you present some of your "positive evidence" here.

      Because I am STILL waiting for YOU to present some positive evidence for your position. That way we can compare. Unfortunately YOU are too ignorant or too much of a coward to do so.

      Delete
    11. Great post. I'd only seen brief references to the lunacy. Probably satirical allusions on here.

      Delete
    12. Lino D,

      "Hence, "true" science is that science which seeks ultimate truth in a way that is fully consistent with human reason---that is, philosophy and metaphysics---and no longer the bastions of modern physics."

      This is why to some, philosophy is the true science.

      Delete
    13. Thorton,

      "...and headed back into the early dark ages. Wonderful."

      To what do you think the term 'Dark Ages' refers?

      Delete
    14. Paul,

      Great post. I'd only seen brief references to the lunacy. Probably satirical allusions on here.

      Thanks,appreciate it, I was going for a cross between Camus and Chico Marx.

      Delete
    15. Lino said without thinking:

      "The argument the materialists are making is essentially that 'matter' is completely independent of the Divine. In fact, the independence is of such a degree that 'matter' can be considered the source of its own existence.

      Now, while the materialists would insist they make no such exaggerated claim, for them to insist that all material transformations must have a direct material cause is to concomitantly be insisting that there is no cause outside of 'matter' that can bring 'matter' into existence. It's just there, and it just exists!

      But, of course, if it's just there, then where did it come from?

      Well, the materialist mind set is beginning to reach its ultimate absurd extreme that lies at the heart of this kind of thinking: "something can come from nothing.""

      How about another version:

      The argument the IDiot-creationists are making is essentially that 'the divine designer-god' is completely independent of matter. In fact, the independence is of such a degree that 'the divine designer-god' can be considered the source of its own existence.

      Now, while the IDiot-creationists would insist on their exaggerated claim that 'the divine designer-god' requires no cause, for them to insist that all material transformations must have a direct divine cause is to concomitantly be insisting that there is no cause outside of 'the divine designer-god' that can bring 'matter' into existence. Matter isn't just there and it couldn't have come about by any means other than divine design and creation!

      But, of course, if it's because of divine design, then where did 'the divine designer-god' come from and how, when, and where did/does it do all of the designing and creating?

      Well, the IDiot-creationist mind set has reached reach its ultimate absurd extreme that lies at the heart of this kind of thinking: 'the divine designer-god' can come from nothing, and did, and we IDiot-creationists don't have to support any of our claims with any evidence.

      Delete
  17. Just as a follow-up post for clarity's sake, the implication of what I said above is this: materialists on the one hand say that there exists no power which can alter, or bring about the existence of new matter, and, at the same time, say that all states of matter can be explained using prior states of matter.

    But where did the matter come from? If you rule out the Divine, then you're left with saying that "matter came into existence on its own." But if it's matter now, what was it before? If it's 'something' now, then what was it before? Nothing?

    But, materialism being pushed to the edge as it is now says: "Something can come from nothing."

    So, materialists are essentially making two very giant size assumptions: (1) matter is eternal, and (2) only material forces can explain material effects.

    The Big Bang, however, nullifies assumtion (1), and (2) thereby suffers since some kind of power, or force, is needed to bring matter into existence in the first place; i.e., material forces cannot be invoked in a causal way prior to its existence.

    While Aristotle might have contented himself into believing the world was eternal, we now know that prior to 13.6 bya, nothing existed. Space didn't exist.

    It's quite a dilemna for the materialists, and so, in Darwinist fashion, they simply imagine things: "Something came from nothing." (Just like the pink elephant flying around in my room--just popped out of nowhere. And don't you dare say that's impossible, because, after all, "something can come from nothing," so, by extension, all sorts of 'somethings' can come out of nothing.

    All of this, in the end, is simply an exercise in logic. And scientists are failing. It will be left to the philosophers to rescue logic. Oh what a great fall science is heading itself for.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lino D,

      "All of this, in the end, is simply an exercise in logic. And scientists are failing. It will be left to the philosophers to rescue logic. Oh what a great fall science is heading itself for."

      Well said!

      Delete
    2. Lino,

      Interesting points,

      Just as a follow-up post for clarity's sake, the implication of what I said above is this: materialists on the one hand say that there exists no power which can alter, or bring about the existence of new matter,

      A little unclear,but are you saying that someone says that the universe is a closed system? The total energy fixed? That would not affect God would it? He is outside time and space if I remember cathecism,outside of the four dimensions of this universe So it seems logical to believe that the total energy of the unverse is fixed unless acted on a unknown force outside the universe.Isn't that conservation of energy?

      and, at the same time, say that all states of matter can be explained using prior states of matter.

      Are you saying there is a casual chain, that water remains water unless something acts upon it? And as first choice, forces within this universe are considered, since it is thought these forces are governed by regularity and logic. This assumption of regularity or predictability of forces outside the universe can't be made due to the inconclusive nature of the evidence of their existence. Unless materialists reject to concept that there could be anything outside the universe, this seems a practical way to proceed,work within the known before considering the unknown,especially a force outside the universe.

      In other words who are these materialists that reject the possible existence of anything outside this universe?

      Delete
    3. Indeed, they have the singular misfortune of literally having 'Nothing', as their premise. It does make logical inferences a tad more difficult.

      Delete
    4. Lino D'Ischia January 10, 2013 11:19 AM

      [...]

      But where did the matter come from? If you rule out the Divine, then you're left with saying that "matter came into existence on its own." But if it's matter now, what was it before? If it's 'something' now, then what was it before? Nothing?

      But, materialism being pushed to the edge as it is now says: "Something can come from nothing."


      Not just materialism but all human enquiry. The boundary is the same for all and no one knows what, if anything lies beyond.

      We don't know. Not you, not I, not anyone.

      Whether you call it the Divine or Nothing makes no difference. They are just labels placed on the gaps in our knowledge. "Here there be dragons". "Here there be the Divine". "Here there be Nothing as far as we know." What's the difference?

      Delete
    5. What's the difference?

      Well for one it makes all the difference in the world whether or not that which is being investigated arose by design, ie agency involvement, or by nature, operating freely.

      Delete
    6. Ian

      There was something formless and perfect
      before the universe was born.
      It is serene. Empty.
      Solitary. Unchanging.
      Infinite. Eternally present.
      It is the mother of the universe.
      For lack of a better name,
      I call it the Tao.
      (Tao Te Ching Ch.25)

      Atheists should at least consider Taoism.

      Delete
    7. Eugen,

      What God do the Taoist believe in? Can you eat meat on Good Friday?

      Delete
    8. Eugen January 11, 2013 7:03 AM

      [...]

      Atheists should at least consider Taoism.


      Taoism does have a certain appeal. A bit like The Force in Star Wars. And being a Jedi Knight would be cool.

      "Joe, you want to go home and re-think your life"

      "I want to go home and re-think my life."

      Of course, my first role model was Mr Spock.

      Live long and prosper.

      Delete
    9. Yes, I am rethinking it. And I say I should go for the evolution disclaimer before my daughter gets to high school- no need to wait.

      Thanks.

      Delete
    10. Yeah joey, go for it right now. The lolz will be abundant.

      Delete
  18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  19. Dr Hunter, why did you see fit to remove my eloquent comment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everything was good until the end where you brought in the language. C'mon folks, leave out the language.

      Delete
    2. What about joey g's language? Does he get a pass because he's an IDiot-creationist?

      Delete
  20. I notice nobody's asked the two really big, associated questions:

    Does Nothing have free will? Or is it bound by its nature as Nothing, to be endlessly imaginative and creative?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul,

      Does Nothing have free will? Or is it bound by its nature as Nothing, to be endlessly imaginative and creative?

      Delete
    2. velikovskys,

      "Does Nothing have free will?"

      How can nothing have anything?

      "Or is it bound by its nature as Nothing, to be endlessly imaginative and creative?"

      How would nothing be imaginative and creative?

      Delete
    3. Paul,

      Nic says no to both questions, maybe they weren't so big after all .

      Thanks Nic,I think the same.

      Delete
    4. Nic, I was being satirical. Nothing is obviously the antithesis of creation, never mind imagination(leading to design) and creativity.

      Delete
  21. We don't allow Trojan horses in here, Troy. As for Trojan asses....

    ReplyDelete
  22. Judging from the animus of its acolytes towards Christians, Nothing must be a jealous God.

    When it turned itself into everything, was it wholly consumed, or is there a kind of chrysalis-like residue of Nothing remaining?

    When speaking of such a numinous entity as Nothing, one must of course be prepared for counter-intuitive metaphysical discursions.

    If the latter, i.e. a residue of Nothing remains, does it still retain any of its nothing attributes? Or has it been denatured all together into a nothing Nothing?

    I think we should be told.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul

      When it turned itself into everything, was it wholly consumed, or is there a kind of chrysalis-like residue of Nothing remaining?


      The remaining Nothing was used to fill the void in the craniums of Young Earth Creationists.

      Delete
    2. Thorton,

      "The remaining Nothing was used to fill the void in the craniums of Young Earth Creationists."

      Hey Thorton, why don't you explain to all of us logically, how nothing can fill a void. I imagine you will first need to explain how nothing can leave remains. No wait, I'm wrong. First you will need to explain how nothing would have anything to begin with.

      Gee, that void in my head seems to be causing me all kinds of problems.

      Delete
    3. Nothing can fill a void.

      I like this phrase. It represents boundless opportunities for the philosophically inclined. Observe how the meaning changes if you add stress on this or that word:

      Nothing can fill a void.
      Nothing can fill a void.

      LOL

      Delete
    4. Oleg,

      "Nothing can fill a void."

      "I like this phrase."'

      It does have a certain ring to it doesn't it? It has a sense of rhythm.

      I guess in a sense this phrase could fill a void in your time as you play with it.

      I'm taking off for a week of holidays, which includes a break from chatting with you guys. Take care of yourselves everyone, and I'll check back in next week. Be kind to one another.

      Delete
  23. 'Paul,

    Does Nothing have free will? Or is it bound by its nature as Nothing, to be endlessly imaginative and creative?'

    Actually, this was my post, not velikovsky's. I messed up, posting it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul ,

      Actually, this was my post, not velikovsky's. I messed up, posting it.


      No actually you didn't, I just thought you wanted someone to ask those questions,I was happy to accommodate.Did you want to answer them or someone else?

      Delete
    2. Still waiting for answers from you, vel. But nary a word.

      Have you come to despise materialism with its insistence that nothing turned itself into everything. Most people have a breaking point, and nothing turning itself into everything does seem just a tad too big a burden of folly for any man to bear, doesn't it? There! Another question for you.

      Delete
    3. No, I didn't. It seems you simply copied my post. Very, very strange.

      Delete
    4. Small price to pay, happy and simpleminded

      Delete
  24. Can't help it. Every time I see that OP photo of Dolan it looks like he's picking his nose.

    ReplyDelete