Sunday, January 27, 2013

You Won’t Believe What Politicians Are up to Now

New Jersey Needs a Recall

Rep. Rush Holt (NJ), with the help of the atheists at the American Humanist Association, wants Congress officially to designate February 12, 2013 as Darwin Day. And you wondered why our government is a disaster. Holt believes that “Without Charles Darwin, our modern understandings of biology, ecology, genetics, and medicine would be utterly impossible.”

Utterly impossible? It would be difficult to imagine a more ludicrous claim. Gregor Mendel certainly wasn’t following Darwin’s religious pablum when he founded modern genetics. Nor did Darwin magically enable the twentieth century’s uncovering of the structure and function of the genome.

Indeed, it is precisely the other way round. Evolutionists have had to scramble and add epicycle after epicycle to their theory to account for the profound findings of science. Which is why the introduction of Holt’s resolution is so underhanded:

H.RES.41 -- Expressing support for designation of February 12, 2013, as Darwin Day and recognizing the importance of science in the betterment of humanity.

Darwin does not equate with science, unless you count the abuse of science. Of course it doesn’t stop there. Holt next believes that Darwin’s theory is “logical”:

Whereas Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection, together with the monumental amount of scientific evidence he compiled to support it, provides humanity with a logical and intellectually compelling explanation for the diversity of life on Earth

Sorry but it is not “logical,” in any sense of that word, that the world spontaneously arose. It is not “logical” that something comes from nothing. Perhaps it did somehow, but until we find supporting evidence, “logic” continues to tell us the something does not come from nothing and all of biology did not spontaneously arise via swerving atoms, mutations, or whatever random events Holt imagines did the job.

Of course evolution is built not on positive but negative arguments and so it is no surprise that Holt quickly pivots to cover his absurdity with irrelevant swipes at all the usual suspects:

Whereas the advancement of science must be protected from those unconcerned with the adverse impacts of global warming and climate change;

Whereas the teaching of creationism in some public schools compromises the scientific and academic integrity of the United States education systems;

But we’ve only just begun. Holt next wants to commit us to a “global celebration” of  “humanity”:

Whereas Charles Darwin is a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on which to focus and around which to build a global celebration of science and humanity intended to promote a common bond among all of Earth's peoples

If we ever needed an example of what’s wrong with our government, we now have it. Holt’s resolution is a bizarre, pathetic attempt at indoctrination. It is frightening that people like this are running our country. I wouldn’t want him as Sewer Commissioner.

210 comments:

  1. Darwin Day as a celebration of science??? What a laugh!!! Darwinism has contributed nothing to science!!! Indeed Darwinism is, in reality, a pseudo-science!

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

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

    Evolution (Not) Crucial in Antibiotics Breakthrough: How Science is Actually Done - Cornelius Hunter - Sept. 2012
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/09/evolution-not-crucial-in-antibiotics.html

    Nature's "Evolutionary Gems" Just Narrative Gloss - podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-07-20T17_33_56-07_00

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

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

    An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation - Cornelius Hunter - Dec. 22, 2012
    Excerpt: "Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?" (Sedgwick to Darwin - 1859),,,
    And anticipating the fixity-of-species strawman, Sedgwick explained to the Sage of Kent (Darwin) that he had conflated the observable fact of change of time (development) with the explanation of how it came about. Everyone agreed on development, but the key question of its causes and mechanisms remained. Darwin had used the former as a sort of proof of a particular explanation for the latter. “We all admit development as a fact of history;” explained Sedgwick, “but how came it about?”,,,
    For Darwin, warned Sedgwick, had made claims well beyond the limits of science. Darwin issued truths that were not likely ever to be found anywhere “but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.”
    The fertile womb of man’s imagination. What a cogent summary of evolutionary theory. Sedgwick made more correct predictions in his short letter than all the volumes of evolutionary literature to come.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/an-early-critique-of-darwin-warned-of.html

    "nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin(ism) can be described as scientific" - Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Darwin.27s_theory

    Science and Pseudoscience - Imre Lakatos - exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerating science program’, as a pseudoscience, using Lakatos's criteria of a consistent pattern of failed predictions (epicycles)
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In fact neo-Darwinism, and Naturalism in general, both suffer from epistemological failure:

      Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism - Mike Keas - October 10, 2012
      Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:).
      Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga's nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states:
      "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not."
      Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305.
      http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/

      Alvin Plantinga - Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8

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

      And Dr. Gordon's astute observation in his last powerpoint is here:

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

      BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010
      Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/

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

      Delete
  2. Hey Cornelius, why haven't you posted a rant against christmas day and easter day and good Friday and other days devoted to and named for religious beliefs?

    Why is it okay to have fairy tale based religious days but not okay to name a day after someone who actually lived and who actually did something to help understand nature?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cornelius Goebbels is paid good money by the DI to produce this sort of baseless anti-science ranting. It's all for the glory of their GAWD doncha know. The DI sees their 'wedge strategy' failing miserably which forces Herr Goebbels here to turn the knob on the Creationist propaganda machine to 11. In doing so he's gotten so ridiculous and over-the-top with these fact free attack pieces he's become a self-parody.

      Why an otherwise OK guy thinks that debasing himself with these sort of lies somehow honors God is beyond me.

      Delete
    2. TWT is right. We have an abundance of religious holidays. Is it really too much to ask to have one for Charles Darwin?

      Delete
    3. Umm Easter is on a Sunday and isn't a holiday. Good Friday isn't a holiday.

      Darwin doesn't deserve one- all he did was take other peopkle's ideas, use them for his own and argued against a strawman.

      Delete
    4. Umm Easter is on a Sunday and isn't a holiday. Good Friday isn't a holiday.

      Ummm, yes they are. What they may not be is paid day off holidays,though I bet lots of companies do

      Darwin doesn't deserve one- all he did was take other peopkle's ideas, use them for his own

      So did Jesus,and we get his birthday off.

      Delete
    5. Hey joey, can you point to where Holt is saying that Darwin Day should be a paid national holiday with closed government offices? Apparently that's what you think he proposing. From what I see, Holt just wants to honor Darwin with a day named after him. Your religiously motivated, obsessive hatred of Darwin is totally out of control.

      Something certain is that there will never be a day named after you, although 'Dullard Day' would be appropriate.

      You say that Darwin's ideas/concepts were not original and that he stole them from other people. Tell me joey, what original ideas/concepts have you ever come up with?

      And hey joey, you might want to look at these:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_holidays_in_the_United_States

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_holidays

      http://www.numericalexample.com/index.php?view=article&id=70

      And since you're a combination of muslim and christian (and whatever else you conveniently toss in or out) do you recognize and celebrate the following muslim holidays along with christian holidays?

      Muslim holidays:

      Ashurah tenth day of Muharram. Muharram is the first month of the lunar year.

      Eid (feast): date determined by the lunar calendar and observation of the moon:
      Eid ul-Fitr on the first day of Shawwaal. It marks the end of Ramadan, the fasting month. Part of honoring this occasion is "zakaat ul-fitr" (giving alms to the needy on the day of Eid ul-Fitr).

      Eid ul-Adha on the tenth day of Thoo l-Hijjah, the twelfth and final month of the lunar year.

      Mawlid Al Rasul - Celebration of Prophet Muhammad's birth

      Nisfu Shaaban
      Nuzul Al Qur'an - First revelation of Quran
      Ramadan

      Al-Isra' wa l-Mi'raj - Prophet Muhammad's ascension to heaven.

      Youm Arafat - Eve of Eid ul-Adha

      Delete
    6. TWiTty boo-boo:
      Your religiously motivated, obsessive hatred of Darwin is totally out of control.


      I don't have a religiously motivated, obsessive hatred of Darwin is totally out of control. YOU are just an buttlicking loser.

      And honoring a known liar, eg Darwin, is not the right thing to do.

      Delete
    7. The whole truth,

      "but not okay to name a day after someone who actually lived,..."

      I hope by this statement you aren't implying Christ never existed.

      Delete
    8. joey said:

      "I don't have a religiously motivated, obsessive hatred of Darwin is totally out of control."

      "And honoring a known liar, eg Darwin, is not the right thing to do."

      "Darwin doesn't deserve one- all he did was take other peopkle's ideas, use them for his own and argued against a strawman."

      Darwin couldn't support his claims then and no one can to this day. Not only that but he argued against a strawman.

      And to top it all off he stole the concept of natural selection and didn't give any credit.

      So why would anyone honor him?"

      "Why would we want to dilute a celebration of a great man by including a strawman maker?"


      Yeah, sure, even though you're a religious lunatic who spends every waking moment bashing the TOE and Darwin, you don't obsessively hate him.

      joey g: Dumbest. Lying-est. IDiot-creationist. Ever.

      Delete
    9. Nic said:

      "I hope by this statement you aren't implying Christ never existed."

      Can you provide any evidence that "Jesus Christ" ever existed? And no, the fairy tales in the bible aren't evidence.

      Delete
    10. "I don't have a religiously motivated, obsessive hatred of Darwin is totally out of control."


      twitty buttlicker:'
      Yeah, sure, even though you're a religious lunatic who spends every waking moment bashing the TOE and Darwin, you don't obsessively hate him.

      Yeah, sure, your ignorant spewage and pathological lies mean what in the real world?

      Why are my facts about Darwin and evolutionism, now an obsession? Why are you nothing but a cowardly butt crack licker?




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

      Delete
    12. Hey Cornelius, why haven't you posted a rant against christmas day and easter day and good Friday and other days devoted to and named for religious beliefs?

      Hmm, Christmas/Easter remember Jesus Christ, the man who died for our sins and without whom we have no hope. Darwin Day remembers the man who gave us a modern-day Epicureanism that makes no sense, makes an endless stream of false predictions, and led to eugenics and abortion.

      Are you serious?

      Delete
    13. Hunter,
      Hmm, Christmas/Easter remember Jesus Christ, the man who died for our sins and without whom we have no hope


      That is your truth,but it isn't everyone's.

      Darwin Day remembers the man who gave us a modern-day Epicureanism that makes no sense,

      That is your truth, but it isn't everyone's

      makes an endless stream of false predictions, and led to eugenics and abortion.

      Both of which existed before Darwin's birth. Is Jesus to blame for all the evil done in His name as well?

      Delete
    14. Thorton,

      Dust off my 'Mook of the Day' award, I just did it again. I put your name on a comment intended for The whole truth.

      I'm doing this often enough to claim ownership of said award.

      Sorry.

      Delete
    15. The whole truth,

      "Can you provide any evidence that "Jesus Christ" ever existed? And no, the fairy tales in the bible aren't evidence."

      The claim Christ never existed is so far beyond ludicrous I don't even debate it with people anymore.

      There is more evidence for the existence of Christ than any other person in antiquity.

      As for the 'fairy tales' in the Bible, the simple fact is the Bible is a collection of historical documents attesting to his existence. The evidence provided therein cannot be simply dismissed with a wave of the hand.

      If you doubt the credibility of the Bible as history or the existence of Christ, I refer you to a youtube file (I usually frown on this), wherein Bart Ehrman, not a Christian, speaks to this subject on an atheist radio program. Just type in 'Bart Ehrman atheist radio', and it will come up.

      Get back to me after you listen to it.

      Delete
    16. CH: Hmm, Christmas/Easter remember Jesus Christ, the man who died for our sins and without whom we have no hope

      V: That is your truth,but it isn't everyone's.

      CH: Darwin Day remembers the man who gave us a modern-day Epicureanism that makes no sense,

      V: That is your truth, but it isn't everyone's


      No, its not my truth. But there are plenty of people who will not accept the truth. So they twist history, science, etc, to contrive their own "truth".

      Relativism provides little hope against the facts.

      Delete
    17. Nic said:

      "There is more evidence for the existence of Christ than any other person in antiquity."

      LMAO! Obviously you haven't heard about Ötzi the Iceman, who lived more than 5,000 years ago, and you also obviously haven't heard about Egyptian Pharaohs and many other well evidenced persons of antiquity. There's also a lot of REAL evidence for the existence of prehistoric persons, but not for the existence of "Christ".

      "As for the 'fairy tales' in the Bible, the simple fact is the Bible is a collection of historical documents attesting to his existence. The evidence provided therein cannot be simply dismissed with a wave of the hand."

      Uh, yes, the fairy tale bible can be dismissed by rational people with a wave of the hand, and of course well deserved ridicule of the bible and its 'believers' can be added for good measure.

      There is NO "evidence" in the bible that verifies the existence of "Christ". The bible is an hysterical collection of badly written/edited/translated BS. Aren't you a little too old to believe in such ridiculous nonsense?

      Delete
    18. Hunter

      No, its not my truth. But there are plenty of people who will not accept the truth. So they twist history, science, etc, to contrive their own "truth".


      Amen brother,you are preaching to the choir.

      Relativism provides little hope against the facts.

      Certainity that one is objective is not the same as being objective. Just the opposite, in my opinion.

      Delete
    19. The whole truth,

      LMAO! Obviously you haven't heard about Ötzi the Iceman, who lived more than 5,000 years ago,..."

      And how do you know his name was Otzi? All there is is a body. If you're going to require bodies as proof of someones existence in antiquity, you're going to have a sparsely populated world.

      "and you also obviously haven't heard about Egyptian Pharaohs and many other well evidenced persons of antiquity. There's also a lot of REAL evidence for the existence of prehistoric persons,..."

      Tell me genius, what is the source of this knowledge?

      "Uh, yes, the fairy tale bible can be dismissed by rational people with a wave of the hand, and of course well deserved ridicule of the bible and its 'believers' can be added for good measure."

      And you really think you're rational? Are you more rational than virtually every qualified historian alive? It's obvious you didn't bother to listen to the interview with Bart Ehrman I mentioned earlier.

      However, I'm not surprised. Pseudo-intellectuals such as yourself never bother to educate themselves on anything. They would rather spout utter tripe and think themselves intelligent. It's much easier than actually putting any effort into learning something.

      "There is NO "evidence" in the bible that verifies the existence of "Christ". The bible is an hysterical collection of badly written/edited/translated BS."

      Instead of LYAO, try educating yourself as to the nature of history and historical research. It's painfully obvious as to how utterly ignorant you are on these subjects.

      Delete
  3. Darwin's anniversaries were commemorated in the UK. The Royal Mint made silver and gold coins with Darwin and a chimp. Nice gesture on Holt's behalf. It probably won't pass, what with the Republicans seeing the devil in evolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. oleg:
      Darwin's anniversaries were commemorated in the UK.

      Good for them. But why did they do so?

      Darwin couldn't support his claims then and no one can to this day. Not only that but he argued against a strawman.

      And to top it all off he stole the concept of natural selection and didn't give any credit.

      So why would anyone honor him?

      Delete
    2. Common descent is surely a testable hypothesis. It was hard to test in Darwin's times. Genetics made it quite easy. It's the same technique as the one used to prove or disprove paternity.

      Delete
    3. Chubby Joke G

      Darwin couldn't support his claims then and no one can to this day. Not only that but he argued against a strawman.


      Some constants in life:

      The sun rises in the East.

      The tide comes in and out.

      Dumbest Creationist of them all Joe G screams 'EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!" as his answer to every question.

      Delete
    4. oleg:
      Common descent is surely a testable hypothesis.

      Not universal common descent. The common descent that says I am the offspring of my parents can be tested but that is about it.

      Saying that humans and chimps share a common ancestor cannot be tested.

      Not only that it cannot be measured nor quantified.

      It's the same technique as the one used to prove or disprove paternity.

      Nope, it uses different molecules. IOW the test that says I am related to my sister would say That neither of us are related to chimps.

      It is a different test.

      Not only that the test doesn't say anything about a mechanism.

      There is no way to test the claim that the diversity of life arose via accumulations of genetic accidents.

      Delete
    5. empty bluster boy:
      Joe G screams 'EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!" as his answer to every question.

      Except I never say that- you are just a cowardly liar

      Delete
    6. Different molecules? Really? Could you be a bit more specific, Joe? Which molecules are used in paternity tests and which ones for establishing common descent?

      Delete
    7. LoL!

      Yes, oleg, they do NOT use the same DNA squences to determine paternity and common ancestry between chimps and humans.

      Mung and I have already been through this with Nick Matzke and Alan Fox over on UD and they ran away.

      So perhaps you should educate yourself

      Delete
    8. It's the same molecule then.

      Delete
    9. Get Joke talking again about how magnetic media isn't magnetic. That was hilarious! Almost as good as his "ice isn't made of water" claim.

      Delete
    10. oleg:
      It's the same molecule then.

      No, it isn't. The molecule used to determine my sister and I are related would not show that we are related to chimps.

      Delete
    11. empty bluster boy:
      talking again about how magnetic media isn't magnetic

      I never said that.

      Almost as good as his "ice isn't made of water" claim.

      I never made that claim either.

      thorton is just a lying loser coward.

      Delete
    12. It is the same molecule, Joe. It's called (drum roll) the deoxyribonucleic acid.

      Delete
    13. LoL! DNA comes in many different chromosomes- each chromosome would be a molecule. And each separate DNA sequence would be a molecule.

      No one uses the entire genome to do a paternity test, dumbass. They use selected parts- ie selected DNA sequences/molecules.

      IOW your ignorance, while hilarious, is not a refutation.

      Delete
    14. BTW oleg- ONE DNA or RNA nucleotide is a molecule

      Delete
    15. The DNA is a molecule, Joe. It has distinct parts called chromosomes. But chromosomes aren't molecules. They are parts of a single molecule. The DNA.

      Delete
    16. "Science as explained by Chubby Joke G" would make an absolutely hilarious weekly series!

      Delete
    17. oleg:
      The DNA is a molecule, Joe.

      Yes, so are each of its nucleotides and any DNA sequence.

      oleg:
      But chromosomes aren't molecules.

      LoL! Yes they are. How can they not be?

      They are parts of a single molecule.

      Chromosomes are separate entities, oleg. They are not all connected in one long DNA strand. They are separate molecules.

      IOW you are happy to be ignorant of biology

      Delete
    18. oleg:
      Joe does science. LOL

      Obviously I know more about it than you do. LoL!

      Delete
    19. Joe G: Chromosomes are separate entities, oleg. They are not all connected in one long DNA strand. They are separate molecules.

      Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA.

      Write that down, Joe.

      Delete
    20. oleg:
      Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer.

      No, only an ignorant ass would say such a thing.

      Humans have 23 pair of chromosomes. If they were all connected then we would only have one.

      oleg's ignorance of biology is duly noted

      Delete
    21. chromosome:

      A chromosome is an organized structure of DNA and protein found in cells. It is a single piece of coiled DNA containing many genes, regulatory elements and other nucleotide sequences.

      Delete
    22. Chubby Joe G

      oleg: "Joe does science. LOL"

      Obviously I know more about it than you do.


      You know all about the science behind those pyramid antennas used to contact space aliens, and reincarnation, and ghosts, and how ice isn't made of water. Right Chubs?

      Delete
    23. lying punk:
      how ice isn't made of water

      I never said that. And both pyramid antennas and reincarnation have more scientific support than your position does.

      I understand that bothers you- good

      Delete
    24. LOL! Joke, why would watching you make a fool out of yourself on a regular basis bother anyone?

      Where did you learn about your scientific evidence for reincarnation and pyramid antennas to contact space aliens? The National Inquirer?

      Delete
    25. thorton,

      Your fondness for little boys is not an argument.

      Delete
    26. Nice to see that oleg ran away....

      Delete
    27. I'm here, Joe. Waiting to read more of your wisdom. LOL

      Delete
    28. Thorton: talking again about how magnetic media isn't magnetic

      Joe G: I never said that.

      Of course you did.

      Delete
    29. No, oleg- what you linked to does not support thorton's claim- you are still a dishonest moron.

      I never said that magnetic media isn't magnetic.

      I said a blank disk is not a magnet- it doesn't match the definition of a magnet.

      Delete
    30. Of course a "blank" disk is a magnet. You can check that it consists of small magnetized regions that attract and repel the tip of a magnetic force microscope.

      Delete
    31. oleg:
      Of course a "blank" disk is a magnet.

      Yet it does NOT have a magnetic field and does NOT attract non-magnetized ferrous metals.

      IOW, just as I said, it does not match the definition of a magnet.

      So a blank disk is a magnet in the same sense that a tree is a magnet.

      Delete
    32. It does generate a magnetic field. It can be, and has been, measured with a magnetic force microscope.

      A tree does not produce a magnetic field. A blank hard drive does.

      Delete
    33. Liar- a blank disk does not produce a magnetic field. Even you said so.

      Delete
    34. The DISK, oleg- the DISK does NOT produce a magnetic field.

      Delete
    35. Did you see this picture, Joe? What do you think the light and dark regions are?

      Delete
    36. A blank disk does NOT produce a magnetic field. Even oleg said so just a few days ago.

      Why doesn't a blank disk produce a magnetic field? Because the particles that matter are in a state of random disarray and their individual magnetic fields cancel out on the macroscopic, ie disk, scale.

      And that is the problem. I am talking about the DISK and oleg wants to change it to something else. That is what dishonest cowards do.

      And now that oleg's ignorance wrt DNA and chromosomes has been exposed he HAS to create another distraction so he brings up more of his dishonesty.

      Delete
    37. The orientation of magnetic domains is not random, Joe. Their magnetization points up or down, but not left or right or along the diagonal as you suggested. So the disk does produce a magnetic field. It can be observed with a tip of a magnetic force microscope. In fact, it has been observed in this way. The picture I linked to shows that.

      The magnetic field exists close to the surface of the disk. It decays a few microns away from the disk. But it does exist near the surface. It is measurable and has been observed. If you try the same thing with a nonmagnetic substance, the MFM won't show any magnetic field, neither close to the surface, nor far from it. That's the difference between a magnetic material (from which a hard drive is made) and a nonmagnetic one.

      Delete
    38. oleg:
      The orientation of magnetic domains is not random, Joe.

      They are on a blank disk, oleg.

      And the magnetic fileds that are measured are the individual particles I was talking about.

      And to use YOUR TACTIC against you, seeing tat you have been so wrong on other things, including chromosomes, why should we listen to you about computer disks?

      Delete
    39. What individual particles? The magnetized regions are parts of the magnetic film. They aren't individual atoms. They're just domains of up or down magnetization.

      And you don't have to listen to what I say. Look at the picture obtained with an MFM. These magnetized regions are plainly there.

      Delete
    40. oleg:
      The magnetized regions are parts of the magnetic film.

      Yes, they are. And no, I won't listen to what you say as I know a blank disk has a random array- ie all directions- of magnetic orientations.


      That is how the film comes. Only once we do something to the disk will the regions' magnetic particles align accordingly.

      And I will not listen to you when it comes to anything, really. You even misrepresent your references.

      Delete
    41. The ferromagnetic material gets magnetized by the RW head- when in W mode.

      So when you get a blank disk you don't have a magnet. You have a disk of easily magnetized material.

      Delete
    42. You are wrong, Joe. Magnetic moments in a blank disk do not point in all directions. The magnetic film is made in such a way that its magnetization has two preferred directions: up and down. This is called perpendicular recording. Manufacturers use a magnetically anisotropic material specifically toward that end.

      Delete
    43. Oleg,

      You are not even wrong.

      AGAIN- the ferromagnetic material is not a magnet- just easily magnetized. Even oleg's wikipedia reference says that.

      here is another:

      hard drives 101:

      The disk or tape that constitutes the actual storage medium consists of some form of substrate material (such as Mylar for floppy disks, or aluminum or glass for hard disks) on which a layer of magnetizable material has been deposited. This material usually is a form of iron oxide with various other elements added. Each of the individual magnetic particles on the storage medium has its own magnetic field. When the medium is blank, the polarities of those magnetic fields are normally in a state of random disarray. Because the fields of the individual particles point in random directions, each tiny magnetic field is canceled out by one that points in the opposite direction; the cumulative effect of this is a surface with no observable field polarity. With many randomly oriented fields, the net effect is no observable unified field or polarity.

      Delete
    44. Joe,

      The guy whom you quote is about 10 years behind the curve. His diagrams depict longitudinal magnetic recording. It is no longer used. These days all hard drives rely on perpendicular recording, a technology that relies on strongly anisotropic materials with a preferred direction of magnetization.

      Delete
    45. Oleg- shut up. The material still isn't a magnet, just easily magnetized. The data is NOT written on a magnet, magnetized regions are the bits of data.

      You lose

      Delete
    46. "thorton,

      Your fondness for little boys is not an argument."

      Knock off the personal insults people. Make your argument and quit attacking the person. If you can't make your argument, then don't say anything. The amount of personal attacks on here is ridiculous.

      Delete
    47. Oleg,

      "Chromosomes. are. all. connected."

      Good grief Oleg, where did you come up with that idea? Is not one of the major arguments for evolution the fusion of two chromosomes leaving us with 23 pairs and apes with 24? If they were already connected, what exactly would constitute the supposed fusion?

      That's like saying the exhaust system and the battery are connected because they're both in the car.

      Delete
    48. Nic,

      Little Big Horn, The Alamo and Thermopylae . The many over the few

      Delete
    49. Nic

      Knock off the personal insults people. Make your argument and quit attacking the person. If you can't make your argument, then don't say anything. The amount of personal attacks on here is ridiculous.


      Don't worry Nic, no one on either side of these discussions takes Chubby Joke G seriously. Even his fellow IDiots tend to get disgusted with his antics. He's not very bright, so slinging insults and making empty threats he can't back up are all he knows.

      He's also incredibly easy to stir into a spittle-flying screaming rage, which is part of the reason why it's so fun to do. The other part is hearing the incredibly stupid things he comes up with to "support" ID. It's not uncommon to get him to directly contradict himself 3-4 times in a few hours.

      Delete
    50. velikovskys,

      "Little Big Horn, The Alamo and Thermopylae . The many over the few"

      Yeah, it happens, but my point stands. Overwhelming majorities don't guarantee success, as my examples demonstrated.

      Delete
    51. Nic, are the links of a chain connected? If two links were welded or melted together, would they then be fused?

      By the way, the battery is 'connected' to the exhaust system in a car.

      Delete
    52. thortty bluster boy:
      It's not uncommon to get him to directly contradict himself 3-4 times in a few hours.

      And it is very common to have thorton continually lie about people because that is all it has.

      Thorton has been booted off of every pro-ID site except this one. Now you know why.

      Cornelius keeps it around to show just how desperate tese losers are.

      Delete
    53. Earth to Nic-

      Knock off highlighting my posts seeing I am not the one starting the mud slinging. Doing that makes you look like a drooling loser.

      Delete
    54. TWiTty boo-boo:
      By the way, the battery is 'connected' to the exhaust system in a car.

      Add cars to the long list of things TWiTty boo-boo is totally ignorant of.

      Delete
    55. Chubby Joe G

      Earth to Nic-

      Knock off highlighting my posts seeing I am not the one starting the mud slinging. Doing that makes you look like a drooling loser.


      What are you going to do Chubs? Give out that phony address in the parking lot again as the place to find you then threaten to beat him up?

      Delete
    56. Nic

      Yeah, it happens, but my point stands. Overwhelming majorities don't guarantee success, as my examples demonstrated.


      Good thing then that nobody ever claimed ToE is true just because virtually all scientists accept it.

      How are you coming with that example of something that would be a problem for a Design scenario, and why it would be a problem?

      Delete
    57. blustering coward:
      Good thing then that nobody ever claimed ToE is true just because virtually all scientists accept it.

      Yes, they do make that claim. It is the only claim they can make because evolutionism doesn't have anything else.

      How are you coming with that example of something that would be a problem for a Design scenario, and why it would be a problem?

      I have already explained tat to you. And like teh blustering coward that you are, you choked on it because you are ignorant of science.

      Delete
    58. Knock off highlighting my posts seeing I am not the one starting the mud slinging. Doing that makes you look like a drooling loser.

      blustering coward:
      What are you going to do

      Exactly what I did- expose him as a drooling loser, just like you.

      Delete
    59. The whole truth,

      "Nic, are the links of a chain connected? If two links were welded or melted together, would they then be fused?"

      Nice try, except chromosomes are not linked.

      "By the way, the battery is 'connected' to the exhaust system in a car."

      I'm certainly glad you don't work on my vehicles.

      Delete
    60. Congratulations Nic. You made it onto Joe G's "hit list" as a drooling loser.

      Won't be long now at all before he tells you that any children you father should be aborted like he did to several others around here.

      He's a classy guy that Joe Gallien. Best spokesman for ID-Creationism ever.

      Delete
    61. thorton's daily meltdown gets an early start...


      LoL!

      Delete
    62. Nic,

      "Little Big Horn, The Alamo and Thermopylae . The many over the few"

      Yeah, it happens, but my point stands. Overwhelming majorities don't guarantee success, as my examples demonstrated


      True,but the odds are in their favor, isn't that the point of the power play?

      Delete
    63. Joe G,

      "Earth to Nic-

      Knock off highlighting my posts seeing I am not the one starting the mud slinging. Doing that makes you look like a drooling loser."

      I wish everyone would simply stop the 'mud slinging' and stick to the topic. However, even though you're not the only one, in my opinion your comments are the most vulgar and egregious.

      Delete
    64. velikovskys.

      "True,but the odds are in their favor, isn't that the point of the power play?"

      Yeah, that's the point of the power play. However, more than a few game winning goals have been scored short handed.

      Also, odds are not a factor when it comes to science. Truth or falsehood are the factors involved.

      Delete
    65. Thorton,

      "Congratulations Nic. You made it onto Joe G's "hit list" as a drooling loser."

      Thanks, my accolades just keep increasing, Mook of the Day, drooling loser, I can hardly wait to see what's next.

      Delete
    66. Nic, how are you coming with that example of something that would be a problem for a Design scenario, and why it would be a problem?

      I'm also waiting for your evidence that science before Darwin made a conscious effort to produce a bogus theory (i.e pre-specified the 'jigsaw puzzle picture') just to discredit the Christian God.

      Are you now wishing you didn't say those things and are hoping they will quietly go away?

      Delete
    67. Joe G,

      "Exactly what I did- expose him as a drooling loser, just like you."

      Now that I've been exposed, what should I do? If I acted like you would I no longer be a drooling loser? If so, I think I would rather drool.

      Delete
    68. Thorton,

      "I'm also waiting for your evidence that science before Darwin made a conscious effort to produce a bogus theory,..."

      I don't know that it would have been a 'conscious' effort, (did I use that term?), as much as it would have been seen as a logical progression. The growing denial of the existence of a god would naturally require a scientific explanation which excluded such factors.

      Delete
    69. Nic

      I don't know that it would have been a 'conscious' effort, (did I use that term?), as much as it would have been seen as a logical progression. The growing denial of the existence of a god would naturally require a scientific explanation which excluded such factors.


      You claimed that scientists had already decided beforehand that ToE was true when the idea was first introduced and then twisted all evidence to fit. Remember our discussion about evidence for evolution being like a jigsaw puzzle?

      Nic: "The picture very much was assumed beforehand."

      You keep harping on TWT about the importance of the historical record, so let's see your historical evidence for this claim.

      I'll also assume you've realized that there's nothing that is a problem for a design scenario. If it can't be falsified it's not science.

      Delete
    70. Nic:
      I wish everyone would simply stop the 'mud slinging' and stick to the topic. However, even though you're not the only one, in my opinion your comments are the most vulgar and egregious.

      Well gee Nic, let me make up lies about you and just constantly post them as opposed to staying on-topic.

      Delete
    71. And thorton, we have told you what would be a problem for ID. We told you exactly how to falsfy it.

      Just because you are too stupid to understand what we have told you, doesn't mean we didn't tell you.

      Delete
    72. Thorton,

      "Nic, how are you coming with that example of something that would be a problem for a Design scenario, and why it would be a problem?"

      Sorry, I thought I had.

      Fossils showing a step-by-step transition from land dwelling mammal to sea dwelling mammal would be a problem.

      Delete
    73. Thorton,

      "You claimed that scientists had already decided beforehand that ToE was true when the idea was first introduced and then twisted all evidence to fit. Remember our discussion about evidence for evolution being like a jigsaw puzzle?"

      I said the idea of evolution was not unique to Darwin, that it had been around for centuries, which is true. It's also true that if you remove all possible involvement of 'design', you're left with naturalistic causes only. So yes, the truth of evolution was assumed.

      The historical evidence is abundant if you read of the historical rise of humanistic and atheistic thought.

      "If it can't be falsified it's not science."

      Tell me, if something is fundamentally true, can it in fact be falsified?

      Delete
    74. Joe G,

      "Well gee Nic, let me make up lies about you and just constantly post them as opposed to staying on-topic."

      Posting lies is not acceptable. But do you really think vulgarity and unfounded accusations as to another persons moral character is the best way to respond?

      Delete
    75. Nic

      Also, odds are not a factor when it comes to science. Truth or falsehood are the factors involved.


      I disagree, lots of science is done thru statistics, error bars are odds . Search for the Higgs , results needed to be at a certain confidence levels. Isn't all the science of ID consist of probabilities which are odds. The point of replication of results, it increases the certainty / odds what is being observed is not due to chance. Am I confused, can science determine unconditional truth?

      Delete
    76. Nic:
      Posting lies is not acceptable.

      EXACTLY!

      But do you really think vulgarity and unfounded accusations as to another persons moral character is the best way to respond?

      No, kicking his ass would be the best way to respond. However he is an anonymous coward who hides behind his mommy.

      BTW my accusations aren't unfounded...

      Delete
    77. Nic

      Fossils showing a step-by-step transition from land dwelling mammal to sea dwelling mammal would be a problem.


      Why would that be a problem for an omnipotent Designer? Why couldn't he just POOF each individual step into existence?

      The genetic evidence and fossil transitional series for cetacean lineages from land-dwelling animals is exceptionally well documented in the scientific literature. We can go over it if you like.

      I had one Creationist tell me in all seriousness that all those transitionals - whales with legs - were just prototypes the Designer was testing out before settling on the final form.

      When people are fooling themselves so badly like that all you can do is laugh.

      Delete
    78. Chubby Joke G

      No, kicking his ass would be the best way to respond.


      LOL! Remember Nic, this is the same clown who just last week swore up amd down he's never physically threatened anyone.

      Fatboy Joe Gallien, internet tough guy!

      Delete
    79. Umm, that ain't a threat- it is what you deserve.

      Delete
    80. Nic

      I said the idea of evolution was not unique to Darwin, that it had been around for centuries, which is true.


      That's not what you said. You said scientists had already decided evolution was true beforehand, before they examined the data.

      It's also true that if you remove all possible involvement of 'design', you're left with naturalistic causes only.

      But you are not left with just evolutionary processes. There could be other currently unknown naturalistic processes at work that aren't evolution but also aren't Design. You are offering a false dichotomy.

      So yes, the truth of evolution was assumed.

      You have yet to back up this claim with any historical evidence, especially the part about scientists deliberately ignoring/twisting evidence to fit this supposed assumption.

      The historical evidence is abundant if you read of the historical rise of humanistic and atheistic thought.

      Then give me a link to something specifically about the theory of evolution that supports what you claimed.

      T: "If it can't be falsified it's not science."

      Tell me, if something is fundamentally true, can it in fact be falsified?


      For a hypothesis to be scientific it has to be falsifiable. Doesn't matter if it isn't falsified.

      Sharks moved to 5-0, Blackhawks to 6-0. West is producing some real monsters.

      Delete
    81. OK let's talk about this alleged evolution of land mammals to fully aquatic mammal-

      1- How many mutations did each transition take?

      2- What genes were involved?

      3- How many transitions did it take?

      4- How many traits were involved?

      5- How can we test the claim that accumulations of genetic accidents didit?

      There, that would be a start and it is a given that you won't answer any of them.

      All you have is "they sure look like transitional forms to me" and then hurl your usual insults.

      Delete
    82. empty bluster boy:
      For a hypothesis to be scientific it has to be falsifiable.

      1- ID is falsifiable

      2- Your position can't even muster a testable hypothesis- your feeble-minded attempt proves that.

      Delete
    83. And please tell us about these whales with legs. My bet is there aren't any legs just a bone left over from a hind fin

      Delete
    84. Thorton,

      "Why would that be a problem for an omnipotent Designer? Why couldn't he just POOF each individual step into existence?"

      Why would an omnipotent designer 'poof' steps into existence? Why would he need steps?

      "We can go over it if you like."

      Sure, enlighten me.

      "When people are fooling themselves so badly like that all you can do is laugh."

      I have to agree, that is really laughable. Not much omnipotence demonstrated by continual blunders.

      Delete
    85. Thorton,

      "I disagree, lots of science is done thru statistics, error bars are odds."

      Yes, I can go there. However, the actual truth of falseness of a question is not arrived at by odds.

      Delete
    86. Joe G,

      "No, kicking his ass would be the best way to respond."

      Well, I must say that's definitely mature.

      Delete
    87. "But you are not left with just evolutionary processes. There could be other currently unknown naturalistic processes at work that aren't evolution but also aren't Design. You are offering a false dichotomy."

      I would have to plead guilty on assuming evolutionary processes as the only naturalistic explanation. Perhaps another unknown process might exist. However, as evolution appears to be, if not the only game in town, the main game, I think I can be forgiven for that assumption.

      If you wish I can rephrase the claim to be 'naturalistic' processes were assumed.

      "Sharks moved to 5-0, Blackhawks to 6-0. West is producing some real monsters."

      If I remember right, the short schedule is going to keep East-West games at a minimum this season. Blackhawks do look good right now, Kings not so much. I'm anxious to see the Oilers in a couple of years.

      Delete
    88. Nic

      Thorton,

      "I disagree, lots of science is done thru statistics, error bars are odds."

      Yes, I can go there. However, the actual truth of falseness of a question is not arrived at by odds


      LOL! You did it again Nic. :D

      Delete
    89. Nic

      Why would an omnipotent designer 'poof' steps into existence? Why would he need steps?


      Maybe he likes steps. That's the point Nic - an omnipotent Designer can do anything, even make the handiwork look exactly like naturalistic evolution if He so chose. That means there's no way to falsify the involvement of such a designer, and therefore it's not science.

      T: "We can go over it if you like."

      Sure, enlighten me.


      OK, read the paper, make a list of questions and I'll explain what was being discussed.

      I agree, Oilers are going to be amazing to watch in a few years. The second coming of Gretzky, Messier, Anderson, Kurri, Coffey, etc.

      Delete
    90. Thorton,

      "LOL! You did it again Nic. :D"

      No, I did not. Fundamentally, truth or falseness of a question is not arrived at by odds. One can argue the odds are in favour of one or the other, but that does not determine the answer fundamentally.

      Delete
    91. Thorton,

      "Maybe he likes steps. That's the point Nic - an omnipotent Designer can do anything, even make the handiwork look exactly like naturalistic evolution if He so chose. That means there's no way to falsify the involvement of such a designer, and therefore it's not science."

      No, an omnipotent designer cannot do anything. The trait of omnipotence goes far beyond the scientific question.

      For example an omnipotent God cannot lie, he cannot be unjust, etc. Therefore, it is not possible that an omnipotent God would design life with deception in mind, ie, the appearance of gradual evolution when such was not the case.

      "OK, read the paper,..."

      What paper?


      Delete
    92. Nic

      Thorton,

      "LOL! You did it again Nic. :D"

      No, I did not.


      LOL! Yes you did you. You put my name on another quote from velikovskys

      Headed for the Mook Hall of Fame you are. ;)

      Delete
    93. Nic

      No, an omnipotent designer cannot do anything.


      Why couldn't an omnipotent Designer create cetaceans slowly, one generation at a time?

      For example an omnipotent God cannot lie, he cannot be unjust, etc.

      Why not? Unjust as judged by who?

      Therefore, it is not possible that an omnipotent God would design life with deception in mind, ie, the appearance of gradual evolution when such was not the case.

      Who said it was with deception in mind? That's merely your conjecture as to why it may have been done that way. Do you speak for the Designer now?

      "OK, read the paper,..."

      What paper?


      The paper on Cetacean evolution I just linked to and you just asked about being enlightened on. THAT paper.

      Are you feeling OK tonight?

      Delete
    94. Joe G January 28, 2013 at 4:11 AM
      TWiTty boo-boo:

      By the way, the battery is 'connected' to the exhaust system in a car.

      joey:

      Add cars to the long list of things TWiTty boo-boo is totally ignorant of.

      ====

      One of the main cables that are connected to the battery is connected to the starter solenoid which is connected to the engine either by being directly connected to the starter or via another cable. The starter is connected to the engine. The engine is connected to the exhaust system.

      The other battery cable is connected to the frame or engine block and sometimes is connected to the engine block via an exhaust manifold bolt or stud. The engine is connected to the frame. The engine is connected to the exhaust system.

      Need I go into the smaller wires that are connected to the battery and to the engine or other parts that are ultimately connected to the exhaust system?

      I have a question for you joey: Does your TV remote control connect to your TV?

      Delete
    95. Thorton ,

      Therefore, it is not possible that an omnipotent God would design life with deception in mind, ie, the appearance of gradual evolution when such was not the case.


      “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding.” Job 38:4

      Just so you don't feel alone in your mookitude, Nic

      Delete
    96. TWiT:
      One of the main cables that are connected to the battery is connected to the starter solenoid which is connected to the engine either by being directly connected to the starter or via another cable. The starter is connected to the engine. The engine is connected to the exhaust system.

      So what? That doesn't mean tha battery is connected to the exhaust system. By your "logic" the road is connected to the car via the tires.

      Here's what you need to do- measure the voltage on the exhaust system- if it shows 12VDC then the battery is connected to it. If it shows 0 VDC then it isn't connected.

      Delete
    97. thorton:
      That's the point Nic - an omnipotent Designer can do anything, even make the handiwork look exactly like naturalistic evolution if He so chose.

      If there is no need for a designer then we do NOT add one- science 101 you moron. And taht means ID is falsified you total loser.

      Unfortunately it doesn't look like naturalistic/ unguided evolution.

      Delete
    98. Thorton,

      "The paper on Cetacean evolution I just linked to and you just asked about being enlightened on. THAT paper."

      I found the link you're referring to in an earlier post, I missed it, sorry. I thought you were referring to a link in your last post. I'm beginning to think maybe I am a mook. I'll read it.

      "LOL! Yes you did you. You put my name on another quote from velikovskys

      Headed for the Mook Hall of Fame you are. ;)"

      Hall of Fame, that's been my goal. Sorry, again!

      If only the Oilers could score 5 on 5 they would be deadly.


      Delete
    99. Joe G,

      "So what? That doesn't mean tha battery is connected to the exhaust system. By your "logic" the road is connected to the car via the tires.

      Here's what you need to do- measure the voltage on the exhaust system- if it shows 12VDC then the battery is connected to it. If it shows 0 VDC then it isn't connected."

      Thank you Joe.

      Delete
    100. velikovsks,

      "Just so you don't feel alone in your mookitude, Nic"

      Mookishness carries with it a certain joie de vivre.

      Delete
    101. Connected...def

      Bring together or into contact so that a real or notional link is established

      Joe,

      Here's what you need to do- measure the voltage on the exhaust system- if it shows 12VDC then the battery is connected to it. If it shows 0 VDC then it isn't connected.


      It will if you read the voltage at the positive side of the battery, by your logic the negative side of the battery is not connected to the battery.


      Nic,

      In New Orleans a Mook is known as a Yat.

      Delete
    102. velikovskys,

      "In New Orleans a Mook is known as a Yat."

      Mook has a nicer ring to it.

      Delete
    103. The whole truth,

      "Does your TV remote control connect to your TV?"

      What's needed here is an agreed definition of 'connect'.

      Delete
    104. Yat is from the greeting" where y'at"
      The Yat dialect is the most pronounced version of the New Orleans Accent. Natives often speak with varying degrees of the Brooklyn-esque accent, ranging from a slight intonation to what is considered full Yat

      Delete
    105. velikovskys,

      "Yat is from the greeting" where y'at"

      Somewhat the same as New Orleans becoming 'Nawlens'?

      Delete
  4. I doubt most Republican politicians could care less except that they barely win elections even while throwing crumbs to the pro-science portion of their constituency. If they poke that constituency in the eye, they would have to form a new political coalition to have a chance at winning. And it's hard to see how they could form such a winning coalition.

    Democracy is, as the proverb goes, the proverbial wolf and lamb voting for what will be had for lunch. America will continue to decline in freedom and civility as do all political societies over time. All the side-bars, like the one mentioned in the blogpost, are just steps along the way.

    Darwin admitted, as BA quoted above, that his view was not scientific. It's untestable. That's why it has evolved into a Platonic tree-generation form of teleological thought. It has some of the features of teleological thought without any of the benefits of benevolent theism, like grounding a natural epistemology that accounts for the human inference to an existential fit between natural human modes of inference and inferred event regularities.

    Worse, Platonic teleology doesn't ground the intelligibility of a moral order that renders State deterrence anything other than "might makes right." So I can see why the more power-loving wolves prefer Platonic teleology. Because when they get sufficient power (and they will eventually, as they always do), it won't be wielded unto civil ends since civil ends are perceived by them as contrary to their self-interest. Indeed, Dawkins has recently advised the public insulting of theists, etc as the best way to pull of the agenda of atheists. It's no longer hard, even for the torpid, to see where it's all going.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JeffJanuary 27, 2013 at 6:07 AM
      I doubt most Republican politicians could care less except that they barely win elections even while throwing crumbs to the pro-science portion of their constituency. If they poke that constituency in the eye, they would have to form a new political coalition to have a chance at winning. And it's hard to see how they could form such a winning coalition.


      Holt is a Democrat. Some politicans win by large margins, some small. Congressional districts are purposely constructed to group together winning margins, depending on who is drawing the lines.The " pro science portion", just curious, what does that consist of, for instance are climate change skeptics pro science as well as climate change advocates?

      Democracy is, as the proverb goes, the proverbial wolf and lamb voting for what will be had for lunch. America will continue to decline in freedom and civility as do all political societies over time. All the side-bars, like the one mentioned in the blogpost, are just steps along the way.

      As the saying goes,democracy is the worst form of government except compared to all others. The Old South was heavy into civility by the way,not so much into freedom. As for this non- binding resolution, now who is being naive? A step toward loss of freedom hardly,a waste of time most likely.

      Delete
    2. V: The " pro science portion", just curious, what does that consist of, for instance are climate change skeptics pro science as well as climate change advocates?

      J: Pro-science people are pro-reason people. Science just IS reason (deductive and inductive) applied to mental content.

      V: The Old South was heavy into civility by the way,not so much into freedom.

      J: The North did the lion's share of the slave trade prior to its illegality, per the constitutional expiration date. They would have continued had it remained legal. All societies are short on certain kinds of freedom and civility. But full-blown war and tyranny is worse in degree for both.

      Civility depends on epistemological humility, and the latter depends upon basing side-taking public assertions on the soundest inductive grounds available. The resolution makes two completely baseless claims:

      1) "Whereas the teaching of creationism in some public schools compromises the scientific and academic integrity of the United States education systems;"

      2) "Whereas Charles Darwin is a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on which to focus and around which to build a global celebration of science and humanity intended to promote a common bond among all of Earth's peoples"

      Both claims are ridiculous. Darwinism is not knowably inconsistent with the most ruthless slavery, eugenics, etc. And SA is not known to require less ad-hoc hypotheses than UCA.

      Delete
    3. Jeff,
      J: Pro-science people are pro-reason people. Science just IS reason (deductive and inductive) applied to mental content.


      Mental content?Solipsism? Almost all definitions reference the external world for science

      J: The North did the lion's share of the slave trade prior to its illegality, per the constitutional expiration date. They would have continued had it remained legal

      Money is the root of all evil

      All societies are short on certain kinds of freedom and civility

      Certainly true however" America will continue to decline in freedom and civility as do all political societies over time." was your wording as if they were linked, the South has less civility than the slave years , it certainly has much more freedom for the majority of its citizens. I just don't see the link

      But full-blown war and tyranny is worse in degree for both.

      For an oppressed group full blown war maybe the only way to obtain freedom, after all wasn't that the cause of the Revolutioary War? Certainly war hurts the cause of civility but not necessarily the cause of freedom.Perhaps I am confused exactly what you mean by civility ?

      Delete
    4. Jeff,

      Both claims are ridiculous.


      Since you have presented no evidence why, that is merely your opinion

      Darwinism is not knowably inconsistent with the most ruthless slavery, eugenics,

      "The German census of May 1939 indicates that 54 percent of Germans considered themselves Protestant and 40 percent considered themselves Catholic, with only 3.5 percent claiming to be neo-pagan "believers in God," and 1.5 percent nonbelievers. This census came more than six years into the Hitler era. "

      Apparently some forms of Christianity are not knowably inconsistent with eugenics as well.

      As for slavery.
      "[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts - Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America [110]
      Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage - Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th century Southern Presbyterian pastor
      ... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example - Richard Furman, President, South Carolina Baptist Convention[111][112]

      So apparently Christianity is also not knowably inconsistent with slavery as well.

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

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

      Delete
    7. velikovskys,

      "Money is the root of all evil"

      The verse actually reads 'the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.'
      1Tim. 6:10 NIV

      Delete
    8. What?? I'm came here because of money, I guess I should pack my suit cases and go back.

      Delete
  5. This is the second year that I've been organizing for "Question Evolution Day", which falls on February 12. What do you want to bet that QED will be outlawed by those who oppose academic, professional and intellectual freedoms?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd be very curious to see your answers to the same questions for ID-Creationism. You wouldn't demand from science something that you couldn't produce yourself, right?

      Delete
    2. ID-Creationism only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant- like you.

      And ID does NOT say anything about a gradual step-by-step process- YOUR POSITION DOES YOU IGNORANT COWARD.

      Delete
    3. Chubby Joke G

      And ID does NOT say anything about a gradual step-by-step process-


      ID-Creationism doesn't say anything about any process. IDC doesn't have a process, only "POOF, MAGIC!"

      Delete
    4. Of course ID-Creationism doesn't say anything about any process- ID-Creationsim only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant.

      Intelligent Design has several processes- design being one of them. Directed mutations being another.

      Delete
    5. Chubby Joke G

      Intelligent Design has several processes- design being one of them.


      Then merely saying "evolution is a process" should suffice. Both offer the same level of detail.

      Directed mutations being another.

      Above you said ID doesn't do gradual step-by-step changes in its process. so how did "directed mutations" manage to change land dwelling animals into cetaceans in one generation?

      Give us the details Chubs. Make up some more hilarious Chubbisms.

      Delete
    6. Details about your bathroom rendevous? Or details about your fondness for little boys?

      Delete
    7. Typical of fundie evolutionists: Name calling, straw man arguments, ignoring the topic and more logical fallacies. And yet, they claim to be the intellectual elite.

      Delete

    8. Piltdown SupermanJanuary 27, 2013 at 9:05 AM
      Typical of fundie evolutionists: Name calling, straw man arguments, ignoring the topic and more logical fallacies. And yet, they claim to be the intellectual elite.


      Joe is not a fundie evolutionist

      Delete
    9. And that is why Joe doesn't do that. Nice how that works

      Delete
    10. In your fantasy world perhaps ,need proof?

      Joe
      No, only an ignorant ass would say such

      Details about your bathroom rendevous? Or details about your fondness for little boys?


      The claim is that it( bad behavior) is typical of fundie evolutionists.

      Delete
    11. Umm an observation is not name-calling. And putting a lowlife coward in its place is also OK.

      1- oleg ate it wrt DNA and chromosomes

      2- thorton shouldn't be allowed near anyone nor near a computer

      Delete
    12. Well, in that case, since it's "OK", I make the observation that you, joey, are a deranged, impotent, basement dwelling, pompous, illiterate, lying, uneducated, bloviating, sniveling, cowardly, psychopathic crybaby with delusions of godhood and a penchant for perverted tard.

      Delete
    13. Joe,
      Umm an observation is not name-calling. And putting a lowlife coward in its place is also OK


      No Joe it is,and no it isn't per Pilttown's claim. Unless you are a fundie evolutionist.

      Delete
    14. Shut up vel. You don't get to tell me what I am doing.

      Delete
    15. Sorry,Joe, but I do. Why is it some kinda secret?

      Delete
    16. About many things. Don't shoot the messenger,Pilttown said your behavior was typical of drooling fundie evolutionists. I was merely defending your behavior as uniquely Joe.

      Delete
    17. You ain't no messenger, vel. You are part of the problem

      Delete
    18. It is good to have a special purpose

      Delete
    19. And if you keep playing with yours, you may go blind

      Delete
    20. Is that what happened to you?

      Delete
    21. You want to play with my special purpose?

      No thanks

      Delete
    22. Your eyes are getting worse ,Joe. Stop while there still is hope.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. empty bluster boy:
      Then merely saying "evolution is a process" should suffice. Both offer the same level of detail.

      Except that ID is OK with evolution, meaninh evolution could be a design process.

      Directed mutations being another.

      Above you said ID doesn't do gradual step-by-step changes in its process

      True and directed mutations do not = a step-by-step process

      so how did "directed mutations" manage to change land dwelling animals into cetaceans in one generation?

      Nice strawman.

      Details? Untl your position, which allegedly has millions of scientists and 150+ years can produce some, don't ask others to do so.

      Archaeologists still can't give us details on how structures we could build were constructed. Therefor trying to figure out a design that is way above our current capabilities is going to even more difficult.

      IOW it is nice to see that you still don't understand science.

      Delete
    2. LOL! Fatboy Joke sticks his foot in his mouth again

      Joke: "directed mutations aren't a step-by-step process!"

      T: "then how did directed mutations change land mammals into cetaceans in one generation?"

      Joke:"um....er...ah...well you see.....EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!"

      Joke, you really are the dumbest Creationist ever.

      Delete
    3. thorton,

      Your fondness for little boys is still not an argument.

      Delete
    4. Joe Gallien seems to be obsessed with little boys, mentions them about every other post. I wonder why? Maybe a Catholic priest made Joe his "girlfriend" when Joe was young. That would certainly explain a lot about his deviant infantile behavior.

      is that it Joe? You miss being someone's 'girlfriend'?

      Delete
    5. LoL! It is YOUR obsession with little boys that is the issue, empty bluster coward, aka thorton the pathological liar.

      Delete
    6. joey said:

      "..and directed mutations do not = a step-by-step process"

      Hey joey, will you explain how "directed mutations" do not equal a step by step process? Did all mutations that have ever occurred and do all mutations that ever will occur all happen at exactly the same time?

      And since you like to demand evidence and citations/references so much, let's see you provide evidence and citations/references that directly support your claim about "directed mutations".

      Delete
    7. twitty boo-boo:
      Hey joey, will you explain how "directed mutations" do not equal a step by step process?

      Why? It won't do any good- you are too stupid to understand anything.

      Did all mutations that have ever occurred and do all mutations that ever will occur all happen at exactly the same time?

      No.

      And since you like to demand evidence

      And it is very telling that you never present any that supports unguided evolution.

      Direcetd mutations- see the immune system; see the SOS response: see the work of James Shapiro and Barry Hall.

      Delete
    8. So, joey, you can't support your claim about "directed mutations". What a surprise. Not.


      Delete
    9. LoL! As predicted TWiT doesn't understand anything but being a belligerent ignoramus.

      Delete
  7. Hey perhaps we can get Great Britain to celebrate Independence Day.

    Americans already have someone to celebrate on February 12- Abraham Lincoln, who has meant more to this world than Darwin ever will.

    Why would we want to dilute a celebration of a great man by including a strawman maker?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe G January 27, 2013 at 9:10 AM

      Hey perhaps we can get Great Britain to celebrate Independence Day.


      I've tried to argue that on the grounds that the UK could justly celebrate getting rid of all those troublesome colonists and religious malcontents. Nobody took it very seriously, though.

      Delete
    2. Of course no one would take that bit of trope seriously. If they wanted to get rid of us all they had to do was leave. That we had to kick their ass and humilate them in front of the world to get them to leave is proof they wanted to stay. Heck they even tried to take us back.

      History refutes you, Ian.

      Delete
    3. If by " we" you mean the French Army and Navy and military supplies,then you would be correct.

      Delete
    4. "Hey perhaps we can get Great Britain to celebrate Independence Day."

      Hey joey, was the fictional character jesus born in the USA? How about St. Patrick? How about Christopher Columbus? How about St. Nick?

      And why is Thanksgiving Day allowed to be a national holiday in the USA even though it is rooted in English traditions dating from the Protestant Reformation?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving

      Dang, joey, if you're going to argue that foreigners shouldn't have days named after them in the USA, you better get busy arguing against any foreigners and foreign traditions having days named after them, and especially fictional foreigners like "Jesus Christ".

      Delete
    5. twitty boo-boo:
      Hey joey, was the fictional character jesus born in the USA?

      A fictional character that changed the world. That is quite the accomplishment.

      You can't even change your diaper. You are quite the momma's baby.

      BTW Thanksgiving was first and always will be, an American Holiday.

      Christopher Colombus? Well he led the Europeans here. St Patrick? Many Irish people in the US. More than there is in Ireland.- and no one gets the day off.

      That said, Charles darwin was a liar and his ideas still can't be tested.

      Delete
    6. Almost all Darwinists like thewholetruth still believe that the shroud of turin is a middle age forgery.
      I'm hoping that they come out with a new treatment for emotional retardation masked as intellectuality ;)

      Delete
    7. joey ignores the point as usual, erroneously rewrites history, and further demonstrates his obsessive hatred of Darwin. Same old, same old.

      Oh, hey joey, aren't there any English people and people with English ancestry living in the USA?

      And you do know, don't you, that Christopher Columbus, St. Patrick, St. Nick, and the fictional character jesus never stepped foot in the USA?

      By the way, St. Nicholas was born a Greek and lived in Lycia, which is now part of Turkey. St. Patrick was born in Roman-Britain (England). Christopher Columbus was born in the Republic of Genoa (Italy).

      They're all foreigners, joey, and there's no evidence that jesus christ ever existed so why honor them in the USA but not Darwin?

      One more thing for now, joey. What, specifically, did Darwin lie about?

      Delete
    8. TWiT:
      What, specifically, did Darwin lie about?

      He lied about the opposition and he lied about natural selection being a designer mimic. And that is only the start of his lies.

      Delete
    9. TWiTty boo-boo keeps saying taht Jesus was a fictional character-

      A fictional character that changed the world. That is quite the accomplishment.

      twitty boo-boo is desperately jealous.

      Delete
    10. Bob

      Almost all Darwinists like thewholetruth still believe that the shroud of turin is a middle age forgery.


      Classic.

      I'm hoping that they come out with a new treatment for emotional retardation masked as intellectuality ;)

      Hoping for a cure?

      Delete
  8. All religions use force at one time or another to gain converts. Darwinism is no exception.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I support Darwin's Day...it should be every
    Friday 13th
    :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And let the fittest survive the merriment, natural selection

      Delete
    2. Eugen,

      "I support Darwin's Day...it should be every
      Friday 13th
      :D"

      I think April 1st would be much more appropriate.

      Delete
  10. The whole truth should just change his name to the half truth deceiver. I was a theistic evolutionist because I was taught aprioi that life is the way it is because evolution happened. Looking back at my first 40 years of indoctrination I still have a hard time believing that I bought that nonsense. I guess you could call it my intellectually childish stage. Hey thewholetruth , want some gum son ;)

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Almost all Darwinists like thewholetruth still believe that the shroud of turin is a middle age forgery."

    Oh goodie, another god zombie has joined the party!

    "I'm hoping that they come out with a new treatment for emotional retardation masked as intellectuality ;)"

    That's mighty christian of you.

    ReplyDelete
  12. H'mm: On following up to here, I see that someone is trying the Jesus of Nazareth did not exist, "there is no evidence" (In reality: that I am willing to accept . . . ) game. That speaks volumes on the disconnect of such hyperskeptics from first principles of right reason and on the way they handle evidence, telling and discrediting volumes. Those who are willing to examine evidence and draw reasonable conclusions -- selective hyperskepticism is inherently irrational and incoherent -- may wish to look here on for a 101. And [anticipating a resort to Alinsky style perverse mockery, smearing and dismissal given that the chief objector being entertained here runs a hate site . . . ], in light of the sustained behaviour of the objector raising the suggestion that there was no historical Jesus of Nazareth etc, I suggest, also that enabling an obsessive hater at his hate site does not speak well of those who entertain such behaviour. Indeed the overall self-portrait being painted by such objectors is utterly and sadly revealing. Okay, enough said for record. KF

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PS: For those who want an in a nutshell in response to Mr Dawkins' recent Playboy Interview remark that runs much as the above objections, though it is a bit subtler, cf here.

      Delete
    2. It's called pathetic desperation- just so you know...

      Delete
    3. The usual hit and run posts by gordon e. mullings (kairosfocus) with emphasis on run.

      What's the matter gordo, are you afraid to stand on the hill with your sword and face your challengers? What happened to "Bydand!"?

      There's no evidence that verifies the existence of the fictional character jesus christ, and the bible is a butchered together mess of badly written/translated/edited fairy tales. For record.

      Why is there so much theology in your verbose ID assertions, gordo? Haven't you heard from joey that that's not allowed?

      You only read the articles in Playboy and never look at the pictures, right?

      Are you still beating your wife and kids (six of the best) with Mr. Leathers?

      And you're right about joey and his hate site:

      "I suggest, also that enabling an obsessive hater at his hate site does not speak well of those who entertain such behaviour. Indeed the overall self-portrait being painted by such objectors is utterly and sadly revealing."

      Or were you referring to Cornelius and this hate site?

      Or you and your hate site?

      Or barry arrington and his hate site, UD?

      For ages you god zombies have been projectile vomiting hate at Darwin, evolution, the ToE, science, scientists, science supporters, evolutionists, atheists, reality, anyone who disagrees with you, anyone who doesn't worship you, etc., etc., etc.

      Delete
    4. And more raw spewage from an ignorant toad.

      Delete
    5. The Truth

      You were sort of on tracks lately.

      What the heck are you talking about now? Are you making personal attacks? How that helps discussion anyway?

      Delete
  13. F/N: Again, for record:

    I have of course made a main response to the evidentialism, selectively hyperskeptical fallacy evident in the comment thread, here.

    I have also specifically responded to the further underscoring of willful obtuseness, here.

    I also observe to CH that he has a commenter resorting to slander and personal abuse, multiplied by attempted outing.

    KF

    PS: With all due respect, JG, I doubt that resorting to stridency will help matters.

    ReplyDelete
  14. While I am at it, let me cite Barnett, as appears in the OP as linked just above, on early NON-Christian attestation tot he existence of Jesus:

    >> On the basis of . . . non-Christian sources [i.e. Tacitus (Annals, on the fire in Rome, AD 64; written ~ AD 115), Rabbi Eliezer (~ 90's AD; cited J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1929), p. 34), Pliny (Letters to Trajan from Bithynia, ~ AD 112), Josephus (Antiquities, ~ 90's)] it is possible to draw the following conclusions:

    Jesus Christ was executed (by crucifixion?) in Judaea during the period where Tiberius was Emperor (AD 14 – 37) and Pontius Pilate was Governor (AD 26 – 36). [Tacitus]
    The movement spread from Judaea to Rome. [Tacitus]
    Jesus claimed to be God and that he would depart and return. [Eliezer]
    His followers worshipped him as (a) god. [Pliny]
    He was called “the Christ.” [Josephus]
    His followers were called “Christians.” [Tacitus, Pliny]
    They were numerous in Bithynia and Rome [Tacitus, Pliny]
    It was a world-wide movement. [Eliezer]
    His brother was James. [Josephus]

    [Is the New Testament History? (London, Hodder, 1987), pp. 30 - 31. Cf. McDowell & Wilson, He Walked Among Us (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1993) for more details; free for download here.]>>

    Notice, the bar I am setting here is very low, not assenting to Christian Theology, just basic willingness to face evidence that points to the reality of Jesus as a person who walked about in C1 Palestine.

    This is pons asinorum, folks.

    If people are unwilling to face such and fly off into rage, slander, outing tactics and false accusations in the face of something so basic and easily confirmed on eyewitness lifetime testimony by friend and foe alike, how can we expect them to give a fair hearing to the more complex inference to best explanation involved in reasoning concerning the design inference?

    KF

    ReplyDelete