How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters
Teach The Controversy!Teach The Controversy!Teach The Controversy!Teach The Controversy!All in the name of academic freedom, right CH?
There is no controversy. Anybody with more than two neurons between their ears knows that evolution is a religion of cretins, created by cretins for cretins.
Interesting. So 99% of scientists are cretins, are they, Louis? They're all in the thrall of religion?http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2009/05/cfac-steve-statistics/Good thing we have you to set us straight. Good thing the Bible gives us a non-religious answer...
Ritchie:Interesting. So 99% of scientists are cretins, are they, Louis? They're all in the thrall of religion?Absolutely. It would not be the first time that a bunch of otherwise highly intelligent scientists are wrong about a crucial field of science. I have seen it happen twice in the field of artificial intelligence and robotics. For over half a century, AI researchers (several Nobel prize winners among them) were completely wrong about the nature of intelligence. They were all convinced that intelligence was just symbol manipulation: the great AI red herring chase. Hell, they were not even in the ball park. During those years, they vilified their critics, just like the brain-dead evolutionists have been doing, only to be proven wrong. Not even a "I am sorry" from the assholes. They claim they were misunderstood. But it gets worse, currently, the AI intelligentsia have all jumped on the Bayesian brain bandwagon but guess what? They are about to be proven wrong once again.Are they cretins with regard to the nature of intelligence? Yes, of course.Good thing we have you to set us straight. Good thing the Bible gives us a non-religious answer...As a matter of fact, you're right. The Bible does contain the answer to AI. Surprise!
Louis - For over half a century, AI researchers (several Nobel prize winners among them) were completely wrong about the nature of intelligence. They were all convinced that intelligence was just symbol manipulation: the great AI red herring chase.Robotics is not my field. What theory are you talking of, specifically? What was the name of it, what was the evidence which falsified it, who declared it true in spite of the evidence, and who declared it was as solid a theory as gravity in the first place?You see, it is not enough for a theory to simply be falsified. That happens all the time. Nothing embarrassing or shameful about that.And there is nothing wrong with going with your best theory until such a time as it has been disproved.As a matter of fact, you're right. The Bible does contain the answer to AI. Surprise!Does it? I have actually read the Bible, and I'm pretty sure it didn't mention anything about robotics or artificial intelligneces...
Robotics is not my field. What theory are you talking of, specifically? What was the name of it, what was the evidence which falsified it, who declared it true in spite of the evidence, and who declared it was as solid a theory as gravity in the first place?Look up GOFAI, Rodney Brooks, subsumption architecture and read Jeff Hawkins' book, On Intelligence. Hawkins is an atheist-evolutionist but he has an amazing grasp of what intelligence is about. He's wrong about consciousness but that's forgivable given his religion.You see, it is not enough for a theory to simply be falsified. That happens all the time. Nothing embarrassing or shameful about that.Be a man, goddammit. Why pretend that you did not find it implausible that 99% of scientists could be wrong about a field of science? That was your stupid point. I provided proof and examples that you were wrong. Grow some gonads and admit it. Dammit!Me: As a matter of fact, you're right. The Bible does contain the answer to AI. Surprise!Ritchie: Does it? I have actually read the Bible, and I'm pretty sure it didn't mention anything about robotics or artificial intelligneces...LOL. A huge part of the Bible consist of metaphorical narratives. If you don't understand the meaning of those metaphors, isn't it obvious that they were not written for you? Go read your own shit. I wrote what I wrote above only for the record.
Louis - He's wrong about consciousness...And what are you basing that on, exactly? The fact that you think you know better?Be a man, goddammit. Why pretend that you did not find it implausible that 99% of scientists could be wrong about a field of science? That was your stupid point.Thank you for informing me what my own point was. Geeze, arrogance, much?My point was ACTUALLY that science is provisional and evidence based. What we hold as the best theories we possess today may indeed be proved wrong tomorrow. And there is no shame in that. Because even as each theory is falsified, we learn a little more and science progresses. Which is the name of the game.But that is done by presenting evidence. You have to actually make a case. And if you (Biblke-thumping armchair intellectual that you are) think you have a case and 99% of professionals (people whose job it is to know exactly this sort of thing) think you haven't then the odds don't look good for you, matey.THAT was my point. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.LOL. A huge part of the Bible consist of metaphorical narratives. If you don't understand the meaning of those metaphors, isn't it obvious that they were not written for you.Translation: "Everything is in the Bible, as long as you INTERPRET it correctly."A book that needs interpretation is useless. Because different people will interpret it differently. Which is no bloody good to anyone. They can't all be right.
Yo, Ritchie meister. You're stupid, you're gutless and you bore me. Adios.
Ha! What a comprehensive and persuasive argument. That's truly put me in my place.
What are the facts and arguments on your side that you think should be presented?I honestly struggle to understand what your side is because everything you present here is simply a critique of one side (evolution) - but without any presentation of facts and arguments on the other side.And before somebody objects, yes, of course criticism of evolution has its place. But science is also about idea - hypotheses, experiments and eventually even new theories. That seems in short supply on your blog. As has been asked so many times before - what exactly then is the hypothesis for your "side"?But as to academic freedom, aren't you yourself quite restricted in any true academic freedom. Aren't you tightly bound by the statement of faith you have to adhere to at Biola? For example, what if you disagreed that the Bible was inerrant - what would that mean? Finally - at Biola do you also teach evolution fairly and balanced - or really only in the context of a Biblical worldview?Honestly, not expecting any answers (at least nothing as straightforward that could be construed as an answer), but thought I'd throw them out there anyway.
Who discussing anything with you anyway? Who in the hell are you? You is a nobody. LOL.
Teaching there is a controversy when there is none is not teaching the truth but manufacturing a lie.If the truth is to be taught about the attacks on evolution, it should be made clear that these are religious in origin.If the intention is to establish a principle of teaching the controversy regardless of the topic then will the Christian church, for example, be teaching the controversy surrounding the historicity of Jesus Christ?
Beelzebub:If the truth is to be taught about the attacks on evolution, it should be made clear that these are religious in origin.So what if they are religious in origin? Does the truth give a shit about origins?
CH - don't you have a policy about language on your blog?
JDRickCH - don't you have a policy about language on your blog? There once was a time when CH exhibited some morals and ethics and policed up the obscenities from the likes of Joe G and Louis, but those days are gone. Now it's just crank out the anti-science propaganda and cash the DI's paycheck. With more and more scientific information being readily available online, it's tougher and tougher to foist Creationist nonsense on the crowd. Allowing vulgarities tossed at those who understand the science is pretty much the only arrow the Creationists have left in the quiver.
How much more pathetic can you gutless morons get? Bitching and lying like little schoolgirls. LOL.
Thornton: "There once was a time when CH exhibited some morals and ethics and policed up the obscenities from the likes of Joe G and Louis, but those days are gone. "Yep, it's definitely a little surprising that CH tolerates such behavior, particularly given how conservative Biola is. And given that this blog's audience is probably largely Christian, I'm surprised he doesn't get more complaints. It's his blog and I guess if he wants it to degenerate into a sewer that's his choice. Talking of Biola, I was delighted to discover this the other day: http://www.thebiolaqueerunderground.com
Schoolgirl JDRick:Yep, it's definitely a little surprising that CH tolerates such behavior, particularly given how conservative Biola is.LOL. You're lucky Cornelius is the owner of this blog and not me. I would have booted your stupid gutless asses off this blog the minute you opened your lying mouths. And as unceremoniously as possible. Jackasses. LOL.
louis asked:"So what if they are religious in origin?"Hey louis, shouldn't you be asking that question of your religious, IDiotic comrades who regularly and dishonestly claim that the 'ID inference' and attacks on evolution and the ToE are not religious in origin or in any other way?Calling joey g! Calling joey g!
Hey louis, shouldn't you be asking that question of your religious, IDiotic comrades who regularly and dishonestly claim that the 'ID inference' and attacks on evolution and the ToE are not religious in origin or in any other way?Eat your excrement, jackass. As if you were not religious. Evolutionists are the most religious jackasses of them all.
"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." Cornelius, what facts do you have that support 'God-did-it'? Please state them. And don't leave out the 'facts' that verify a six day creation, the first human being specially created from dirt, the second human being specially created from a rib of the first human, a talking snake, a magic tree, the incestual relationship between "Eve" and her son and/or her son and his sister, where other women came from, where all of the people came from that populated the first city that "Cain" established, a worldwide flood, a boat that held all of the animals alleged in the bible flood story, a man living inside a fish for three days and surviving, the virgin birth of a guy named "Jesus", the crucifixion and resurrection of the same guy, that same guy walking around as a bloody zombie for weeks and then flying up to heaven and merging with "God" and the holy spirit, a bunch of other zombies out and about too, the walking on water story, the parting of a sea story, the exodus, and all of the other stories in the bible. I'm anxious to see all of the 'facts'.
Didn't Jesus fly up to Xenu, not heaven? Wait, I think I'm getting muddled up...this story sounds similar to another one...
You got your story wrong. Jesus does not fly anywhere. That's ancient technology for bozos like you. He just materializes anywhere he wants.
louis, will you specifically describe the mechanism jesus uses to materialize anywhere he wants? And is he able to materialize inside of a black hole? If so, can he escape?
Speaking of xenu, do any of the ID pushers here think that scientology should be taught in public school science classes?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu
Be careful how you talk about Jesus. He's liable to put his foot up your ass and make you like it.
Interesting that Louis characterizes Christ as being into violent, homoerotic foot-play.
didymos:Interesting that Louis characterizes Christ as being into violent, homoerotic foot-play.Oh no. I was talking about Haysoos Martinez, not Jesus Cristo. LOL.
You might be pleased to know that Academic Freedom Day was mentioned in my video for Question Evolution Day, and in my writings and radio interviews, I've said that we want intellectual, professional and academic freedoms. Sure, everything is fine if you spew the evolutionist talking points. But say that the science supports the Creator and not evolution, watch out! As we've seen here, the self-appointed intellectual elite show their brilliance with ridicule, straw man arguments, abusive ad hominems, prejudicial conjecture and other fallacious "arguments". It may build up their fragile egos, but reinforces why people consistently dislike atheists most of all.
Piltdown SupermanBut say that the science supports the Creator and not evolution, watch out!Your guys' big problem all you ever do is talk - you never back up your mouthy output with any positive evidence. These sort of "academic freedom" dishonest shenanigans are merely an attempt by ID-Creationists to make an end run around proper scientific processes including critical peer review and sneak your unsupported religious bullcrap into science classrooms.You clowns could walk through the front door of any science classroom on the planet IF you had the goods to support your claims. But you don't.
I don't know about anybody else, but I'm trying to be civil and give Dr. Hunter the opportunity o actually share the "facts and arguments" he thinks should be presented as an alternative to evolution - and give us his hypothesis of the "other side".As to ridicule, ad hominems etc, I think a quick perusal of this blog will quickly reveal that both sides are as guilty as each other. As to why people don't like atheists, I guess I don't think people like it when some challenge long-established and cherished belief systems. Or perhaps it's because being an atheist one can still thrive in life and be just as happy as the next person. I really don't know the reasons.
Throton, the resident psycho:You clowns could walk through the front door of any science classroom on the planet IF you had the goods to support your claims. But you don't.The evidence is right in front of you cretinous eyes but you can never see it. It is a fact know to all except brain-dead evolutionists like you that the evolution of intelligent designs over time automatically results in a hierarchical structure. In computer and software engineering, it is called a class hierarchy. In biology, it is called the tree of life.Unfortunately for you cretins, the tree of life concept is a Biblical one. Worse, it predated Darwin, the cretin-in-chief, by millenia. Bummer.
As boringly expected, I see childish, emotional responses. You have no desire in hearing, or even allowing, a contrary point of view. In Stalinesque responses, you want to shout us down and use logical fallacies to do so. Thanks for proving me right.
PSI don't know what responses you are looking at then.Both Thornton and JDRick are waiting for any positive evidence from the ID quarter. Or even any proposed mechanisms or testable hypotheses at all, really.We're all waiting for that, actually. Because until any is forthcoming, ID is not a scientific theory, and thus there is no scientific controversy.
Piltdown StupormanAs boringly expected, I see childish, emotional responses. You have no desire in hearing, or even allowing, a contrary point of view.As boringly expected, another Creationist flaps his gums and cries "persecution!!" instead of presenting his positive evidence.This whole blog is wide open for you to present your case Stuporman. Not our problem you don't have one.
Piltdown: "You have no desire in hearing, or even allowing, a contrary point of view."I do not believe my responses are emotional at all - in fact I would love to see a contrary point of view presented (rather than just the normal deconstruction of evolution). Which is why I'm curious as to why Cornelius never talks about irreducible complexity, or CSI or so of the other standard ID talking points. At least these attempt to make a positive case for ID. One almost has to wonder if he has some issues with these himself.I personally think CH's strategy of simply pointing out the defenciencies in evolution is inadequate and ultimately doomed. Although criticism does of course play a part in moving science on, it is not sufficient in of itself. I think the best analogy for this is how Big Bang theory replaced steady-state (well, mostly). It really wasn't until Big Bang theory took a hold (primarily of course through observation and experimentation) that steady-state lost its hold.I think if evolution is going to be challenged, then it will be in a similar way. This point seems lost on CH. But possibly the goal of this blog is just to simply sow doubt on evolution for a Christian audience - in order to assuage their fears that evolution in fact has quite solid underpinnings, than that's probably all he needs to do. If the Christian Professor says evolution is all up the creek, I may not understand teh science too well, but that that's good enough for me!But as a strategy for progressing science and moving ID along, I'd say this blog is a complete failure.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This sort of thing is exactly why the scientific community can't stand the dishonest scumbag liars that publicly push Creationism. The worthless pieces of dog crap won't lift one finger to do any actual research that might support their claims but they'll spend millions on lies and propaganda to push their Creationist agenda. Scientists are then forced to waste real time and real money combating the dishonesty.I'm not talking about the ignorant layman who may be duped by the charlatans. I'm talking about the professional Liars for Jesus who work at places like the DI and ICR and who sponsor these sort of bills. Every last one of 'em should be given a swift kick in the balls, if they had any balls.
Throton, just shut the F#*& up, jackass. Everything in biology points to design: ORFan genes, horizontal gene transfer, hierarchical tree of life, genetic code, etc. It's all due to intelligent design. You should swallow back the vomit you spew on this forum day in and day out. Your opinion on this topic is worthless precisely because you have an atheist agenda.Besides, how is criticizing non-scientists going to help science? Science only advances through self-criticism. Lying jackass. :-D
JDRick said:"I don't know about anybody else, but I'm trying to be civil and give Dr. Hunter the opportunity o actually share the "facts and arguments" he thinks should be presented as an alternative to evolution - and give us his hypothesis of the "other side"."I'm not going to say that you should stop being civil but I will point out that Cornelius has been civilly asked MANY TIMES to present POSITIVE facts and arguments that support his hypothesis of the "other side" (a scientific alternative to evolution and the ToE), and yet he always plays the same old evasive, dishonest, evolution/evolutionist/Darwin bashing games because his only "hypothesis" is 'God-did-it, I believe it, and that settles it'. He knows that there are no facts or rational arguments that support his fairy tale religious beliefs, especially scientifically, so he continually resorts to the only thing he has got, negative attacks.
Truthy, just give it a rest, moron.
Louis - You've actually written a good 7-8 posts in this thread and you've yet to raise a single point.At the risk of feeding the troll, can't you think of anything more productive to post than just pure abuse?If nothing else it just reinforces the idea that you haven't actually got any points or solid arguments. Because if you did you'd post those instead.
Who says I want to have a discussion with jackasses? You assholes deserve nothing but abuse. LOL.
Who says you are even capable having a discussion beyond your obsession with the scatological? There has been no evidence so far.
Yeah, I got your evidence hanging. LOL.
It is a miracle what one can see with a microscope
Louis -Who says I want to have a discussion with jackasses? You assholes deserve nothing but abuse. LOL.Those simple sentences say nothing about 'evolutionists', but speak volumes about you.
Something I always find interesting is that IDiot-creationists constantly refer to "both sides", as though there are only 'two sides' to debates about evolution (or ultimate origins). Of course religious zealots believe that their beliefs are the right ones and that only their beliefs should replace any teaching of the ToE in public schools. They obviously never seriously think about the fact that if their beliefs are allowed or forced into public school science classes to "teach the controversy" or for any other reason, everyone else's beliefs will have to be allowed or forced too. After all, they're PUBLIC schools and the PUBLIC has a lot of different religious beliefs. Take a look at this for a start:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditionsThen research how many different sects/versions there are of each of those religions. And hey, if "sides" and "teach the controversy" is really what you religion pushers want in science classes, the following religion will also have to be included:NuwaubianismNuwaubianism is an umbrella term used to refer to the doctrines and teachings of the followers of Dwight York. The Nuwaubians originated as a Black Muslim group in New York in the 1970s, and have gone through many changes since. Eventually, the group established a headquarters in Putnam County, Georgia in 1993, which they have since abandoned. York is now in prison after having been convicted on money laundering and child molestation charges, but Nuwaubianism endures. York developed Nuwaubianism by drawing on a wide range of sources which include Theosophy-derived New Age movements such as Astara as well as the Rosicrucians, Freemasonry, the Shriners, the Moorish Science Temple of America, the revisionist Christianity & Islam and the Qadiani cult of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the numerology of Rashad Khalifa, and the ancient astronaut theories of Zecharia Sitchin. White people are said in one Nuwaubian myth to have been originally created as a race of killers to serve blacks as a slave army, but this plan went awry. Here is a list of some of the more unusual Nuwaubian beliefs:1. It is important to bury the afterbirth so that Satan does not use it to make a duplicate of the recently-born child2. Furthermore, some aborted fetuses survive their abortion to live in the sewers, where they are being gathered and organized to take over the world3. People were once perfectly symmetrical and ambidextrous, but then a meteorite struck Earth and tilted its axis causing handedness and shifting the heart off-center in the chest4. Each of us has seven clones living in different parts of the world5. Women existed for many generations before they invented men through genetic manipulation6. Homo sapiens is the result of cloning experiments that were done on Mars using Homo erectus7. Nikola Tesla came from the planet Venus8. The Illuminati have nurtured a child, Satan’s son, who was born on 6 June 1966 at the Dakota House on 72nd Street in New York to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis of the Rothschild/Kennedy families. The Pope was present at the birth and performed necromantic ceremonies. The child was raised by former U.S. president Richard Nixon and now lives in Belgium, where it is hooked up bodily to a computer called “The Beast 3M” or “3666.”
For an honest inquirer data like this should cause extreme doubt of the validity of ToE. It is just too far fetched to take by faith that somehow the STC genes would be scattered like this in so many lineages. This is just the sort of thing that evolutionists used to say should have happened if there was a creator. The exceptions to the so called tree of life keep piling up.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/an_enzymes_phyl068911.htmlWhen a phylogeny was constructed for genes encoding the enzyme responsible for synthesis of tetrahymanol (squalene-tetrahymanol cyclase, or STC), it was found that the "sequences from phylogenetically diverged eukaryotes (ciliates, excavates, a fungus, and an animal) formed a monophyletic group within the SHC radiation with 100% ML bootstrap support and a posterior probability of 1.00 in Bayesian analysis." This renders vertical inheritance of STC implausible since that would require "dozens of parallel losses of the STC genes in many eukaryotic lineages that currently lack this gene."
The last one out of the ToE room, please turn off the lights. Impossible fitness landscapes.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/natural_selecti_1069121.html
Tedford the SlowThe last one out of the ToE room, please turn off the lights. Impossible fitness landscapes.Wow Tedford, there's so much FAIL in that latest bit of IDiot Creationist stupidity it's hard to know where to start. For one thing, tiny one-mutation changes to a genotype can result in much larger morphological changes to a phenotype. This makes it possible to cross otherwise large gaps in the fitness space.For another, the 3-D fitness landscape model used only has one linear path from peak to peak. In the real world, the fitness landscape is n-dimentional and there will be many more ways to circumvent valleys and move to new peaks. Evolution only needs to find one.For a third, the IDiot Creationists completely ignore the effects of neutral drift and erroneously claim every mutation must provide an immediate benefit.I realize you're too slow to grasp any of that, which is exactly what the professional Liars for Jesus at the DI are counting on. Sadly for them, the scientific community isn't near as dense as you.
"""For a third, the IDiot Creationists completely ignore the effects of neutral drift and erroneously claim every mutation must provide an immediate benefit."""Now I'm confuse. Whenever people say that random change cannot account for complexity, you say that it isn't random since it is filtered by natural selection. Now you are saying that it is genetic drift, that is, random change that does it.
natschusterNow I'm confusedThat combined with your inherent dishonesty is why you get everything wrong.
So please clarify what you meant. Is it fitness filtering or is it random genetic drift? Or is it some combination of the two? Please be specific and quantify things. (Y'know, the way you always demand ID proponents to.)
Shouldn't you be off lying to your kids and cutting the evolutionary lessons out of their science books?
Am I to gather that you won't (or can't) answer my question?And, now I'm really confused. Your telling me not lying is lying. Are we living in 1984?
natschusterAnd, now I'm really confused. And still really dishonest too. But that's nothing we haven't seen before in your previous attempts to troll.
I'm even more confused. Are you now saying being confused is begin dishonest.
natschusterI'm even more confusedThat does seem to be your primary skill.
Investment Plans to make money online, Online Jobs can make money online from home, Just Visitwww.jobzcorner.com
The problem with the theory of evolution is there is no data point that it can't explain or accomodate, even if that data point is not what you would expect or even the opposite of what you would expect. It's not meaningly falsifiable.As for ID and creation, they are also adaptable to current evidence. I think the design hypothesis is sound though not reducible down to a mechanism like evolution, but the current evolutionary mechanisms lack explanatory power to account for the complexity of life. Though the faith of evolutionists knows no such bounds.The portrayal of ID and Creationism as anti-science is just a strawman. If the science is robust then it stands up to scrutiny and doesn't need fallacies to prop it up.
TheAntiskepticThe problem with the theory of evolution is there is no data point that it can't explain or accomodate, even if that data point is not what you would expect or even the opposite of what you would expect. It's not meaningly falsifiable.100% False. There are any number of observations that if made would have falsified ToE immediately. Having the phylogenetic tree from the fossil record not match the one from genetic data to such a high degree would do it immediately. So would finding that different 'kinds' of animals have distinctly different, non-compatible forms of DNA. But those findings weren't made.The fact that so much empirical data fits with the ToE framework is evidence for its correctness. ToE is quite falsifiable; it just hasn't been falsified.the current evolutionary mechanisms lack explanatory power to account for the complexity of life. Not to people who study and understand the mechanisms they don't. Not knowing every detail isn't the same as not knowing any detail.The portrayal of ID and Creationism as anti-science is just a strawman.No, sadly it's dead accurate. The only tactic ID and Creationism have tried are attacks on established evolutionary theory. Neither has presented the slightest bit of positive evidence, or even attempted to. ID and Creationism could be approached scientifically if they followed the established procedures of science, but they don't.
Well the problem with any broad stroke discussion of evolution is it paints a neat little picture, when the reality and the data are much more complicated.Creationists and ID'ers often refer to actual data and publications, but paradigm protection takes precedence over genuine questions on Darwinian Orthodoxy and legitimate inquiries are dismissed. Teach the science not the orthodoxy thats all we ask.
TheAntiskeptic - Well the problem with any broad stroke discussion of evolution is it paints a neat little picture, when the reality and the data are much more complicated.I'm curious. How would one distinguish between that actually being the case, and scientifically illiterate ID/Creationists simply making a lot of noise, misrepresenting the data and deliberately causing confusion to make it SOUND like the data is much more complicated and doesn't really fit evolutionary theory?Serious question.Creationists and ID'ers often refer to actual data and publications, but paradigm protection takes precedence over genuine questions on Darwinian Orthodoxy and legitimate inquiries are dismissed. No legitimate questions are ever dismissed. Stupid questions, perhaps.Teach the science not the orthodoxy thats all we ask.Doing so to a Creationist is like teaching WW2 history to a holocaust denier. I'm sorry for the unflattering comparison, but it is an apt one.Besides, we DO teach the science. ID/Creationist websites will tell you we don't, but they would be wrong - for them it is a matter of religious faith that evolution simply MUST be wrong.
TheAntiskepticCreationists and ID'ers often refer to actual data and publicationsSuch as? You have any examples of positive evidence for ID-Creationism? All I've ever seen is negative "ToE can't explain this detail, so IDC must be true by default!" Go ahead and surprise me.Teach the science not the orthodoxy thats all we ask.That's already being done. If you guys manage to find some scientific positive evidence to support your claims we'll teach that too. So far you're batting .000
Thorton:What would you consider acceptable evidence?
natschusterWhat would you consider acceptable evidence?Same answers you were give the last dozen times you asked the question. Things that point to external conscious design to the exclusion of natural processes, such as:A mechanism for the physical manufacture of the objects in question, including how the raw materials were gathered, where the assembly was done, and what tools / forces were used.A timeline for when the manufacture was done.The identity of the manufacturers if it was different from the designers.The number of designers / manufacturers.The identity of the designer(s).You have any of that?
I don't understand why things like knowing who the manufacturer was is necessary to exclude natural processes? Why do we have to know if the designer was different? As long as we see something that is really hard to explain using natural processes, that should be enough. IF archaeologists find rocks in a circle, they infer that it was designed because it is hard to explain how rocks could get into a circle by purely natural processes. When the SETI people find a non-random signal, they will know that intelligence was involved without knowing anything about the intelligence.And some people would say that the Designer is the God of Abraham, and there was only one. So we got some of that.And ToE does not have all that much detail about the processes and such. Lotsof controversy about rates, fitness quotients, etc. Lots of big unanswered questions.
natschusterI don't understandYou could have stopped right there.
nat said:"As long as we see something that is really hard to explain using natural processes, that should be enough."That statement shows one of the things that god pushers have in common. You want a final answer about everything RIGHT NOW, and since science can't provide every final answer to every possible question RIGHT NOW, you make up fake answers or adopt fake answers that other people have made up.Lots of things that used to be really hard to explain are now easy to explain, and it's because some people didn't give up looking for the explanations. Every day more discoveries are made and along with them come more explanations. Your statement profoundly demonstrates that you are afraid of ongoing scientific discoveries and explanations and would stop them if you could. You know that many more things will be figured out and that your religious beliefs will be shown more and more to be antiquated fairy tales. I realize that it's hard to give up such entrenched religious beliefs but you might as well join the 21st century as soon as possible. Reality is far more interesting than religious BS.
Moronton: 100% False. There are any number of observations that if made would have falsified ToE immediately. Having the phylogenetic tree from the fossil record not match the one from genetic data to such a high degree would do it immediately. So would finding that different 'kinds' of animals have distinctly different, non-compatible forms of DNA. But those findings weren't made.J: 100% irrelevant. Neither of those is inconsistent with SA. If the ToE can't test whether UCA or SA is true, it's irrelevant to the BIG lie that there's compelling evidence for UCA.Give us DATA that is inconsistent with SA but is consistent with UCA. That's what we're looking for. Falsifying data is data that is INCONSISTENT WITH the implications of an hypothesis!
Liar for Jesus JeffGive us DATA that is inconsistent with SA but is consistent with UCA. That's what we're looking for. Falsifying data is data that is INCONSISTENT WITH the implications of an hypothesis!Why? I've already given it to you at least four times but you're too ignorant to understand what it means. Interactive Tree Of LifeStick to philosophical blithering LFJJ. Seems to be all you're good for.
How does a fossil of an ancient bat indicate it's a descendent of a non-mammal?How does a human DNA sequence indicate it's a descendant of a non-mammal DNA?Any idiot can BELIEVE they are and draw up trees using ad-hoc assumptions as branching criteria. But how does one rationally make the connection? What are the grounds of the inference? This is what you are too clueless or dishonest to articulate.
Liar for Jesus Jeffwah wah wahTold you you're too ignorant to understand what it means.
Told you you're too moronic to articulate even ONE argument for naturalistic UCA. Let me know when you have that article link that explains how tree-generation rules are known to correspond to the temporally-ordered phenotypic/morphological/extinction effects of mutations. Back to my Rip Van Winkle nap.
Liar for Jesus Jeffwah wah wah some moreYou're such a funny little clueless blithering Creationist when you try to sound all sciency!
Today is Darwin's Day. I wish everybody an unhappy Darwin's Day!:D
Jeff said, "How does a fossil of an ancient bat indicate it's a descendent of a non-mammal?"IF evolution is assumed to be a fact then the connection MUST be there... it's just a matter or understanding how, when, and why. Data points that contradict ToE are spun off as exceptions or "not fully understood". They are not allowed to falsify ToE. Data that seems to support ToE is cherry picked and popularized without restraint. ToE was formulated in an era of great ignorance of biology. ToE was solidified and became established in that era when technology could only analyze little beyond simple microscopes.At the genetic level, ToE is just not panning out. Through the lens of evolutionary assumption, bat fossils can be placed into supposed lineages... not because the data dictates, but in order to fit the assumption. At a high level is can be fitted, but in the details it breaks down. A theory is evaluated best by the data that contradicts its model. At 30,000 feet a square hole looks like a round one. Darwin and his 19th century peers viewed the details from afar. However even with better observation tools, evolutionists persist in trying to put a round peg into what is obviously now seen as a square hole.
LOL! Tedford the Slow, forever destined to remain a willingly ignorant dupe.Mammals (including the Chiroptera) are members of the Amniota clade. Extant mammals all evolved from early synapsids which themselves split from the other amniotic orders around 300MYA.There's only a few hundred thousand studies, articles, and books on the origin of mammals that have been published in the scientific literature. But Tedford the Slow never looks there - he might accidentally come across some real scientific evidence which would make his pea brain explode.
Another example of how ToE leads to muddled thinking. Perhaps to save face, someday evolutionists will actually embrace ID, but still call it evolution. Since evolutionists have are better at rhetoric than science, they could call it something like "directed evolution" or "intelligent evolution". http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/directed_evolut068891.html
Tedford the SlowAnother example of how ToE leads to muddled thinking. Perhaps to save face, someday evolutionists will actually embrace ID, but still call it evolution.LOL! Tedford the Slow is at it again! Reads some Creationist propaganda at the DI about science he doesn't understand, regurgitates it without a single neuron firing.Here we have a researcher demonstrating the creative power of evolutionary processes in the lab, but to these IDiots since a human consciously designed the experiment that means the processes being experimentally investigated must be consciously designed too.These are the same type of morons who think if a meteorologist creates a computer model of a hurricane, that counts as evidence that real hurricanes must be designed.Stupidity like that really ought to be painful.
@Thorton Do you think that that there is a difference between a battleship and a pile of rocks - without any knowledge of the designer or the designing process?
Carolus LDo you think that that there is a difference between a battleship and a pile of rocks - without any knowledge of the designer or the designing process?How do you know it's a battleship if you have no knowledge of humans or human design processes?One of the objects in this photo is man madestonesWhich one is it, and how did you tell?
Thorton: "How do you know it's a battleship if you have no knowledge of humans or human design processes?"You obviously know what I am getting at. So you know that the answer you have just given is the only chance for your position. But tell me ... how does it feel to have no choice but to deny the obvious?
Carolus LYou obviously know what I am getting at. So you know that the answer you have just given is the only chance for your position. But tell me ... how does it feel to have no choice but to deny the obvious?You just said to assume no knowledge of humans or human design processes. I want to know how you identified the object as a battleship, or any sort of human design at all without using any external knowledge of humans and their capabilities.You guys are suppose to be able to tell "design" just from the object itself, not from any prior knowledge of the designers, their capabilities, their processes. Just from the object itself.Looks like you can't do it. Why don't you tell me which object in the picture I posted is man made. What's the problem? Do you need some external knowledge to make the determination?Thanks for highlighting a huge logical weakness in the ID position. You're claiming that biological life is designed merely from the fact that it *superficially* resembles something a human designer might do. But you have no justification for that logical leap. You have no idea what actual "designed" life looks like to compare to.Science is well aware of the huge hole in IDC logic, even if IDCers are still in denial.
I repeat my question:Can you tell the difference between a battleship and a pile of rocks? You have no idea who made it - maybe aliens. You also have no idea how it is made.But can you tell the difference?
Carolus LCan you tell the difference between a battleship and a pile of rocks?I can tell the difference between two differently shaped object. I have no idea which one is "battleship" and which is "rock" without previous knowledge of human design and how humans identify such objects.You need external knowledge beyond the object itself before you can identify design. There's no getting around it.
This subject was discussed at uncommondecent. The author, William J Murray, wrote in the comment section: "I’ve had people actually argue that there is no way to determine if such an alien artifact was the product of ID or not without being able to find and interview the alien designers themselves. They are so intent (perhaps, in some cases, subconsciously) on maintaining a firewall between theism and science that they will advance any argument or criticism no matter how obviously invalid or untrue it is." "What dispassionate onlookers should note, IMO, is this is what the ID community is dealing with deep inside those arguments about protein landscapes, islands of function and information creation, transcription and use; their opposition (atheistic, materialist darwinists) will often not even admit that there is, even in principle, a quantifiable difference, in terms of intelligent design, between a battleship and a pile of rocks.Once again: how can anyone expect to have an intellectually honest and productive debate about ID with those that deny this, and when called on it, are content to say “I have no idea if such a difference can be quantified” or “Nope, I’m not going to answer those questions.”
With all due respects, William J Murray is a clueless idiot. Humans identify design by pattern matching the unknown object to an existing known-to-be-designed example. You can only identify a battleship as being human created because you have seen many previous examples of human technology and metalworking. During WW2 in Papua New Guinea there were natives who had never seen any motorized transportation before and who though airplanes were big strange living birdsDembski's equally stupid "you'd know Mt. Rushmore when you see it" is the same thing. You can only identify a design when you've seen the designer's handiwork and capabilities before.Say you're an astronaut who lands on a new (to you) planet. In front of you are two objects that look like rocks. You find a note from a previous astronaut that says one of the objects is naturally occurring, the other is a designed statue of the local God VFHYRRESDE. Please describe how you would determine which is which by just examining the objects themselves and with no other external knowledge.Or tell me in the previous photo I posted which of the objects is human made, and how you can tell.I answered your questions, now please answer mine.
Thorton: "You can only identify a battleship as being human created because you have seen many previous examplesof human technology". You keep stressing 'human'. I would like to encourage you to think more out of the box. The battleship may be designed by aliens - ever seen SF movies?Thorton: "During WW2 in Papua New Guinea there were natives who had never seen any motorized transportation before and who though airplanes were big strange living birds".If the natives would have been allowed an up close inspection of the airplanes would they persist in their first erroneous assessment?Thorton: "Say you're an astronaut who lands on a new (to you) planet. In front of you are two objects that look like rocks. You find a note from a previous astronaut that says one of the objects is naturally occurring, the other is a designed statue of the local God VFHYRRESDE.. Allow me to quote William J Murray once again: "Some have argued that we only “recognize” human design, and that such recognition may not translate to the intelligent design of non-human intelligence. The easy answer to that is that first, we do not always recognize the product of human design. In fact, we often design things to have a natural appearance. That we may not recognize all intelligent design is a given and simply skirts the issue of that which we can recognize."
Carolus LThe battleship may be designed by aliens - ever seen SF movies?The 'battleships' in SF movies were all designed by humans. They're human creations based on human concepts of what an alien ship would look like. You have no idea what a real 'alien' design would look like because you've never see one.Allow me to quote William J Murray once again:Allow me to reiterate: With all due respects, William J Murray is a clueless idiot. All he's done is add a bunch of meaningless verbiage to the completely subjective "This looks designed to me!" He's still just advocating pattern matching against things already in his mental database, like a battleship.You guys are still hung up on the idea "if something is complex it must have been consciously designed" which is demonstrably false. Complex things can be the product of design, but they don't have to be. The fact is we know of at least one other way for complex things to arise - simple feedback loops with imperfect self-replicators filtered by selection and carrying forward heritable traits. That is exactly what we see in natural evolutionary processes. Until you figure out how to differentiate between the results of the two which takes outside information you are forever destined to get false positives in your "it looks designed to me" claims. What steps do you take to guard against false positives, claiming conscious design when there is none?
Thorton:Something that was designed can be made to look like it wasn't designed. But something that wasn't designed will probably not have some of the characteristics of designed things.
natschusterSomething that was designed can be made to look like it wasn't designed. So you can't tell if an object was designed or not just by looking at it. Got it.But something that wasn't designed will probably not have some of the characteristics of designed things.Please list all the characteristics a designed thing must have.
Thorton:I think you are confusing two different logical statements. There's "If something was designed, it looks designed." This isn't necessarily true. The significant logical statement is "Only if something is designed, will it look designed." That's different. It's like saying that if something looks designed, then it was designed.Designed things don't have to have anything. Again, it isn't always true that if it was designed the it looks designed. But if they have things that are really hard to make like highly specified complexity, irreducible complexity, functional integration of parts, etc. then we can say, if it looks designed, then it was designed.
NatschusterBut if they have things that are really hard to make like highly specified complexity, irreducible complexity, functional integration of parts, etc. then we can say, if it looks designed, then it was designed.Why? "Specified complexity", "complex specified information", "digital functional specified complex information" and all the other alphabet soup nonsense IDiots came up with are all meaningless undefined buzz-terms that have zero relevance in the real scientific world. It's been empirically demonstrated that the other two features you list can be produced by naturally occurring evolutionary processes. Sorry, you're 0 for 3. You need some external metric other than an object itself to determine design.
You always lie, or just in comments threads? Specified complexity has not been observed to arise from a natural source EVER. Nor has irreducibly complexity been debunked by Darwinists. People will make up fairy tales about some supposed way that evolution "built" an irreducibly complex system. They are not from observation nor do they make sense. From the human eye to the flagellum of e.coli to the process of photosynthesis, there are so many interdependent, complex, irreducible and inexplicable unless designed processes and systems that no one person could name them all in a lifetime. The Law of Biogenesis precludes life forming naturally. The Laws of Thermodynamics assert that evolution will actually be devolution, and that is what is observed. The Laws of statistics make the odds of life developing from non-life as statistically impossible even if it could happen. But the "building blocks" of life cannot exist in the wild. DNA can live in a cell but not in a mud puddle.We see a watch, as Paley observed, and we can easily identify it was designed. But the watch not only must be designed and built, it must be set and wound. Ability, intentionality and intelligence are involved in making a watch. How much more for a Universe? It is God. We do not get anything from "oops." In fact, you need a material Universe before there is either time or a thing to somehow explode into everything!
Complexity means that there is a lot of different stuff there. Specified complexity means that only a few out of many combinations work. It's hard to get specified complexity without design because probability is working against you.
natschusterComplexity means that there is a lot of different stuff there. Specified complexity means that only a few out of many combinations work. Go ahead and show all the combinations of DNA/proteins that "work" and "don't work." Be sure to explain how you arrived at the figures.It's hard to get specified complexity without design because probability is working against you.Go ahead and show the probability calculations for biological life then. Be sure they include the effects on the outcome caused by the iterative feedback nature of evolutionary processes.Like I said, "specified complexity" is a meaningless bullcrap term invented by Creationists to sound "sciencey". It has zero relevance to anything in actual biology.
Want to see something interesting? Go to the page from the link below and scroll down to the February 16th comment by John Pieret.http://blogs.agu.org/mountainbeltway/2013/02/14/the-discovery-institute-feels-sorry-for-my-students/#comment-12018
denial Adger revolution, and later negation of all the peasant cocktail dresses revolution, because the revolution is in front of Adger said the kind of unprecedented brutal massacre. I believe that these two perspectives are not necessarily in line with the intention of a. a neither Adger as a model for peasant revolution, but also did not Adger imagine so brutal. Emotional attitudes of backward