Monday, May 27, 2013

Why Penguins Can’t Fly

Another Violation of Ockam’s Razor

One of the problems Aristotelianism faced in the sixteenth century was that it had become gratuitous. A hot fire dried out a damp cloth because, Aristotelians explained, fire has the quality of dryness and heat. But these were nothing more than descriptive labels. The qualities did not explain how the fire dried the cloth. As Descartes later complained:

If you find it strange that … I do not use the qualities called “heat,” “cold,” “moistness,” and “dryness,” as do the philosophers, I shall say to you that these qualities appear to me to be themselves in need of explanation.

Descartes helped to defeat Aristotelianism but as it faded a similar form of explanation emerged to replace it. Like Aristotelianism this new, but not really new, program tended to rely on goal-seeking, teleological explanations. And like Aristotelianism the new program failed to fulfill the Cartesian criterion of explaining how. And like Aristotelianism the new program’s followers were certain it was true. That new program provided a foundation for Charles Darwin and is now called evolution.

Consider for example a recent paper explaining why penguins cannot fly. The answer, it seems, is that through evolution penguins lost the ability to fly as they gained their fantastic swimming skills. The physics of swimming and flying do not go well together and if a species is a great swimmer then it won’t be able to fly very well, if at all. Diving into the water must have been more important to the penguin so it evolved swimming skills at the cost of losing its flying abilities. It was an evolutionary tradeoff.

But the evolution part, like the Aristotelian qualities, is gratuitous. In yet another violation of Ockam’s Razor the evolutionists continue to multiply entities. You see the actual science that was done had nothing to do with evolution. Instead what the science suggested is that good swimming and good flying skills likely do not easily fit into one package.

What the scientific analysis did not find was any explanation for how the penguins could have undergone such an evolutionary transition, let alone how penguins could have evolved in the first place.

The explanation is, itself, in need of explanation.

In fact, the scientific evidence does not indicate that penguins, and all the rest of biology for that matter, arose spontaneously. Yet evolutionists claim this is a fact.

The king (Aristotelianism) is dead, long live the king (Darwinism).

177 comments:

  1. See also "CEH The evolution of Penguins" for more good commentary on this idea. Thanks Cornelius for bringing this up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. cornelius, how on Earth did you get a Ph.D? Did you pay someone to read your biology assignments and do your school work for you? If you read and responded to your biology assignments in the same manner in which you read and responded about that paper, I can't imagine how you ever got any degrees legitimately.

    I only read the abstract because the full paper is behind a paywall, but I think it's safe to say that you're either lousy at understanding language or you're deliberately distorting what that paper claims.

    For instance, let's observe that you turned this:

    "One hypothesis for the loss of flight among seabirds is that animals moving between different media face tradeoffs between maximizing function in one medium relative to the other. In particular, biomechanical models of energy costs during flying and diving suggest that a wing designed for optimal diving performance should lead to enormous energy costs when flying in air. Costs of flying and diving have been measured in free-living animals that use their wings to fly or to propel their dives, but not both. Animals that both fly and dive might approach the functional boundary between flight and nonflight. We show that flight costs for thick-billed murres (Uria lomvia), which are wing-propelled divers, and pelagic cormorants (Phalacrocorax pelagicus) (foot-propelled divers), are the highest recorded for vertebrates. Dive costs are high for cormorants and low for murres, but the latter are still higher than for flightless wing-propelled diving birds (penguins). For murres, flight costs were higher than predicted from biomechanical modeling, and the oxygen consumption rate during dives decreased with depth at a faster rate than estimated biomechanical costs. These results strongly support the hypothesis that function constrains form in diving birds, and that optimizing wing shape and form for wing-propelled diving leads to such high flight costs that flying ceases to be an option in larger wing-propelled diving seabirds, including penguins."

    Into this:

    "Consider for example a recent paper explaining why penguins cannot fly. The answer, it seems, is that through evolution penguins lost the ability to fly as they gained their fantastic swimming skills. The physics of swimming and flying do not go well together and if a species is a great swimmer then it won’t be able to fly very well, if at all. Diving into the water must have been more important to the penguin so it evolved swimming skills at the cost of losing its flying abilities. It was an evolutionary tradeoff."

    And this:

    "Instead what the science suggested is that good swimming and good flying skills likely do not easily fit into one package."

    And of course you included your usual conflation of evolution and evolutionary theory, and your usual condemnation of both.

    When you read that paper, you obviously ignored terms/phrases like:

    (bolding is mine)

    "One hypothesis for..."

    "...maximizing function in one medium relative to the other..."

    "...suggest that..."

    "...optimal diving performance..."

    "...might approach the functional boundary..."

    "These results strongly support..."

    "...optimizing wing shape and form for..."

    "...larger wing-propelled diving seabirds, including penguins."

    There are lots of birds that are both "good" fliers and "good" divers but their flight or diving abilities may not be considered to be as "optimal", "maximized", "great", or "fantastic" as some other birds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TWH

      Read it and weep

      ""Clearly, form constrains function in wild animals, and movement in one medium creates tradeoffs with movement in a second medium," study CO-AUTHOR Kyle Elliott, of the University of Manitoba, said in a statement.

      "BOTTOM LINE IS THAT GOOD FLIPPERS DON'T FLY VERY WELL"

      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/131320-penguin-evolution-science-flight-diving-swimming-wings/

      Exactly what Cornelius said

      Care to go ask the co-author

      "Did you pay someone to read your biology assignments and do your school work for you?"

      Thank you for demonstrating how silly, empty and dishonest the constant insinuation that ID proponents don't know what they are talking about is. Its just a rhetorical device you pull out without any substance when you can't answer an issue or when you are the ones that are ignorant of the subject matter.

      You just basically took issue with Cornelius saying

      "and if a species is a great swimmer then it won’t be able to fly very well, if at all."

      when the coauthor said the same thing in different words and demonstrated you do not know squat.

      Now wow us with a great dance and hand waving to try and get out of it. Or you could surprise the life out of us and honestly admit you were wrong.


      Delete
    2. Thanks to the whole truth that posted the abstract and made easy to understand the hypothesis of the authors. I had other interpretation from these results: both functions are excludent- good swimming skills and good flying skills, so there were not a common ancestral which combined these pre-optimized skills.

      Delete
    3. Marcio -

      That is not an accident. Cornelius wants to suggest this and he words his posts careful to imply it.

      Of course it is factual nonsense which is why he cannot come out and state it clearly.

      Delete
    4. As usual, elijah, you completely missed my points and the points of the paper cornelius referred to.

      What the paper is saying is that to have OPTIMAL diving/swimming abilities, flight abilities become more difficult/costly, especially for larger birds, and that there was a tipping point in penguins where flight was lost. In other words, if penguins were able to fly they wouldn't be able to dive/swim as 'optimally' as they do.

      Think about cheetahs. They are optimized runners, but not optimized climbers. Leopards, on the other hand, are much better climbers but nowhere near as fast runners.

      Many birds are "good" at both flying and diving/swimming, but they may not be optimized for either (depending on their environment and needs) when compared to birds that are optimized for one or the other.

      Another thing to consider is words like "good", "great", "fantastic", etc. Dippers, for example, are small birds that fly, dive, and swim, and they do their diving and swimming in fast moving streams and rivers that are very shallow and much smaller when compared to the oceanic waters that penguins dive/swim in. For what dippers need to do to survive, their flying, diving, and swimming abilities are at least "good", if not "great" or even "fantastic". However, if they were suddenly put into a penguin's environment they would find it EXTREMELY difficult to survive, and not just because of the differences between their diving/swimming abilities and those of penguins. The same thing goes for penguins in a dipper's environment.

      Delete
    5. As usual TWT its you that miss the point and claim that others are missing it as a device of rhetoric. Cornelius said the same thing the Paper's co author says in the national geographic article.

      ""BOTTOM LINE IS THAT GOOD FLIPPERS DON'T FLY VERY WELL"

      Your optimal nonsense is refuted by the author himself who uses the same "Good" and "not very well". SO theres nothing wrong with Cornelius using the same words. you are just dancing from admitting you were wrong

      No one here is missing what the article is saying. We obviously do not agree with the paper and Cornelius point is right here

      "What the scientific analysis did not find was any explanation for how the penguins could have undergone such an evolutionary transition, let alone how penguins could have evolved in the first place.

      The explanation is, itself, in need of explanation."

      learn to read with comprehension before claiming others haven't.

      This is just another just so fairy tale.

      Delete
    6. You just don't get it, elijah.

      Delete
  4. The most surprising thing about Darwinian evolution is not the theory itself or even the level of stupidity it demands from its believers. The most surprising thing about Darwinian evolution is that it has believers at all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. LOL! CH is now bellyaching because a paper on penguin biomechanics didn't include all of the other 150+ years' of evidence science has amassed for evolution.

    Sometimes CH's attacks on science are so over-the-top all you can do is shake your head and laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  6. CH: The explanation is, itself, in need of explanation.

    The explanation you are referring to is biological Darwinism. Specifically, the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations is genuinely created by conjecture, in the form of genetic variation that is random *to any specific problem to solve*, and refutation, in the form of natural selection.

    IWO, the explanation is part of our current, best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge.

    Do you actually have any genuine criticism of this explanation?

    It's not clear that you actually have a unifying explanation, let alone separate theories that are better in explaining knowledge in separate spheres.

    CH: In fact, the scientific evidence does not indicate that penguins, and all the rest of biology for that matter, arose spontaneously.

    First, "arose spontaneously" is a gross misrepresentation of the explanation above. Second, this ignores progress we've made in the philosophy of science and the field of epistemology in general.

    CH: Yet evolutionists claim this is a fact.

    Which is just more of the usual equivocation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott, perhaps the greatest leap of "knowledge" as you like to call it was the leap from inorganic materials to first life that could pass on heritable traits. All that was done without what you call "conjecture".

      From non-living to living - a good case could be made that this was the greatest increase in "knowledge" (as you like to call it) in the history of life. Yet, no conjecture, no heritable traits evolving. Nada.

      Delete
    2. Neal: Scott, perhaps the greatest leap of "knowledge" as you like to call it was the leap from inorganic materials to first life that could pass on heritable traits. All that was done without what you call "conjecture".

      Do tell, Neal. Fame and fortune await. If not conjecture, then how?

      Neal: From non-living to living - a good case could be made that this was the greatest increase in "knowledge" (as you like to call it) in the history of life. Yet, no conjecture, no heritable traits evolving. Nada.

      Again, take our best explanation for fossils seriously, for the purpose of criticism. Now, given that explanation, why would you expect us to have a complete history of life?

      Please be specific.

      Delete
    3. Scott, "If not conjecture, then how?"

      The question was to you. Which, of course, you can't answer. How indeed does non-living matter supposedly evolve into living and reproducing organisms by conjecture?

      Scott, I would that you took the fossil record serious and see that it does not fit your notion of "conjecture". What about the Cambrian fossil pattern being top down and reverse of evolutionary predictions? You seem to have no problem pounding a trianglar peg into an upside down hole.

      Delete
    4. Neal -

      What about the Cambrian fossil pattern being top down and reverse of evolutionary predictions?

      Pardon?

      What on Earth are you talking about?

      Delete
    5. Neal,

      To say that I don't have an answer includes the assumption that you actually understand the problem space, the explanation presented, competing explanations, etc.

      IOW, before you can criticize an explanation, you need to take it seriously for the purpose of criticism. However, based on your responses on subjects such as fossils, etc., it seems that you're either incapable or unwilling to do any of these things.

      Rather, to quote from a previous thread...

      Scott: "...the "criticism" of evolutionary theory made by CH and company isn't made with the goal of making scientific progress, it's a strategy to deny that progress has already been made in more ways than one."

      To use an analogy, we're making progress on how fast the train is going, its current position, how many passengers are on board, etc., while you're denying that we can even know anything about the train, let alone that it has already left the station.

      Delete
    6. Ritchie, it is well documented that the fossil evidence shows the sudden appearance (hence the name Cambrian Explosion) of over 30 major phyla. Then over time a gradual reduction in the number of phyla.

      The few worms, sponges, and microsopic fossils in the precambrian in no way point to the over 30 phyla as ancestors. This is exactly opposite of Darwinian predictions and expectations. Of course Evolutionists try to make a big deal out of the few little worms and such, but that's just silliness. Darwinism says that a few life forms will evolve into a greater number of phyla over time. Just the opposite occured.

      Delete
    7. Scott, your avoiding the answer.

      Your argument from "conjecture" fails at the point of the greatest increase in "knowledge" in the history of the planet (non-living to reproducing life). Looks like you've got a huge problem with your often repeated argument.

      Your train analogy is flawed. Ironically you just can't get away from design. No one is arguing about the speed or position of the train, but the origin of the train. Speed and such can be observed and calculated. Please don't try to talk down to us by claiming such nonsense. No one is against researching cellular function, etc.

      Let's talk Origins. Train origins can't be observed unless you visit the train factory where they were intelligently designed and manufactured on purpose.

      There is certainly nothing that we observe that would suggest that trains can self assemble. There is certainly nothing that we observe that would suggest that life can self assemble either.

      Do you conflagate Origin with Operation all the time, or is it only as arhetorical tool?

      Delete
    8. Neal

      Ritchie, it is well documented that the fossil evidence shows the sudden appearance (hence the name Cambrian Explosion) of over 30 major phyla. Then over time a gradual reduction in the number of phyla.

      Lol, no Neal, you have it entirely wrong.

      Firstly, since the pattern of life is speciation - branching, we are talking about a handful of species represtenting vast numbers of phyla today. All vertibrates are represented by a single species, for example - a single species which gave rise to all fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.

      Secondly, of course the ancestors of today's animals would have shared their world with creatures whose lineages were destined to go extinct.

      This is precisely the pattern ToE predicts and it is exactly what we observe. The fossil record completely supports evolution.

      If only you tried to understand before you went about parroting this ridiculous creationist fallacies you might look a little less silly.

      Delete
    9. Tedford the Slow

      Darwinism says that a few life forms will evolve into a greater number of phyla over time. Just the opposite occurred.


      Tedford the Slow shows his amazing ignorance again.

      ToE says that a few life forms CAN evolve into a greater number of phyla over time, not that they always MUST continue to increase.

      There's nothing to prohibit biological diversity from rapidly increasing when a new ecological space is colonized for the first time (as in the Cambrian), then decreasing later based on competition in the environment. In fact it's a well known phenomena and not just in biology. As an example, in the first years after powered flight was achieved several dozen aircraft manufacturers sprung up. Competition has reduced the number to just a handful of major players today.

      Sadly we can witness the process happening today in living populations too. Humans are out-competing and driving to extinction huge numbers of species every year. Only an idiot like Tedford would claim biodiversity can never go back down.

      Delete
    10. Ritchie, the number of phyla was at its maximum in the Cambrian fossil record. Darwinism expects species to gradually change over time even into new phyla....
      not the sudden appearance of 30 plus phyla with a few scant fossil worms and sponges preceeding them. So, we see about all the phyla that ever existed was very early in the fossil record.

      Keep in mind that the phyla classification level is near the top and each phyla represents a very distinctive life form with unique body plans and complexity. In other words, according to evolutionists a new phlya occurs after a lot of speciation and branching.

      The fossil record does not show a gradual branching of diversity into these 30 plus phyla.

      Of course, evolutionists can make up just about anything they want to, but for those who can still view the data critically, the Cambrian is a huge problem.

      Delete
    11. LOL! What is this latest Creationist fascination with the Cambrian radiation that took tens of millions of years to occur? Is it Meyer's new book for mouth-breathing IDiots?

      I'd love to here the IDiot explanation for the Cambrian radiation, as well as the roughly 3 billion year fossil history of life that preceded it. But IDiots like Tedford can't think past their next double cheeseburger.



      Delete
    12. Neal -

      Ritchie, the number of phyla was at its maximum in the Cambrian fossil record. Darwinism expects species to gradually change over time even into new phyla....
      not the sudden appearance of 30 plus phyla with a few scant fossil worms and sponges preceeding them. So, we see about all the phyla that ever existed was very early in the fossil record.


      No, Neal. Lineages go extinct. There is competition in nature - both winners and losers, and for the losers it is game over. As Thornton has explained, where there is a new ecological space waiting to be filled, many new species will rush in to fill it. And once it is fairly dense, competition between them will intensify. Then, the best suited will thrive while the less suited will die off. At this point we see a REDUCTION in the number of species, as the successful ones thrive and the less successful ones go extinct. This is the very essence of survival of the fittest.

      As for the 'sudden appearance' of these 30+ phyla, the 'explosion' is in the fossil record, not the planet. Doubtless the seas were rich with life before the Cambrian explosion. Just not the sort of life that fossilises. What we get at the Cambrian Explosion (and let's not forget we're still talking a period of 15-20 million years here, before we bandy about words like 'sudden') is the first appearance of hard parts - parts which fossilise, such as teeth and armour.

      There is absolutely nothing here which contradicts the pattern predicted by UCA.

      Delete
    13. Scott: Do tell, Neal. Fame and fortune await. If not conjecture, then how?

      Neal: The question was to you. Which, of course, you can't answer.

      Scott: IOW, before you can criticize an explanation, you need to take it seriously for the purpose of criticism. However, based on your responses on subjects such as fossils, etc., it seems that you're either incapable or unwilling to do any of these things.

      Neal: Scott, your avoiding the answer.

      Of course, I can't answer? I'm avoiding *the* answer?

      Again, it sounds like you already know what *the* answer is, because you somehow know I'm avoiding it.

      However, I've yet to hear any sort of criticism that takes any of our best, current theories seriously, including those regarding fossils, the growth of knowledge, abiogenesis, etc. Rather, we get the same misrepresentations and straw men.

      Even if we lacked remotely any kind of explanation for the formation of the first primitive replicating cells, which isn't the case, biological Darwinism still explains more phenomena. Furthermore, scientific theories are not exhaustive in their scope of explanation. When we take the form of scientific theories seriously, for the purpose of criticism, it's unclear why you'd expect evolutionary theory to be exhaustive.

      Then again, if you think evolutionary theory conflicts with your exhaustive religious belief of God as the ultimate justifier, then it would come as no surprise that *you* would expect evolution to be the ultimate justifier as well. But that would be projecting your religious position on scientific theories.

      Again, why don't you start out by explaining the origin of this knowledge, then point out how biological Darwinism doesn't fit that explanation.

      Delete
    14. Thorton ,
      But IDiots like Tedford can't think past their next double cheeseburger


      Man does not live by bread alone.

      Delete
    15. tedford ignorantly slobbered:

      "...the number of phyla was at its maximum in the Cambrian fossil record."

      And:

      "So, we see about all the phyla that ever existed was very early in the fossil record."

      Oh really? How many phyla of organisms currently exist on Earth (as generally accepted by scientists/taxonomists)?

      And another question for you:

      If one, ten, or every phylum on Earth were to go extinct tomorrow, would that disprove the theory of evolution? If so, how?

      Delete
    16. Scott: Do you actually have any genuine criticism of this explanation?

      J: It's not an explanation any more than SA is. We can't show one is less ad-hoc than the other.

      Expressing a belief is not explaining anything. Explanation is deductive.

      Delete
    17. This, from Scott, is something that ID-creation pushers should REALLY TAKE SERIOUSLY (but I'm sure that they won't):

      "However, I've yet to hear any sort of criticism that takes any of our best, current theories seriously, including those regarding fossils, the growth of knowledge, abiogenesis, etc. Rather, we get the same misrepresentations and straw men."

      Delete
    18. tedford said:

      "Let's talk Origins. Train origins can't be observed unless you visit the train factory where they were intelligently designed and manufactured on purpose."

      Ah, the old 'Were you there?' game. Tell me neal, were you there when your imaginary god allegedly created the universe, the Earth, life, humans, or anything else?

      Where is your imaginary god's factory located, and have you visited and observed that factory?

      Delete
    19. Scott: Do you actually have any genuine criticism of this explanation?

      J: It's not an explanation any more than SA is. We can't show one is less ad-hoc than the other.

      Jeff, part of our current, best explanation for the relatively recent, exponential growth of human knowledge is that we make progress when we criticize explanatory theories. Nor is this something I haven't presented before in respect to the logical possibility of the universe we observe being created five seconds ago.

      The mere logical possibilities of CA and SA are not explanatory theories. As such, it would come as no surprise that they explain nothing and that we cannot make progress criticizing them.

      So, again...

      "I've yet to hear any sort of criticism that takes any of our best, current theories seriously, including those regarding fossils, the growth of knowledge, abiogenesis, etc."

      Why don't you start out by explaining the origin of the knowledge in the genomes of biological organisms, then point out how biological Darwinism doesn't fit that explanation.

      Please be specific.

      Delete
    20. "This, from Scott, is something that ID-creation pushers should REALLY TAKE SERIOUSLY (but I'm sure that they won't):"

      ROFL Squared LOL

      You and Scott are begging bread. To see how delusional you both are Scott includes abiogenesis

      abiogenesis? Take seriously? ID need not take you seriously at all. Including abiogensis in there as a "best, current theories"
      just shows how silly, desperate, delusional and intellectually dishonest you guys are.

      NO one has a viable model for abiogenesis. You are lying. Thats one of the reasons like mad ants you scurry from any mention of abiogenesis when evolution VS ID is debated and beg desperately that they ought to be separated when ID has no reason to take it off the table even if you do.

      BUt by all means repeat again how ID misrepresents and creates strawmen with abiogenesis as if the science is there to back you up or do the usual bit of lying and claim the onld standard line "you just don't know or understand enough to see it" like the wonderful parable - "the Emperor With the New/No Clothes"

      "Even if we lacked remotely any kind of explanation for the formation of the first primitive replicating cells, which isn't the case"

      IF? Imagination in a scientific context is not an explanation. You have TOTALLY failed to give a viable scientific explanation for life and it IS the case. Theres disagreeing and then there is just a total lack of intellectual dishonesty Scott. There is not a single model not filled with holes and appealing to "self replicating molecules" verbage does not save you.

      Delete
    21. "But IDiots like Tedford can't think past their next double cheeseburger."


      The above post is published from our resident 12 year old antagonist. To confirm this assessment one only has to look to his former posts, his tone, his limited vocabulary in insults and the sheer quantity of posts in almost all blog posts that demonstrate he has copious amounts of free time.
      On more moderated blogs he would be classified as a troll.

      Many atheists and oponents of ID have had and do have worthwhile things to say but this poster is so seldom among them that his posts are routinely ignored by the author of this blog and many of its participants.

      You may safely skip his posts as we often do in responding to him

      Delete
    22. LOL! The above post is from Elijah2012, our resident cowardly, ignorant YEC whiner. He can't deal with the scientific evidence that gets presented and those tough technical questions he can't answer. His 'solution' is to demand that those who make him look like a clueless idiot be banned.

      What he hasn't realized is that it's his own ignorance and cowardice that make him look like a clueless idiot. But of course it's easier to blame the messenger.

      Delete
    23. Hey Elijah2012, when you're done whining about how unfair the evos are, why don't you give us the ID explanation for the Ediacaran biota that existed on Earth 100MY before the Cambrian animals?

      Ecological Tiering and the Evolution of a Stem: The Oldest Stemmed Frond from the Ediacaran of Newfoundland, Canada
      Laflamme et al
      Journal of Paleontology, Volume 86, Issue 2 (March 2012)

      "Abstract: The ecological segregation of large, multicellular eukaryotes in the Ediacaran in response to competitive feeding results in the evolution of novel morphological adaptations such as sturdy stems to elevate above lower-tier feeding guilds. Culmofrons plumosa n. gen. n. sp. lived attached to the ocean floor and probably fed osmotrophically from dissolved organic nutrients in the water column. Competition for nutrients with specialized lower-tiered organisms resulted in the evolution of a specialized non-feeding structure, drastically expanding the functional morphospace available to Ediacaran rangeomorphs. The first appearance of a cylindrical macroscopic stem in C. plumosa in the Briscal Formation of the Mistaken Point Ecological Reserve marks a significant departure from the modular repetitive branching typical of the Rangeomorpha, and exemplifies the importance of nutrient acquisition in early ecosystem engineering."

      Tedford won't touch data like this. How about you Mr. Science Guy? Wouldn't want people to think you're just a 12 year old immature child out for a troll now would you?

      Delete
    24. Elijha2012: abiogenesis? Take seriously? ID need not take you seriously at all. Including abiogensis in there as a "best, current theories"

      Again, I'm asking you to take our best, current theories seriously *for the purpose of criticism*.

      We know abiogenesis is incomplete and contains errors. Correcting errors via criticism is part of our best, current explanation for the universal growth of knowledge, which you do not seem to be taking seriously either.

      But, by all means, go ahead. For the sake of argument only, take abiogenesis out of it.

      Again,

      Furthermore, scientific theories are not exhaustive in their scope of explanation. When we take the form of scientific theories seriously, for the purpose of criticism, it's unclear why you'd expect evolutionary theory to be exhaustive.

      IOW, when we take all of our best, current theories serious, for the purpose of criticism, it's unclear why you'd expect evolutionary theory to be exhaustive. Also, you could always make the same objection in regards to any theory of abiogenesis, etc.

      That idea X is not justified is a bad criticism as it applies to all ideas.

      So, again, it seems we have more objections based on misrepresentations and straw men of our best, current theories.

      No surprise here.

      Delete
    25. "Tedford won't touch data like this. How about you Mr. Science Guy? Wouldn't want people to think you're just a 12 year old immature child out for a troll now would you?"

      I would but I am still too busy laughing at your claim that cancer never is caused by inherited traits. ;)

      Delete
    26. "Again, I'm asking you to take our best, current theories seriously *for the purpose of criticism*."

      Where in all of science are models that have failed as miserably as abiogenesis been taken seriously? It has been looked at seriously and its failed to make a serious case. Like I said before you are begging bread.

      "We know abiogenesis is incomplete and contains errors. Correcting errors via criticism is part of our best, current explanation for the universal growth of knowledge, which you do not seem to be taking seriously either."

      An impressive display of Total unmitigated hypocrisy. We both know it goes waaaay beyond a few errors and being incomplete but essentially no matter how poorly it lines up and how drop down dead it is as a model you are appealing to science of the gaps to hold it up. Would you allow the same of ID? No but you will come up with some excuse as to why its different.

      I am not concerned with your mumbo jumbo knowledge argument that you tease in your mind to tickle your fancy rather than deal with the harsh reality that there is no good model of abiogenesis. Deal and admit to the facts first and we can philosophize later.

      "But, by all means, go ahead. For the sake of argument only, take abiogenesis out of it."

      Negative. those days are coming to an end. Abiogenesis stays on the table as does our calling it for what it is - weak. Theres no reason for ID or ID proponents to take abiogenesis out of the argument. We've allowed that junk for too long

      "IOW, when we take all of our best, current theories serious, for the purpose of criticism, it's unclear why you'd expect evolutionary theory to be exhaustive"

      again another veiled attempt at science of the gaps

      Cue the emperor with the new clothes fallacy -

      "So, again, it seems we have more objections based on misrepresentations and straw men of our best, current theories."

      Yes of course. Models of abiogenesis have no clothes but if you can claim that they do and then accuse other people of not being able to see them then all is well.

      Delete
    27. Eliarjah2012

      "Tedford won't touch data like this. How about you Mr. Science Guy? Wouldn't want people to think you're just a 12 year old immature child out for a troll now would you?"

      I would but I am still too busy laughing at your claim that cancer never is caused by inherited traits.


      LOL! Not only won't you touch the data, you have to puke up a lie as a diversion. You were the idiot who claimed cancer is inherited, while I corrected you in that the susceptibility for cancer is what can be inherited.

      But that's OK. We both know you're an ignorant liar just trying to CYA. The lurkers can see who keeps posting science literature and who keeps cowardly running away.

      Delete
    28. Scott: "Again, I'm asking you to take our best, current theories seriously *for the purpose of criticism*."

      Elijah2012: Where in all of science are models that have failed as miserably as abiogenesis been taken seriously?

      Is there something about "[taking] our best, current theories seriously *for the purpose of criticism*." that you do not understand?

      I'm asking because your responses seem to suggest this has gone completely over your head.

      If you have questions about what I mean, then by all means, ask for clarification. Otherwise, given your canned responses, it's unclear how any progress can be made.

      Delete
  7. You see the actual science that was done had nothing to do with evolution.

    Could you clarify here please? What do you mean by this? The very authors of the paper themselves state in the very first lines of the abstract how they are investigating how flightlessness may have evolved in certain seabirds. Do you think you know the topic of the paper better than the authors of the paper themselves?

    Instead what the science suggested is that good swimming and good flying skills likely do not easily fit into one package.

    Are you trying to insinuate that this paper suggests that penguins have NEVER been a flying species? Because if so, then you are flat out wrong.

    Obviously certain seabirds both fly and dive. Equally obviously, becoming better at diving may involve, as you say, a tradeoff in flying - maybe losing the ability to fly altogether. But nothing about this at all suggests that a species that is now very well adapted to dive therefore was never a flying species at any time back in its history. That is ridiculous.

    Again, I'm not entirely certain that this is what you are trying to imply. But if you aren't, then what exactly IS your point? Penguins evolved flightlessness as a tradeoff for diving - so what? So far, so banal.

    What the scientific analysis did not find was any explanation for how the penguins could have undergone such an evolutionary transition, let alone how penguins could have evolved in the first place.

    Natural selection acting on random mutation. D'uh. These are mechanisms which we know exist. It does not need to be stated in every paper.

    In fact, the scientific evidence does not indicate that penguins, and all the rest of biology for that matter, arose spontaneously. Yet evolutionists claim this is a fact.

    'Spontaneously'? Define spontaneously. Because if you mean something like 'suddenly' or 'by blind chance' then you are flat wrong. This is categorically not what 'evolutionists' claim.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gould wrote a book "The Panda's Thumb" ... there is actually a website by that name too promoting evoluton.

    Turns out a study from Nature analyzed the thumb and found that the panda paw bones, "form a double pincer-like apparatus" thus "enabling the panda to manipulate objects with great dexterity."

    Evolutionists, please read the word GREAT and DEXTERITY with enthusiasm!

    Looks like their website name will need change.

    It must be hard to be an evolutionist today. They dish out their just so stories only to be feed it back to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! Tedford the Slow is reduced to C&Ping Casey Luskin's stupidity from the DI's "News and Snooze". That explains Tedford's almost complete ignorance of everything concerning evolutionary biology.

      Here is the actual paper from Nature

      Role of the giant panda's 'pseudo-thumb'
      Endo et al
      Nature, 397, 309-310 (28 January 1999)

      Abstract: The way in which the giant panda, Ailuropoda melanoleuca, uses the radial sesamoid bone — its 'pseudo-thumb' — for grasping makes it one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems in mammalian evolution. The bone has been reported to function as an active manipulator, enabling the panda to grasp bamboo stems between the bone and the opposing palm,. We have used computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and related techniques to analyse a panda hand. The three-dimensional images we obtained indicate that the radial sesamoid bone cannot move independently of its articulated bones, as has been suggested but rather acts as part of a functional unit of manipulation. The radial sesamoid bone and the accessory carpal bone form a double pincer-like apparatus in the medial and lateral sides of the hand, respectively, enabling the panda to manipulate objects with great dexterity.

      The 'thumb' is still not a true thumb, and it still evolved from the radial sesamoid bone . Who knows what Tedford the idiot's point is?

      Delete
    2. Thorton,

      "Abstract: The way in which the giant panda, Ailuropoda melanoleuca, uses the radial sesamoid bone — its 'pseudo-thumb' — for grasping makes it one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems in mammalian evolution."

      Does nothing about that sentence strike you as assumptive?

      Well buddy, you're into game seven. One game to decide everything. Tomorrow you will be either looking forward to Chicago or Detroit, or be like me, waiting for next year and waiting to see who the Sharks will get in the draft. In my opinion if Colorado passes on MacKinnon and take Seth Jones first, the whole front office should be fired.

      I don't know if you had much coverage of the Memorial Cup down there, but MacKinnon simply owned the tournament. Seth Jones was an 'also ran' at best. If it was up to me I would take several guys before Jones.

      Take care. I'll be watching your Sharks later.

      Delete
    3. Nic

      Does nothing about that sentence strike you as assumptive?


      Hey Nic!

      No, nothing in that sentence is assumptive. Mammalian evolution is a well documented scientific fact.

      We've got two great game 7s on tap. I'll be firing up the popcorn machine. Was hoping the Wings would finish the job but they looked to be out of gas, hard to pick them now. Babcock is an amazing coach to get the creaky old Red machine this far.

      Sadly, we get about zero coverage down here of any hockey except the local NHL squad. Haven't seen anything on the Memorial Cup but now you've piqued my curiosity - I'll check YouTube for films of MacKinnon and Jones.

      Take care.

      Delete
  9. Scott: [Cornelius, ] Do you actually have any genuine criticism of this explanation?

    Scott: Do tell, Neal. Fame and fortune await. If not conjecture, then how?

    What do I mean by this?

    Why don't either of you start out by explaining the growth of knowledge, found in the genome, then point out how biological darwinism doesn't fit that explanation. Please be specific.

    Again, some designer that "just was", compete with the knowledge of how to transform air, water, etc. into the specific biological adaptations we observe, already present, does not serve an explanatory purpose. This is because one could more efficiently state that biological organisms, "just appeared" compete with the knowledge of how to transform air, water, etc. into these biological adaptations, already present in their genome.

    So adding a designer to the mix merely pushes the problem into an incomprehensible realm.

    IOW, doing so adds an unnecessary entity.

    Of course, if holds the epistemological view that knowledge in specific spheres only comes from supernatural authoritative sources, it would come as no surprise that they would consider that entity necessary as such a source. However, that is a narrow view that either ignores or denies progress we've made in the field of epistemology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We do know enough about how this world works to know that life does not self assemble. So, you have a choice, we can either accept the obvious and indeed push back the explanation of origin to a designer, or believe superstitions that unguided natural processes can do what we know it can't.

      Again, spare us the notion that the science of discovering Operation stops if one believes in God.

      Delete
    2. Neal -

      We do know enough about how this world works to know that life does not self assemble.

      Yes it does. You did it yourself in nine months while you were in your mother's womb.

      Delete
    3. Ritchie, the context here is specifically in regards to origin of life or abiogenesis. You're referring to life from life... which is certainly a sound scientific principle that dispells the notion of spontaneous generation.



      Delete
    4. Tedford the Slow

      You're referring to life from life... which is certainly a sound scientific principle that dispells the notion of spontaneous generation.


      There is no such scientific principle. The "law of biogenesis" (life can only come from life) is not a scientific law. It was merely an observation made by Pasteur about the narrow claim that mice and maggots can appear fully formed in the decaying flesh of dead animals. His observation had nothing to do with the appearance of the first organic self-replicators.

      Tedford the idiot gets it wrong again.

      Delete
    5. Neal - The point is that life self assembles all the time. This is exactly the way it functions - something you said we knew to be impossible.

      Delete
    6. Neal,
      Again, spare us the notion that the science of discovering Operation stops if one believes in God.


      It isn't if one believes in God that stops discovery,it is how you believe in God that stops it.

      Delete
    7. Neal,

      Let's take ID seriously, along with all of our other best, current theories, for the purpose of criticism.

      If organisms appeared arranged in a specific way, part of that specific arrangement would include the knowledge of how to transform air, water, etc. into these same specific biological arrangements. This knowledge, which is found in the organism's genome, would have been applied to transform air, water, etc. into a copy of the organism when it first replicated. Right?

      Furthermore, subsequent copies of organisms use specific arrangements, as knowledge found in the genome, to transformation air, water, etc. into additional copies, which we observe today. Correct?

      This is the knowledge I'm referring to. Again, what is the origin of this knowledge? How do you explain it?

      Delete
    8. neal, what does the evolution of flightlessness in penguins have to do with the origin of life?

      Delete
    9. Scott, I explain origin of life and species as being created. This is not to say that adapative variation hasn't occured since, but from all indications the variations is limited. Why to I say this?

      Because of what we observe of variation today and the fossil record showing sudden appearance of species, limted variation and stasis.

      You never answered how knowledge of Origin of life occured without heritability or conjecture of chemicals

      Delete
    10. "Again, some designer that "just was", compete with the knowledge of how to transform air, water, etc. into the specific biological adaptations we observe, already present, does not serve an explanatory purpose"

      Scott if you thought for five minutes straight you would know that "just was" is inevitable for both sides. The fact that you refuse to makes no point.

      "This is because one could more efficiently state that biological organisms, "just appeared" compete with the knowledge of how to transform air, water, etc. into these biological adaptations, already present in their genome"

      Yes and then one would then have to admit that "knowledge" is a property of what "just was". Learn to think independently.

      "So adding a designer to the mix merely pushes the problem into an incomprehensible realm"

      what you can't figure out yet is that the incomprehensible realm" is an inevitability unless you appeal to infinite regress and even then. At some point you have to end up with a "just was" even if its an infinite regress system and it will not be comprehensible. Its not adding anything its what ultimate reality is. Again Think.

      no matter how you blabber on the "Entity" is unavoidable and your "progress in the field of epistemology" has not, will not and cannot advance you beyond that FACT.

      Your retort will be that the entity need not be a designer but you have no evidence for that premise. You are essentially arguing that the entity which creates, forms is responsible for, evolves (whatever you verb you choose) intelligent life is devoid of the very intelligence it spawned eve though the very fabric of the universe follows a logical mathematical foundation.

      So no your claim though popular is an abject failure in logic. NO unnecessary entity is being added. The entity is necessary and the only questions is was the ultimate reality entity devoid of logic and rationality which it creates over an over and over gain as one of the functions of its properties or is it merely process driven even though many of its key properties are necessarily independent of ANY process..

      once it all sinks in - and it may never - The atheistic point of view is so far behind the eight ball its quite funny that they think they are ahead. They just stop thinking at the critical points.

      Delete
    11. "neal, what does the evolution of flightlessness in penguins have to do with the origin of life?"

      Penguins are a form of life. See TWT you can learn something new every day

      Delete
    12. "You never answered how knowledge of Origin of life occured without heritability or conjecture of chemicals"

      and he never will

      Delete
    13. Neal: Scott, I explain origin of life and species as being created.

      Except, that's not the question I'm asking. Rather, I'm asking you to explain the origin of the knowledge found in the genome.

      If you do not understand the question, then ask for clarification. I'm making an effort here, which you do not seem to be taking seriously.

      Delete
    14. Neal: You never answered how knowledge of Origin of life occured without heritability or conjecture of chemicals

      Neal, consider all of the conceivable transformations of matter. In this group, there are transformation that are prohibited by the laws of physics, such as traveling faster than the speed of light, and those that are possible. Of the latter group there are two types: transformation that occur spontaneously, such as the formation of stars from gravity, hydrogen and other stellar materials and transformations that only occur when the requisite knowledge is present, such as the transformation of air, water. etc., into plants.

      Biological Darwinism concerns itself with the latter kind of transformation.

      Specifically, biological adaptations represent transformations of matter. These adaptations occur only when the requisite knowledge of how to perform those transformations are present. The knowledge of how to perform those transformations exists in the genome.

      Now, what you're asking about falls under the theory of abiogenesis. Our current, best theory of abiogenesis is that chemical transformations which occurred in specific early environments resulted in the formation of proto-replicators, which eventually led to the first replicators. To quote the abstract of a paper on the subject…

      Though no systems behaved as a replicator, some possessed collections of properties from which a replicating system might theoretically be constructed without requiring the introduction of additional classes of properties.

      IOW, abiogenesis is the theory that replication in the most primitive replicators was an emergent property of combining proto-replicating systems in specific environments.

      These proto-replicating systems did not exhibit replication behavior on their own, but when combined in specific environments, replication behavior emerged from their combined properties, despite the absence of complex replication systems.

      Again, to quote a comment from another thread...

      We don't know exactly when it appeared or even it it initially used DNA or RNA as cells do today, but we have several good theories that are taking shape. For example, L-form bacteria reproduce using a much simpler means, as described here.

      From the article…

      "The main surprise for me was how simple the mechanism was. It doesn't require any sophisticated protein-based machinery," says senior study author Jeff Errington of Newcastle University. "This makes it plausible as an explanation for how very primitive cells could have proliferated in the very early days of evolution."

      Delete
    15. Elijah2012, you're right but good luck getting Scott to talk about origins. He avoids it because he's argument breaks down completely.

      Delete
    16. Vel and others,

      A couple points.

      1. Believing in a creator God does not limit scientific research as to the Operation of living systems, but has a positive affect. Understanding how living systems operate yields great benefits in the medical field, biomimicry, quality of living, food, environmental quality, etc. There is certainly nothing inherent in believing in a creator that would negatively affect such research. Many who have done ground breaking research had strong faith in a creator God.

      2. If man is ever able to create a single living cell from scratch, I predict that it will be by intelligent design well beyond our current knowledge and capabilities. It will involve an intensely guided and precisely performed procedure that would exceed the technology of manufacturing a microchip. The benefit of origin of life studies has been to show us that unguided chemical evolution is not a reasonable solution.

      It seems that evolutionists are dedicated to exaggerating their evidence. I know that you guys won't admit it publicly but I have to believe that all the holes in your theory give you pause some of the time. It certainly would be refreshing if you guys weren't so paranoid about defending every little absurdity and admitted where you were completely clueless.

      Delete
    17. Scott, "we have several good theories that are taking shape"...The main surprise for me was how simple the mechanism was. It doesn't require any sophisticated protein-based machinery,"


      Scott, I appreciate your effort in responding to OoL questions. How can you have SEVERAL good theories taking shape? If you are still at the stage where lots of options look good you are probably hardly touching the problem. My hogwash meter hit the peg when I read that.

      Second, the idea of "simple" being spoken of by an evolutionists is like the kid who as never picked up a violin saying casually that playing like Itzhak Perlman is simple. I'll read the link and get back to you

      Delete
    18. Tedford, you ever going to give us your ID explanation for the 2 billion years' of fossils that exist before the Cambrian radiation? Or are you going to just keep being the trained monkey, blindly regurgitating nonsense you C&P from the DI liars without a trace of understanding?

      Delete
    19. Neal: Elijah2012, you're right but good luck getting Scott to talk about origins. He avoids it because he's argument breaks down completely.

      The argument presented suggests that the origin of this knowledge was genuinely created over time. Specially, it didn't exist previously unless life evolved in a similar way on some other planet beforehand.

      IOW, when you use the term "origin" you're referring to some ultimate justification. On the other hand, when I use the term "origin", I'm referring to knowledge actually being created.

      You think my theory "breaks down" and that I avoid "origins" because you think knowledge can only come from an authoritative supernatural source and I have not provided what you consider a suitable substitute for that source.

      However, as I've pointed out, this is a narrow argument that doesn't take our current, best explanation for the growth of human knowledge seriously. Nor does justificationism survive rational criticism.

      Delete
    20. Neal: How can you have SEVERAL good theories taking shape? If you are still at the stage where lots of options look good you are probably hardly touching the problem. My hogwash meter hit the peg when I read that.

      Again our current, best explanation for the growth of human knowledge is that we start out with conjecture, then criticize our ideas looking for errors.

      That means we will start out with incomplete ideas that contain errors, which eventually become less wrong. During this process we may have several good explanations that we criticize. Nor will any one of them ever be exhaustively compete.

      Furthermore, Theories are not "out there" for us to observe. We have to start with conjectured theories because, without them, we wouldn't know where to start looking for observations to criticize them.

      So, we can have several good theories taking shape because good explanatory theories provide the opportunity to make progress, This is in contrast to a theory being exhaustively true, or have been supposedly proven to be more probable, etc., which does not take our best, current theory for the growth of human knowledge serious.

      Neal: 2. If man is ever able to create a single living cell from scratch, I predict that it will be by intelligent design well beyond our current knowledge and capabilities.

      Living cells represent transformations of matter that occur when the requisite knowledge is present. So, that knowledge you're referring to already exists in one form. I'm asking you to explain its origin.

      It's really that simple. Apparently, you're having difficulty grasping the question.

      Delete
    21. You think my theory "breaks down" and that I avoid "origins" because you think knowledge can only come from an authoritative supernatural source"

      Pure crap. Thats just trying to muddy the waters. We think it breaks down because every model to date has holes the size of texas when it come to abiogenesis. Make an intellectually honest evaluation before creating strawmen.

      Delete
    22. Neal,
      1. Believing in a creator God does not limit scientific research as to the Operation of living systems, ......Many who have done ground breaking research had strong faith in a creator God.


      I agreed with you already. Sort of. Believing in your creator does limit research in some areas of biology?

      2. If man is ever able to create a single living cell from scratch, I predict that it will be by intelligent design well beyond our current knowledge and capabilities

      Obviously true

      It will involve an intensely guided and precisely performed procedure that would exceed the technology of manufacturing a microchip

      Since we can do one but not the other,yes making life is far more complicated than making a chip.

      The benefit of origin of life studies has been to show us that unguided chemical evolution is not a reasonable solution.

      What is more reasonable?

      It seems that evolutionists are dedicated to exaggerating their evidence

      Everyone is entitled to their opinion, what exactly is the evidence for your proposed answer?

      I know that you guys won't admit it publicly but I have to believe that all the holes in your theory give you pause some of the time.

      I doubt it, I think scientists view unknowns as challenges.Do you ever pause to consider that you may be mistaken?


      It certainly would be refreshing if you guys weren't so paranoid about defending every little absurdity and admitted where you were completely clueless.

      I expect the feeling is mutual,Neal.

      Delete
    23. Scott: You think my theory "breaks down" and that I avoid "origins" because you think knowledge can only come from an authoritative supernatural source"

      Elijah2012: Pure crap. Thats just trying to muddy the waters.

      Ok, then how do you explain it?

      Again, I'm referring to knowledge in specific spheres, such as morality, building copies of biological organisms, etc.

      Elijah2012: We think it breaks down because every model to date has holes the size of texas when it come to abiogenesis.

      You do realize that you're not disagreeing with me, right?

      Specifically, an explanatory model doesn't need to be justified by abiogenesis if the origin of that knowledge is a process of genuine creation after abiogenesis occurs. That's what biological Darwinism suggests.

      Objections that evolution doesn't explain anything because abiogenesis "breaks down" is a form of justificationism.

      As to wither you think that source is supernatural, do you think that human knowledge in the moral sphere comes from a supernatural authoritative source?

      What about the origin of instructions of how to build copies of organisms, found in their genomes? If organisms were not designed, do those instructions represent knowledge? If not, why?

      Again, I'm suggesting you think that knowledge in specific spheres only comes from authoritative supernatural sources. As such, a lack of a supernatural source would mean there could be no knowledge in those spheres.

      Delete
    24. "It isn't if one believes in God that stops discovery,it is how you believe in God that stops it."

      Babbling nonsense. How and when did you acquire the knowledge of HOW people who believe in God believe in God. You can only speak to what they believe. You have merely fooled yourself by your dishonest practice of asking questions of them and then answering for them. You can't speak to how I or any theist on this board believes in God without botching it badly. NO? then take a stab at this one.

      Delete
    25. "Ok, then how do you explain it?"

      already did. its the failure of every abiogenesis model not the appeal to any authority. Do you want me to repeat it a third time?

      "Specifically, an explanatory model doesn't need to be justified by abiogenesis if the origin of that knowledge is a process of genuine creation after abiogenesis occurs. That's what biological Darwinism suggests."

      You can kid yourself if you wish but no one need buy what you are selling. I am not limiting myself to darwinism because ID does not limit itself to darwinism. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Thats like saying a boxer that can box well with more than one hand should be restricted from using them against a boxer who can only box well with one. Thats yur problem not mine

      "Objections that evolution doesn't explain anything because abiogenesis "breaks down" is a form of justificationism."

      You really are quite daft although I know you convinced yourself you are being brilliant. however creating strawmen has never been a sign of brilliance. Where exactly did I make the claim that evolution doesn't explain anything?

      Thats an easy question. Hopefully you will not dance around that as well. So no the only forming is in your mind.

      "As to wither you think that source is supernatural, do you think that human knowledge in the moral sphere comes from a supernatural authoritative source?"

      Jibber jabber/sophistry masquerading as real insight. Since I have engaged you on abiogenesis then the moral sphere is hardly relevant unless you are claiming morality had something to do with the origin of life. If you do - welcome to theism ;)

      "You do realize that you're not disagreeing with me, right?"

      You do realize that when one person says they cannot take something seriously and the other one says they should that that is a disagreement? Please tell me you are capable of less juvenile insight. I think you are but are just engaging in rehtorical devices.



      Delete
    26. Scott: You think my theory "breaks down" and that I avoid "origins" because you think knowledge can only come from an authoritative supernatural source"

      Elijah2012: Pure crap. Thats just trying to muddy the waters.

      Scott: "Ok, then how do you explain it?

      Again, I'm referring to knowledge in specific spheres, such as morality, building copies of biological organisms, etc. "

      Elijah2012: already did. its the failure of every abiogenesis model not the appeal to any authority. Do you want me to repeat it a third time?

      Again, by "it", I mean explain the knowledge of how to build copies of biological organisms. Apparently, I need to keep repeating it because you keep answering some other question which I haven't asked.

      If the knowledge wasn't "put there" by an authoritative source, then what is your alternative explanation?

      Specifically, why don't you explain the origin of this knowledge, then point out how biological Darwinism doesn't fit that explanation. Please be specific.

      Then we'll get to the rest of your comment.

      Delete
    27. Scott: Specifically, why don't you explain the origin of this knowledge, then point out how biological Darwinism doesn't fit that explanation. Please be specific.

      Can someone explain why getting an ID proponent to answer this question like putting teeth?

      Isn't there at least one ID proponent who thinks their theory can withstand the criticism of this one question?

      Delete
    28. "Again, by "it", I mean explain the knowledge of how to build copies of biological organisms. Apparently, I need to keep repeating it because you keep answering some other question which I haven't asked."

      And do I need to keep repeating the obvious? I objected to abiogenesis being brought in to a claim that there is any need to take seriously now that it has failed over and over again to propose a workable model

      "Can someone explain why getting an ID proponent to answer this question like putting teeth? Isn't there at least one ID proponent who thinks their theory can withstand the criticism of this one question?"

      You mean like you addressing the questions of abiogenesis? Stop playing games. queston was asked of you and its you refusing to answer and running away. My question would be

      Isn't there one intellectually honest darwinist on this board that can admit that sans any good model of abiogenesis IDist have at least a point?

      until you can answer such a easy question you don't get to make any lectures on what Idist won't or can't answer.

      Delete
    29. Elijah2012, "Thats just trying to muddy the waters. We think it breaks down because every model to date has holes the size of texas when it come to abiogenesis. Make an intellectually honest evaluation before creating strawmen."

      Well said.

      Delete
    30. "If the knowledge wasn't "put there" by an authoritative source, then what is your alternative explanation?"

      would you desist from nonsense? You are asking a question based on YOUR premise. YOU should answer that not us. I've already made it clear that my response before was a direct answer to ABIOGENESIS

      "Specifically, why don't you explain the origin of this knowledge, then point out how biological Darwinism doesn't fit that explanation."

      Well you know what? as long as you are trying to dance around the issue of abiogenesis why don't I just point out how you danced yourself into a corner. Biological darwinism as your side is always fond of telling us has nothing to do with abiogenesis so just using that tidbit we can say that Darwinism does not fit into an explanation because it has none to give. IT brings nothing to the table except a priori assumption against design.

      Delete
    31. Scott, I do push back the of origin of life (and "knowledge" as you like to call it) to the Creator.

      You can sit back and fool yourself that several good theories are shaping up just around the corner. I recall the head of abiogenesis research at Harvard boasting many years ago at the opening of their very expensive research center that a "simple" explanation was just over the hill. Well, guess what. It was good rhetoric for fund raising, but the fleeced donors, nor anyone has seen the simple explanation.

      Seems like you are taking the hype seriously when it was simply fund raising or popularity generating rhetoric.

      You have a huge problem in that the greatest leap of "knowledge" (as you like to call it) occured before heritability, natural selection and mutation.

      We have conjectured and the result is that evolution failed as a theory. It persists merely due to metaphysical underpinings with a facade of pseudo-science.

      To say that something was designed is an explanation! Exaggerating that you have good theories taking shape when you are in fact far, far from a truly good theory is dishonest.

      Your asking for a design model. Okay, but we can't provide that because the technology is too advanced for us to give you a step by step procedure on its production. We do know enough, however, to know that if humans could duplicate the production of a living cell, it would be a very intellectually driven process of design. Would you agree? Or, are you expecting the warm little pond to do a number on its own? Are you with us in the 21st century that far?

      Delete
    32. I notice both you blustering Creationist idiots won't deal the Ediacaran fossil data to save your lying hides.

      Go ahead and lecture others about intellectual honesty when you two clowns crap yourselves and run from every last bit of scientific data presented.

      Delete
    33. Evolutionists usually still see the origin of life like making a cake. Mix together the right ingredients, heat or whatever other simple process is involved and that's the solution.

      It's a silly notion that should have been dispelled long ago.

      When will they see it for what it is... nanotechnology at its finest. It's more like making an engine (although that doesn't do it enough justice), with many parts working together. Nanomachines that are interconnected via an immense communications network. Each cell more like a factory of nanomachines interdependent with logic and feedback signaling. That these cells are capable of reproduction is all the more remarkable.

      Imagine what it would take to build a truly "lights out" factory that can duplicate itself and even change into different kinds of factories (stem cells). It is staggering technology. But, all evolutionists see is cake.. bate, bate bate.

      Delete
    34. Tedford the Slow still pushing his stupid misconception that the first cells just spontaneously assembled instead of themselves evolving from simpler prebiotic precursors.

      But, all evolutionists see is cake.. bate, bate bate.

      Tedford is quite experienced as a mental master bater.

      Delete
    35. Scott: "Again, by "it", I mean explain the knowledge of how to build copies of biological organisms. Apparently, I need to keep repeating it because you keep answering some other question which I haven't asked."

      Elijah2012: And do I need to keep repeating the obvious? I objected to abiogenesis being brought in to a claim that there is any need to take seriously now that it has failed over and over again to propose a workable model

      Huh? Your explanation for this knowledge is a theory you claim to have failed over and over again?

      Since you're objecting to abiogenesis, it's unclear how it could be your explanation for the knowledge in question. So, we're still no closer than we started off. Again, How do *you* explain it, as apposed to everyone else I've already asked?

      Here's a hint: No where did I suggest that abiogenesis is the origin of this knowledge. So, objecting to it isn't even opposing the explanation I presented, let alone answering the question I asked.

      As for addressing abiogenesis, I asked you to take it seriously *for the purpose of criticism*, along with all of the rest of our current, best theories. Given that I've cleared this, as far as I can tell, you object to using the words "serious" and "abiogenesis" in the same sentence.

      Elijah2012: until you can answer such a easy question you don't get to make any lectures on what Idist won't or can't answer.

      Except, I've been asking this question of ID proponents long before this post. None have yet to answer it. It's not a lecture, I'm simply pointing this out. Apparently, you're not the exception.

      Furthermore, I asked this question before responding to your comment in this same thread. So, it's unclear how your confusion about taking abiogenesis seriously *for the purpose of criticism* has to do with being unable to ask a question I've already asked, or note that you haven't answered it either.

      Delete
    36. Vel, I used to be an evolutionist but it failed as a theory and I accepted that.

      Delete
    37. What you failed at Tedford is being an honest thinking human being. But do keep running from the scientific evidence (i.e. Ediacaran fossils) like it was the plague. Seems to be the only exercise you get.

      Delete
    38. "Huh? Your explanation for this knowledge is a theory you claim to have failed over and over again"

      Scot you are clueless. I have told you multiple times I have no interest in your mumbo jumbo knowledge junk. Both I and Neil have made it clear what we object to is the origin of life being skirted and all my responses to you have been with that in focus. Its possible that you think you control the conversation and that is confusing you but no on an ID blog you might be able to comment but you do not control anything.

      Now if you were even a little honest and stopped beating around the bush to delay your having to answer the questions of abiogenesis it would be one thing but instead you propose that we should answer some question based on YOUR premise not our own which is total nonsense. As a theist I obviously believe that all knowledge ultimately come from the Entity I identify as God. So asking me silly stuff like

      "If the knowledge wasn't "put there" by an authoritative source, then what is your alternative explanation?"

      is just bogus nonsense. Why don't you answer the questions that relate to your premise? and ask us the question that relates to yours?

      Simple because you are playing a game of I don;t have to answer you and I get to determine what you have to answer even if its based on my premise.

      Delete
    39. Eliarjah2012

      I have told you multiple times I have no interest in your mumbo jumbo knowledge junk.


      LOL! None of that fancy "scientific knowledge" and "book lernin" for this pig-ignorant Creationist! No siree Bob!

      Both I and Neil have made it clear what we object to is the origin of life being skirted

      LOL! It's being "skirted' so much that science spends hundreds of millions of dollars and published hundreds of papers on it every year.

      Harvard Origins of Life Initiative

      Its possible that you think you control the conversation and that is confusing you but no on an ID blog you might be able to comment but you do not control anything.

      Says the immature assclown who tries to 'poison the well' and demand posts with contradictory evidence be banned to protect his idiocy.

      Willfully ignorant Godbotherers. Opposing science and reason every chance they get.

      Delete
    40. Scott: You think my theory "breaks down" and that I avoid "origins" because you think knowledge can only come from an authoritative supernatural source"

      Elijah2012: Pure crap. Thats just trying to muddy the waters.

      Again, if I have *you* wrong, then *you* should have no problem enlightening us with what *you* think the right answer is.

      How do *you* explain this knowledge?

      Otherwise, it would seem that you're yet another ID proponent who has yet to answer the question.

      Again...

      If organisms appeared arranged in a specific way, part of that specific arrangement would include the knowledge of how to transform air, water, etc. into these same specific biological arrangements. This knowledge, which is found in the organism's genome, would have been applied to transform air, water, etc. into a copy of the organism when it first replicated. Right?

      IOW, If an organism was designed by ID's intelligent designer, what is the origin of the knowledge that designer would have put in the organism while intentionally arranging it?

      Or, do I have it wrong somewhere?

      Again, it's unclear why getting an answer to this question from an ID proponent is this like pulling teeth.

      Delete
    41. Scott

      Again, it's unclear why getting an answer to this question from an ID proponent is this like pulling teeth.


      Actually it's crystal clear. One of the main argument for ID is "evolution can't create new information". But the Designer would need to have lots of information about what proteins worked and which didn't to build life from scratch.

      The IDiots desperately want to solve the problem by claiming "GAWD JUST KNEW IT" but that undercuts their claim that ID isn't about religion.

      So they're stuck and they know it.

      Delete
    42. "IOW, If an organism was designed by ID's intelligent designer, what is the origin of the knowledge that designer would have put in the organism while intentionally arranging it?

      Or, do I have it wrong somewhere?"

      You have it wrong every where or do you not get the theist position at all? The source of the knowledge is God in a Theist position. I don't know what it is in a nontheist ID position but thats so simple you are blowing no end of smoke claiming Theists ID run away from answering it.

      Move on to your next point. its been answered.

      "If organisms appeared arranged in a specific way, part of that specific arrangement would include the knowledge of how to transform air, water, etc. into these same specific biological arrangements."

      NO it would not. It would only require the ability to express energy into a given form wished. there is no neccessity for a middle step between the air, water and whatever other elements. You are confusing and conflating natural processes into a design scenario and your hybrid is not required for ID particularly
      not theistic ID.

      [quote]This knowledge, which is found in the organism's genome, would have been applied to transform air, water, etc. into a copy of the organism when it first replicated. Right? [/quote]

      NO they need not be synonymous. In fact they most certainly would not be. IF we created an automobile that replicated itself it is unlikely it would use the same processes that it took to produce it in the manufacturing plant.

      Why I am answering this I have no idea because I doubt seriously you will ever answer the questions posed to you.

      Delete
    43. Elijah2012: Scot you are clueless. I have told you multiple times I have no interest in your mumbo jumbo knowledge junk.

      I'm clueless? I'm just taking your own theory seriously, for the purpose of criticism. Specifically, the knowledge i'm referring to is the arrangement that your supposed designer arranged.

      Why are you suddenly not interested in it?

      Delete
    44. Scott: "IOW, If an organism was designed by ID's intelligent designer, what is the origin of the knowledge that designer would have put in the organism while intentionally arranging it?

      Elijah2012: The source of the knowledge is God in a Theist position.

      Scott: "If organisms appeared arranged in a specific way, part of that specific arrangement would include the knowledge of how to transform air, water, etc. into these same specific biological arrangements."

      Elijah2012: NO it would not. It would only require the ability to express energy into a given form wished.

      These are the same points, merely rephrased for clarity. it's unclear why you would except one but not the other.

      Specifically, If part of the arrangement of these organisms didn't include the knowledge of how to transform air, water, etc. into these same specific biological arrangements, then how did organisms first reproduce? Where did the instructions come from?

      Delete
    45. Scott: This knowledge, which is found in the organism's genome, would have been applied to transform air, water, etc. into a copy of the organism when it first replicated. Right?

      Elijah2012: NO they need not be synonymous. In fact they most certainly would not be. IF we created an automobile that replicated itself it is unlikely it would use the same processes that it took to produce it in the manufacturing plant.

      Again, consider all of the conceivable transformations of matter. In this group, there are transformation that are prohibited by the laws of physics, such as traveling faster than the speed of light, and those that are possible because they are not prohibited by the laws of physics.

      Of the latter group there are two types: transformation that occur spontaneously, such as the formation of stars from gravity, hydrogen and other stellar materials and transformations that only occur when the requisite knowledge is present, such as the transformation of air, water. etc., into plants.

      Automobiles are of the latter type, in that they only occur when the require knowledge of how to transform raw materials, into the arrangements of iron, aluminum, glass, silicone, rubber, etc. which make up a working automobile.

      When transforming all of this matter into an self-replicating automobile, this transformation would have to include a form of this same knowledge of how transform matter into copies of itself. Otherwise, *we* would have made copies of the automobile, rather than it having replicated itself.

      Now, even of you assume that some designer didn't need knowledge to transform matter into an automobile, it would still need to have the knowledge of what transformations the *automobile* would need to perform to self-replicate. Specifically, It would need the knowledge of which transformations would end up in a copy of the automobile and which would not.

      Furthermore, not only would *we* need the knowledge of how to transform raw materials an automobile in the first place, we would need to know how to encode the knowledge of how to transform raw materials into some storage medium and in a form that the automobile itself could execute that would end up as copies of that same car. So, we'd *additional* knowledge beyond our existing knowledge of how to make copies of automobiles.

      Despite wanting to do so, why don't we have self-replicating automobiles? It's really quite simple.

      We simply do not yet possess this additional knowledge. And when we do have self-replicating automobiles, they will replicate because we will have created this knowledge, which will be included as part of the transformations we apply when we make them.

      In the same sense, even if you assume some designer didn't need knowledge of how to transform matter into an organism, it would still require the knowledge of what of what transformations the *organism* would need to perform to self-replicate. Specifically, It would need the knowledge of which transformations would end up in a copy of the organism and which would not. And it would need to arrange the organism's structure to include it.

      This is the knowledge I'm referring to.

      What is the origin of that knowledge?

      Delete
    46. "Why are you suddenly not interested in it?"

      I just answered it and I am not suddenly interested in it? How many games of rhetoric do you want to play at once?

      "These are the same points, merely rephrased for clarity. it's unclear why you would except one but not the other."

      well at least you answered one question. Yes you are clueless if you think they are merely rephrased and not entirely different.

      "Specifically, If part of the arrangement of these organisms didn't include the knowledge of how to transform air, water, etc. into these same specific biological arrangements, then how did organisms first reproduce? Where did the instructions come from?"

      Asked and answered. Not my fault if you don't understand your own question or don't understand the answer. The knowledge is in the organism to reproduce from the designer but it by no means has to be the same mechanism or knowledge that created the organism to begin with and that initial creation need have nothing to do with converting air and water or whatever else you claim.. Seems like I have to repeat everything two or three times.

      "In the same sense, even if you assume some designer didn't need knowledge of how to transform matter into an organism, it would still require the knowledge of what of what transformations the *organism* would need to perform to self-replicate. Specifically, It would need the knowledge of which transformations would end up in a copy of the organism and which would not. And it would need to arrange the organism's structure to include it."

      Well as best as I can tell here is your confusion. You are hopelessly conflating your own materialism into the theistic proposition which is fine for you to do if you wish to play around in your own mind but in really does nothing to rebut or illuminate actual theist positions and your pretense at doing that is obvious.

      Theists do not hold that the designer or God must acquire knowledge. They hold that he possesses it as his own nature. That knowledge is what he makes of it. Heard of the word omniscience? Staggering that you seem clueless on that point as its one of the standard natures stated for God by theists.

      But let me humor you and play the game I think you may be playing. Can a materialists escape the same? they cannot. Where does the mathematical structure of the universe come from? Where does that "knowledge come from". IF the universe is any representation of reality (and again I would have no interest in your mumbo jumbo philosophies) then this logical structure is built into that reality. It exists because it is how reality is. Though it is not acquired from anywhere (the lessons of infinite regress confirming) it does not change the fact that it is mathematically logical. and it doesn't matter that we are the ones that appropriated or built mathematics from the universes lessons (and we did). Its still logical. Even at the quantum level it is mathematically deduced. Intuitive and logical being two different things entirely.

      SO go ahead ask the question again

      "What is the origin of that knowledge?"

      The designer possesses and originates knowledge as who and what he is even as the universe is logically structured for who and what it is in a materialistic view point. The theistic viewpoint is just logical enough not to claim that a logical structure exists without logical order.

      Asked two times and answered two times. I can only conclude if you ask again as I already suspect that you are you will only pretending that the question has not been answered because you are stalling so as not to answer our question.

      Delete
    47. "Again, consider all of the conceivable transformations of matter. In this group, there are transformation that are prohibited by the laws of physics, such as traveling faster than the speed of light, and those that are possible because they are not prohibited by the laws of physics.'

      Yes this confirms it. You most definitely are conflating your materialism into a theistic framework because in theism the laws themselves are determined by God not anything he is subject to or must learn about.

      I sense someone stalling and posturing themselves to say aha! So why not just get to it so I can show there is no aha.

      Delete
    48. Scott: Specifically, [some designer] would need the knowledge of which transformations would end up in a copy of the organism and which would not. And it would need to arrange the organism's structure to include it"

      Elijah2012: Well as best as I can tell here is your confusion.

      I'm not confused. You're making my point for me.

      Elijah2012: Theists do not hold that the designer or God must acquire knowledge. They hold that he possesses it as his own nature. That knowledge is what he makes of it. […] Staggering that you seem clueless on that point as its one of the standard natures stated for God by theists.

      If I was clueless to your response, then why would I have already pointed out on my first comment on this post

      Scott: "… some designer that "just was", compete with the knowledge of how to adapt raw materials into the specific biological adaptations we observe, already present, doesn't serve an explanatory purpose. This is because one could more efficiently state that biological organisms, "just appeared" compete with the knowledge of how to adapt raw materials, already present in their genome."

      IOW, adding a designer doesn't actually explain anything. Rather, it merely pushes the problem into an incomprehensible realm. And, as to the criticism of CH's post, in doing so, it adds an unnecessary entity.

      Elijah2012: But let me humor you and play the game I think you may be playing. Can a materialists escape the same? they cannot. Where does the mathematical structure of the universe come from? Where does that "knowledge come from".

      I've already presented an explanation for the origin of the this knowledge in the genome here, to which no one has yet to present any genuine criticism.

      Despite this fact, you keep claiming we cannot explain it. How can we explain this sort of objection? From the same comment….

      Scott: "Of course, if holds the epistemological view that knowledge in specific spheres only comes from supernatural authoritative sources, it would come as no surprise that they would consider that entity necessary as such a source. However, that is a narrow view that either ignores or denies progress we've made in the field of epistemology."

      Not wanting to put words in your mouth…

      Elijah2012: The knowledge is in the organism to reproduce from the designer...

      IOW, we cannot explain it because you believe knowledge in specific spheres, such as the genome of organisms, only comes from authoritative supernatural sources. As such, it would come as no surprise you'd conclude evolutionary theory can't possibly explain it because it's not a supernatural source.

      Elijah2012: SO go ahead ask the question again

      What is the origin of that knowledge? How do you explain it? I'm asking again because, as I've already pointed out above, adding a designer doesn't actually serve an explanatory purpose.

      Perhaps some other ID proponent will explain it?

      Delete
    49. "Again, consider all of the conceivable transformations of matter. In this group, there are transformation that are prohibited by the laws of physics, such as traveling faster than the speed of light, and those that are possible because they are not prohibited by the laws of physics.'

      Elijah2012: Yes this confirms it. You most definitely are conflating your materialism into a theistic framework because in theism the laws themselves are determined by God not anything he is subject to or must learn about.

      I'm not conflating anything.

      My point was, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing preventing it from occurring is knowing how. One such example is transforming water, air, etc. into plants, which isn't in the category of conceivable transformations that are prohibited by the laws of physics. Why? because, well, if it were, organisms wouldn't replicate.

      Specifically, the replication of organisms is the kind of transformation that occurs when the requisite knowledge is present in its genome. It's not "magic".

      I'm simply laying the ground work for the rest of the argument.

      Delete
    50. "I'm not confused. You're making my point for me."

      You are making no point and you have none to make. That much is now apparent.

      "IOW, adding a designer doesn't actually explain anything. Rather, it merely pushes the problem into an incomprehensible realm. And, as to the criticism of CH's post, in doing so, it adds an unnecessary entity."

      surprise that crappy piece of logic was already dismantled - scroll up the page. Do you have anything else? I sense you don't. The inexplicable entity IS necessary if you would task your mind to think about it for five minutes. The only questions is is the entity intelligent because all with a brain and understanding of the problems of infinite regress concede a necessary end of explanations even if present company does not. So your "serves no explanatory purpose" is a total logical bust. Such a causeless entity, even if a system of infinite regress, inevitably leads to a zone of incomprehension whether you are a theist, an idist or an atheistic Darwinist. We do not belief in reality because it is convenient or because it fulfills an explanatory purpose:. We follow reality and logic where it leads and concede the inevitable. Will you continue to densely claim otherwise? Why yes. will you give an answer for how to evade such a necessary state EVEN INVOKING INFINITE REGRESS. Of course not. You will hand wave some more because either the issue flies over your head and you do not understand it or you know you cannot answer it.

      "I've already presented an explanation for the origin of the this knowledge

      You did no such thing. You are lying to yourself. You do what you always do. Send some words up the flag pole and through sophistry claim you have actually answered. That post explains nothing of where the ultimate knowledge comes from. In the end your logic is so sad that not even you can answer your own question.

      "to which no one has yet to present any genuine criticism."

      Is that it? the source of claiming that no one will answer you and that IDists are stumped. LOL. Earth to Scott. the failure of someone to answer a blog comment such as blog comment are in no way denotes a dodge a weave or a concession of a logic. Blog comment are over looked all the time.

      "IOW, we cannot explain it because you believe knowledge in specific spheres, such as the genome of organisms, only comes from authoritative supernatural sources."

      Wrong and obviously wrong. You cannot explain it because you have failed to do so. Don't blame us because you have failed miserably. You are doing nothing but claiming that the belief impedes the evidence being accepted while running like the wind from answering the challenges of abiogenesis. You are simply seeking to skirt an issue you are obviously unprepared and ill equipped to deal with - so the same claim can be said of you - your beliefs hinder your ability to deal with consequences of examining ALL the evidence and not just the ones that fit into your darwinistic framework

      In the end its just the same empty claim by darwinist that if the majority comes to the conclusion they come to they do so based on ignorant belief and not because they see a compelling case for design. With all the flapping about you have done the argument is at base totally unoriginal.

      "Perhaps some other ID proponent will explain it?"

      You can persist in claiming dishonestly that it must be answered according to your framework and assumptions. It seems to be what you do. Meanwhile my quest will continue for a darwinist on this board that has some real honesty. I have found it elsewhere in the past but not of recent

      so life remains interesting - we both have something to look forward to finding.

      Delete
    51. "I'm not conflating anything."

      sure you are and here you are again

      "My point was, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing preventing it from occurring is knowing how."

      which has absolutely no relevancy to theistic ID of which you are asking the question (perhaps the problem is you are not in honesty really asking it?). You do know that the ID looks at the laws THEMSELVES as designed don't you? So since theistic Id see the laws themselves as under god's control there is no point about talking about what is possible according to the laws of physics like these must be negotiated with or learned. and that presumption establishing your premise of knowledge totally has no value in an ID Framework . They do have value in a materialistic viewpoint so voila! the conflation.


      "Specifically, the replication of organisms is the kind of transformation that occurs when the requisite knowledge is present in its genome. It's not "magic"."

      ID does not claim once the "requisite knowledge" is present in the genome it is Magic either.

      "I'm simply laying the ground work for the rest of the argument."

      Yes and I am just pointing out the large sinkholes forming underneath it ;) - speaking of which I am rather enjoying your invoking of the laws of physics as a given without an explanation seeing as how we should always have an explanatory purpose. May we expect an answer for that? or will we just add that in the abiogenesis. infinite regress, logical mathematical order of the universe Scott does not want to answer column?

      Delete
    52. I thought with you referring to it we might as well bring forward the bit you linked to and claimed answered the question you pose of Id - where the knowledge comes from. Here we go

      Scott's answer of where knowledge in the genome comes from

      -----------------------------------

      "The explanation you are referring to is biological Darwinism. Specifically, the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations is genuinely created by conjecture, in the form of genetic variation that is random *to any specific problem to solve*, and refutation, in the form of natural selection.

      IWO, the explanation is part of our current, best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge.
      -------------------------------------

      Two questions

      A) where do you explain - in what YOU LINKED TO as your answer - where the knowledge comes from?
      B) what alcohol, root of cannabis or cocaine plant were you influenced by to think that that was an explanation for where the knowledge in DNA comes from?

      Delete
    53. I look forward to the day when the Darwinian Mystics are finally able to face the fact that there is not one shred of evidence that culled genetic accidents can build anything increasingly complex and functional in living systems.

      History will see Darwinism as little more than a school of philosophy. They just kept asserting over and over again that natural selection dunnit. It was selected to persist in nature because nature selected it. This silly religion has been hiding out in biology classrooms long enough I think.

      Delete
    54. Elijah2012: surprise that crappy piece of logic was already dismantled - scroll up the page.

      A conclusion that anything was dismantled is based on a pre-enlightenment, authoritative conception of human knowledge, which is a form of justificationism. Namely, that knowledge in specific spheres comes to us from a supernatural, authoritative sources.

      However, as I've also pointed out elsewhere, this either ignores or denies that we have made progress in the field of epistemology. Your responses so far suggest you cannot even recognize your
      specific conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism.

      For example….

      Elijah2012: The inexplicable entity IS necessary if you would task your mind to think about it for five minutes.

      Elijah2012: The only questions is is the entity intelligent because all with a brain and understanding of the problems of infinite regress concede a necessary end of explanations even if present company does not. So your "serves no explanatory purpose" is a total logical bust.

      It's obvious, so I'm simply not thinking long enough about it? Is that really you're argument?

      The idea that the same law of nature causes apples to fall and the orbits of planets seems obvious to us now, but roughly 300 years ago, it started out as conjectured theory, which was then tested using observations. It wasn't obvious then. it was an idea that was and continues to be subject to criticism.

      Theories of knowledge, which is the subject of the field of epistemology, are also ideas that are subject to criticism. We conjecture ideas about how knowledge grows, then test those ideas using criticism. That's our best, current explanation for the growth of human knowledge.

      However, you cant even seem to conceive of any epistemological view other than justificationsim, even when one is presented to you repeatedly. For example….

      Scott: "I've already presented an explanation for the origin of the this knowledge

      Elijah2012: You did no such thing. You are lying to yourself.

      Elijah2012: A) where do you explain - in what YOU LINKED TO as your answer - where the knowledge comes from?

      Despite actually linking to it and quoting it yourself, you can't see it as an explanation. It's as if you suffer from some kind of epistemological blindness.

      To use an example, imagine I concluded you must like vanilla ice cream because you said "I enjoy eating ice cream on Sundays with my family." This argument is parochial (having a limited or narrow outlook or scope) because assumes there is only one favor of ice cream: vanilla.

      All you have to do is point out there are many different flavors of ice cream, and my argument falls apart. If I were to continue to make it, I'm ignoring or denying there are different flavors of ice cream.

      In the same sense, your argument falls apart because theories about the growth of human knowledge are ideas that are subject to criticism, as are all of our ideas. If you continue to make it, you are ignoring or denying that we have made progress in the field of epistemology.

      Delete
    55. Scott: If you continue to make it, you are ignoring or denying that we have made progress in the field of epistemology.

      What do I mean by this?

      Even if we grant a supernatural designer explains why something, rather than nothing, exists, it still doesn't serve an explanatory purpose in explaining the specific knowledge we observe in the genomes of organisms.

      For example, vehicles represent trade offs between cost, efficiency, performance and safety. We can explain the history of vehicles in these four areas based on the knowledge human beings have created in the past, the knowledge we do have in the present and the knowledge we do not yet possess.

      Tanks are much safer, but they are slower, less efficient and cost more to make. We'd all like to drive around in vehicles that are as safe as tanks, but it's not cost effective. They get horrible milage and are very expensive to make. So, we make do with less safe vehicles that are more cost effective, but not nearly as safe. IOW, we do not drive around in automobiles that are as safe as tanks because we have yet to create the knowledge of *how* to do so. We do not possess it yet. However, the safety of cars we build today has improved significantly, as we've created knowledge of how to build safer cars the areas of air bags, crumple zones, etc.

      We can say the same about other trade-offs, such as performance vs. safety and cost, cargo space vs. efficiency and cost, etc.

      For example, tanks only need armor when being attacked by projectiles. In this same sense, automobiles only need impact protection when in a collision. But tanks and cars always make the trade-off for those safely features even when they are not needed. How can we explain this current state of affairs? In the future, we will develop entirely new ways, we have yet to conceive of, to protect the occupants of tanks and automobiles. One possible way we have though of is some kind of inertial damping system that could be activated only when needed to dampen the impact of projectiles and impacts. Assuming the system itself doesn't weigh more than the armor of an existing tank, it would perform better, be more efficient, etc.

      Surely we *want* such a vehicle now, so why don't we have it? Because we have yet to create the knowledge of how to build these systems. And when we have them, it will because we created the knowledge of how to build them.

      Furthermore, we can explain why we want specific instances of those trade-offs based on our preferences. And what do we do when we change our preferences? We adopt one explanation about how the world works over another. For example, there are a number of high performance coupes and sedans because some people have adapted the idea that sports cars make them appear more successful, or that life is better when you're driving on the edge of control at 120mph, etc.

      All of these explanations represent conjectured ideas that are subject to criticism. Knowledge grows when we rationally criticize these ideas. This is the umbrella theory that explains the universal growth of knowledge, including the knowledge in brains, books and even the genomes of organisms.

      The same principle applies in the biosphere. Namely, that the knowledge in the genome didn't exist until it was conjectured, through a process of variation that is random *to any specific problem to solve*, and refuted, in the form of natural selection.

      Unless life previously evolved on some other planet, that knowledge genuinely did not exist until that point. It didn't not always exist "there" to be put "here" It's a fundamentally different kind of explanation than the idea that knowledge in specific spheres comes from authoritative sources, which have always existed.

      Delete
    56. Compare the above explanation for the specific, concrete arrangements of matter to the "explanation" presenting by ID proponents.

      The abstract quality of Design doesn't explain the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations, found in the genome. IOW, something with the quality of design is used in an Aristotelian way by ID proponents. it's like saying something thing has the quality of dryness or heat.

      But this comes as no surprise as, from a theological perspective, the designer is also claimed to be inexplicable, have always existed, etc. So, there can be no further explanation. No progress can be made about the designer.

      Delete
    57. "A conclusion that anything was dismantled is based on a pre-enlightenment, authoritative conception of human knowledge, which is a form of justificationism. Namely, that knowledge in specific spheres comes to us from a supernatural, authoritative sources."

      Pure crap. You like entertaining yourself in your own mind with thoughts you swear are brilliant when they are merely one fabrication and fallacy heaped up another. You make value judgements and weigh evidence, discarding logic and present proofs just like any justificationists.

      Your logic was dismantled - get over it. We will see shortly what a hypocrite you have made of yourself i the process of mangling even philosophy

      " Your responses so far suggest you cannot even recognize your
      specific conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism"

      and you are so clueless you don't realize that in the process of criticism you yourself end up appealing directly and indirectly to the same justificationism that you like to throw around. You are like a kid with a toy - only its word in your head.

      "
      It's obvious, so I'm simply not thinking long enough about it? Is that really you're argument? "

      Yes it rather is . continue and I will demonstrate how obvious it is

      "
      , which was then tested using observations. It wasn't obvious then. it was an idea that was and continues to be subject to criticism."

      Irrelevent. IF we even claimed the critics have a point the natural extension of it would be that we could know nothing about anything. the you I talked to yesterday is not the same one I talked today. Yesterday. what was logical is something entirely different than today. shucks justificationism had a different construct as weel. this is how it goes until it all descends into a pile of gibberish. get to the point. my goodness you like to opine and string verbage. Your problem with me is that I do see your logic and then I see right through it.

      "
      Despite actually linking to it and quoting it yourself, you can't see it as an explanation. It's as if you suffer from some kind of epistemological blindness. "

      A) because its gibberrish that says nothing
      B) its a grammatical mess
      C) it does nothing but presents an imagination

      You are trying desperately and about as desperately as I have ever seen anyone to try and use the Emperor with the new clothes gambit. You answer nothing, use words you don't even understand and string them along into sentences that are a grammatical mess then claim that they are sheer brilliance and anyone who doesn't see it as such is blind.

      Your nonsense might work on other feable minded people but I can see and see through exactly what you are doing because he who mangles grammar has no brilliance.

      "
      In the same sense, your argument falls apart because theories about the growth of human knowledge are ideas that are subject to criticism, as are all of our ideas."

      LOL so let me see here the guy that just finished saying that I may not say that his ideas have been dismantled is now saying that my ideas fall apart?

      See I said I would demonstrate your hypocrisy. I will now watch you flail around helplessly c;aiming its inherently coherent and isn't its own indirect appeal to justificationism


      " If you continue to make it, you are ignoring or denying that we have made progress in the field of epistemology."

      If you continue to ignore your own internal inconsistencies you will continue to be filled with crap.

      Delete
    58. Elijah2012,

      Are you denying that you're a justificationist, despite believing that knowledge in specific spheres comes to us from authoritative sources?

      Or perhaps you denying we have made progress in the field of epistemology?

      Which is it? Or, if none of the above, then exactly what is your position? Let me guess, your position is the obviously right one?

      Objections of "internal inconsistencies", "Pure crap." or "You like entertaining yourself in your own mind with thoughts you swear are brilliant when they are merely one fabrication and fallacy heaped up another." are empty unless you actually point out why something is "crap", how it's inconsistent or what fallacies I'm supposedly committing, etc.

      For example, if you think everyone else is a justificationist, then of course you'd think I'm inconsistent.

      But that inconsistency hinges on the assumption that everyone else must be a justificationist because no other options exist, or because you believe that knowledge in specific spheres only comes from authoritative supernatural sources, etc.

      The claim that any theory is merely "crap" is a bad criticism because it can be applied to any theory.

      Furthermore, I'm a software developer, not a writer. Nor do I think any grammatical issues that might exist are actual stumbling blocks to the argument being presented.

      Even then, you could always simply ask for clarification.

      Again, I have yet to see any genuine criticism presented that actually allow us to make progress. Rather, it merely takes the form of denying or ignoring progress we have made across multiple fields.

      Delete
    59. "Even if we grant a supernatural designer explains why something, rather than nothing, exists, it still doesn't serve an explanatory purpose "

      We don't need to. its a red herring. Despite your caricature no one is appealing to the existence of a designer to determine a design, They are looking at the design in the organism. When you invoke the laws of physics just being as they are what explanation have your proposed for them? Where do they come from? Its the question every atheist runs from while claiming a designer has no explanatory power. Its just you pretending that everything has to have "explanatory purpose" and then excusing yourself from the same standard. All we need to study is the design in the organism itself and its genome. Even in an atheistic darwinistic frame work does the fact that ultimately everything in a atheistic framework comes from NOTHING impede science related to what came after that? Can we now add to the powers of nothing to create everything the power of explanatory purpose? So that nothing is now explanatory?

      For goodness sake - learn to actually THINK! There is such a lack of thought with you that this discussion is becoming a colossal waste of time.

      We have at least in your ramblings a sure sign of how convoluted the atheistic Darwinist mind can and does get.


      "For example, vehicles represent trade offs between cost...Tanks are much safer,... automobiles."

      Thank you for that ongoing mess of an analogy that has nothing to do with where knowledge itself ultimately comes from. Blogger thanks you for adding to its bandwidth usage. It is a sure sign of how out of your depth you are when you try to a make points about where knowledge comes from in the universe by appealing to automobile manufacturing.

      " Knowledge grows when we rationally criticize these ideas."

      No - Human knowledge may grow when we find answers, the mere act of criticism does not increase knowledge.

      "This is the umbrella theory that explains the universal growth of knowledge, including the knowledge in brains, books and even the genomes of organisms."

      and does absolutely nothing to explain knowledge previous to human beings -The very question you posed to ID theists. That you can't see that is breathtaking in its silliness

      Delete
    60. "The same principle applies in the biosphere. Namely, that the knowledge in the genome didn't exist until it was conjectured"

      and how do you know that? Using justificationism are we? Because if the cosmos is infinite then its abilities are infinite and the laws controlling it are past infinite and anything derived through a process is subject to the infinite past rules of the cosmos and your "didn't exist until" is rendered as gibberish.

      SO we can conclusively confirm that the very knowledge to construct an organism being subject to the laws of the universe WERE present before the organism. they were written into the laws of the universe since an organism is at its most fundamental level constructed of quantum particles.

      You were told many times to think but you refused

      Your gibberish is tantamount to saying that knowledge just spontaneously arose and you have the hypocritical arrogance to claim that Id fails to give an "explanatory purpose" as if spontaenous generation of knowledge does.


      "through a process of variation that is random *to any specific problem to solve*, and refuted, in the form of natural selection."

      This is merely your claim. the imagination of every darwinist. However now we can see how much you lied in claiming it was an explanation for where knowledge comes from in the first form of life. natural selection does not apply until you have a living organism.

      Now we know why you ran like a cheetah from answering the questions regarding abiogenesis - You have no answer and your craptacular explanation of variation, randomization and natural selection is totally incapable of answering what you claimed it does because sans abiogenesis you can only pick those up after you have a working living organism. That you even attempted to exclude a conversation of abiogenesis and wanted it left out is eye opening as to your intent. Saddest piece of logic I have seen on this board and that might even include thorton's

      "It's a fundamentally different kind of explanation than the idea that knowledge in specific spheres comes from authoritative sources, which have always existed."


      Gibberish is a fundamentally different kind of explanation and gibberish is all you have achieved.

      and yes

      Your logic has been totally dismantled or as you would put it Fallen apart. or as I might put it

      The sink hole that was forming underneath your platform for an argument just opened up a swallowed everything.

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

      Delete
    62. Elijah,
      So since theistic Id see the laws themselves as under god's control there is no point about talking about what is possible according to the laws of physics like these must be negotiated with or learned.


      A couple of questions: is there any difference between " theistic ID" and creationism?

      Since the laws are under god's control, are there any physical reasons for those laws, or are they arbitrary? Could one know either way? How?

      Delete
    63. "Are you denying that you're a justificationist, despite believing that knowledge in specific spheres comes to us from authoritative sources?"

      sheesh how many times does a person have to tell you a thing before you get it? I am and have been saying that

      A) you are a justificationist in your appeals without admitting it in that you DO appeal to it directly and indirectly. You make value assessments and justify them along the same lines

      B) It is logically incoherent not to accept that there is a reality that exists simply because it exists. the chain of process is not infinite and even in an infinite regress system tht ITSELF would have no explanation.

      "
      Or perhaps you denying we have made progress in the field of epistemology?"

      I am denying that you can reason worth a lick


      "Objections of "internal inconsistencies", "Pure crap." or "You like entertaining yourself in your own mind with thoughts you swear are brilliant when they are merely one fabrication and fallacy heaped up another." are empty unless you actually point out why something is "crap", how it's inconsistent or what fallacies I'm supposedly committing, etc. "

      asked and answered. The fact that your logic is crap however does not require you signing off with approval that it is crap so of course you will deny it.

      "For example, if you think everyone else is a justificationist, then of course you'd think I'm inconsistent."

      and you are.

      "But that inconsistency hinges on the assumption that everyone else must be a justificationist because no other options exist, "

      No because you make the same appeals as justificationists do. You are just not honest enought to admit it.


      " or because you believe that knowledge in specific spheres only comes from authoritative supernatural sources, etc."

      more total rot. If I believed that then humans would be incapapable of knowledge in those specific spheres. NO I just have this weird bleief that logic ought to be logical and you don't.

      "The claim that any theory is merely "crap" is a bad criticism"

      Bad? How do you make that valuation or ahem justify it? based on what authoritative source do you make the claim that it is bad? Yourself? So after all of this rabble you are the authoritative source? What is bad anyway do you have an authoritative source for that as well? have you exhausted the other alternatives? remember your own theory now.

      "Furthermore, I'm a software developer, not a writer. Nor do I think any grammatical issues that might exist are actual stumbling blocks to the argument being presented."

      NO incoherence does not seem to stop you from making your arguments or claiming that Idist have yet to answer your incoherence. On that you are definitely correct

      "Again, I have yet to see any genuine criticism "

      neither does anyone that is blind. Look at my last post before this and say that some more because regardless of what you claim not to see your logic has been dismantled or let me used your words - has been shown and proven to be

      bad.

      Delete
    64. "A couple of questions: is there any difference between " theistic ID" and creationism?"

      Of course. Creationism is usually associated with Biblical creationism whereas theistic ID may be associated with any belief in God. Plus creationism more concerns itself with creation where as theistic ID may relate to things that are not necessarily creation oriented

      "Since the laws are under god's control, are there any physical reasons for those laws, or are they arbitrary?"

      Gibberish question. If the premise of the question has the laws being under God's control asking if they are arbitrary would be counter to the premise.

      "are there any physical reasons for those laws"

      Almost gibberish question but escapes by a hair. We know of nothing physical that is not themselves subject to the laws so it is extremely dubious that we can define anything as physical without them

      Delete
    65. Scott,
      Even if we grant a supernatural designer explains why something, rather than nothing, exists, it still doesn't serve an explanatory purpose in explaining the specific knowledge we observe in the genomes of organisms.

      For example, vehicles represent trade offs between cost, efficiency, performance and safety.


      As loathe as I am the agree with Elijah, when dealing with an Uncaused cause by definition capable of all knowledge any specific knowledge is explained. This knowledge could be aquired thru an eternity of trial and error. It is the appeal to authority. All explanatory but problematic.

      Can the finite aquire knowledge apart from the infinite? If so how does one separate the signal from the noise, with a being theoretically capable of controlling the laws of nature, and cause and effect? My guess is you take the position of science and assume methodological naturalism.


      elijah,

      We don't need to. its a red herring. Despite your caricature no one is appealing to the existence of a designer to determine a design


      Per UD"The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause"

      Features are designs best explained by appealing to a intelligent cause.

      They are looking at the design in the organism

      And then appealing to the existence of a designer.

      Delete
    66. Thanks for the polite response

      Elijah,
      Of course. Creationism is usually associated with Biblical creationism whereas theistic ID may be associated with any belief in God.


      So Theistic ID, is more nondenominational than creationism

      Plus creationism more concerns itself with creation where as theistic ID may relate to things that are not necessarily creation oriented

      Oh, which things are those? Some sort of God not created things?


      "Since the laws are under god's control, are there any physical reasons for those laws, or are they arbitrary?"

      Gibberish question. If the premise of the question has the laws being under God's control asking if they are arbitrary would be counter to the premise.


      "Arbitrary
      Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
      (of power or a ruling body) Unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.


      In other words, do the laws flow from the nature of the creation or merely the designer imposing His will from outside the system,secondary vs primary causation.

      "are there any physical reasons for those laws"

      Almost gibberish question but escapes by a hair. We know of nothing physical that is not themselves subject to the laws so it is extremely dubious that we can define anything as physical without them


      Whew, just dodged the gibberish bullet.

      Delete
    67. "As loathe as I am the agree with Elijah"

      ANd he has no idea how much pain went into it either lol

      " when dealing with an Uncaused cause by definition capable of all knowledge any specific knowledge is explained. This knowledge could be aquired thru an eternity of trial and error. It is the appeal to authority. All explanatory but problematic. "

      well heres your problem and I see you running away every time. How do you circumvent he uncaused cause. You can't. So its not an appeal to authority. Its an appeal to the inevitable. If I am wrong then simple come up with your circumvention of the uncaused cause.

      "Can the finite aquire knowledge apart from the infinite?"


      all depends on what you mean by apart. Everything that exists is reliant on ultimate reality. So strictly speaking totally apart from ultimate reality would be to use a word I have used often today - gibberish

      "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause"

      and? Unless you are confusing conclusion with the methodolgy of coming to that conclusion there is no necessary conflict

      "And then appealing to the existence of a designer."


      again - and so? Darwinist look at the organism's fossil and appeal to evolution.

      Delete
    68. "Oh, which things are those? Some sort of God not created things?"

      Why yes. LOl or didn't you know. There are lots of things that God did not create. Wisdom. law, energy. That which is his in his nature were not created. At your next confessional ask for an instructional :)

      "Whew, just dodged the gibberish bullet."

      Not to fear as you can see from the post above you reacquainted yourself with it again

      ""Arbitrary
      Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

      and? again ask for the instructional. God has neither and consult yur own definition particularly the part that starts with "rather than"

      "In other words, do the laws flow from the nature of the creation or merely the designer imposing His will from outside the system,"

      Vel what church was it that you were pretending to be attending? and when will it be my turn to do nothing but ask questions? The answer - the latter of course.

      Delete
    69. actually upon rereading and quick reflection the answer to this

      ""In other words, do the laws flow from the nature of the creation or merely the designer imposing His will from outside the system,"

      Is both.

      Delete
    70. velikovskys: As loathe as I am the agree with Elijah, when dealing with an Uncaused cause by definition capable of all knowledge any specific knowledge is explained.

      If some designer always knew how to build any vehicle, why those vehicles with those features at those times? No particular history of vehicle features would be *necessary* for such a designer. As such, there could be no necessary consequences for the history of vehicles that would explain those particular histories.

      Rather, we explain those particular histories of vehicles in that *those* features, rather than some *other* features, were necessary consequences of what knowledge humans had or had not yet created, along with our preferences, which represent accepted, conjectured ideas about how the world works. Humans are good explanations for human designed things because of our specific limitations.

      velikovskys: This knowledge could be acquired thru an eternity of trial and error. It is the appeal to authority. All explanatory but problematic.

      ID's designer is abstract and has no defined limitations. Constraining the designer in any way will be met with objections. While we can leann more about what the designer supposedly designed, it claims we cannot learn anything more about the designer itself. This is by design, as it leaves a hole big enough to drive their preferred supernatural designer.

      velikovskys: Can the finite aquire knowledge apart from the infinite?

      No number of finite observations can prove an universal, which would require an infinite number of observations to prove true or probable. There could always be some observation one might make tomorrow, the next day, the day after that, etc. that would conflict with that theory. That's the problem of induction.

      But can we make progress in light of the infinite? Yes, we can.

      Our earliest number systems could not represent any possible number, even in principle. While we cannot actually do it today, it in practice, it was only with the advent of the Arabic number system that we can theoretically represent any possible number, in principle. The Arabic number system represented a leap to universality.

      We can say the same about a specific repertoire of computations that make the leap to Universal Turning Machines. Specifically, they are universal in that can run any program any other UTM can run, in principle. If Babbage had managed to built his Analytic Engine, it could have run the version of Mac OS X to be released next month at Apple's WWDC, in principle, through emulation. However, this would be impossible, in practice, because the number of punch cards need to emulate 2GB of RAM would take far to long to swap, etc. Even UTMs made out of gears or silicon have made the leap to universality.

      In the same sense, human beings have made the leap to universal explainers. We can explain all possible phenomena, in principle. But, as with the above, no current person can actually do this, in practice, due to the time required. However, we can make progress by conjecturing explanations to specific finite problems, which we criticize in a finite way and discard any errors we find. In the case of science, we use a number of finite empirical observations as part of these tests.

      So, while we cannot explain everything at once, the basic explanation as to why we can explain any part of the universe at all suggests there isn't any one particular barrier, subject or realm in which explanations are impossible for us, in principle. As such, we can continue to make progress.

      This is in contrast to theism which suggests some inexplicable being "did it" who exists in some inexplicable realm. This is a supposedly a barrier we cannot pass, both in practice and principle. As such, they deny that we can make no progress about this being, etc.

      Delete
    71. First, I wrote….

      Scott: Even if we grant a supernatural designer explains why something, rather than nothing, exists, it still doesn't serve an explanatory purpose in explaining the specific knowledge we observe in the genomes of organisms.

      Is there a particular reason why you left of the qualifier in that sentence?

      Elijah2012: We don't need to. its a red herring.

      Apparently, you can't even take your own theory seriously.

      That knowledge is part of the design of the organism, which is part of what ID proponents claim that needs to be explained. And it's knowledge because organisms replicate themselves, rather than being copied by a designer.

      Again, even if we assumed some supernatural designer didn't need knowledge to transform matter into the first organisms, it would still need the knowledge of what transformations the *organism* should or should not make to end up with a copy of that organism.

      Elijah2012: When you invoke the laws of physics just being as they are what explanation have your proposed for them? Where do they come from? Its the question every atheist runs from while claiming a designer has no explanatory power.

      Why these particular laws of physics, rather than some other laws? If the designer has no limitations and can choose any laws he wants, "that's just what the designer must have wanted" explains nothing about those particular laws. Again, you might claim that a designer explains why something exists, rather than nothing. However, we could just as well ask why nothing might exist, rather than something.

      Elijah2012: Its just you pretending that everything has to have "explanatory purpose" and then excusing yourself from the same standard.

      Can you point out where I've actually done this? Please be specific.

      We discard an infinite number of logical possibilities every day, in every field of science. We may not have explanations for everything, but this doesn't mean that we must accept explanation-less theories in their absence. How can we criticize a explanation we haven't conceived of yet?

      You're also assuming I must justify the laws of physics before I can use them to take any theory seriously for the purpose of criticism. But that's another assumption based on justificationism.

      Delete
    72. Elijah2012: Even in an atheistic darwinistic frame work does the fact that ultimately everything in a atheistic framework comes from NOTHING impede science related to what came after that? Can we now add to the powers of nothing to create everything the power of explanatory purpose? So that nothing is now explanatory?

      You're assuming that unless someone excepts God as an ultimate authoritative justification, they must put some other ultimate justification in his place. But this isn't necessarally the case.

      From the following article

      "3. Responses to the dilemma of the infinite regress versus dogmatism

      In the light of the dilemma of the infinite regress versus dogmatism, we can discern three attitudes towards positions: relativism, “true belief” and critical rationalism

      Relativists tend to be disappointed justificationists who realise that positive justification cannot be achieved. From this premise they proceed to the conclusion that all positions are pretty much the same and none can really claim to be better than any other. There is no such thing as the truth, no way to get nearer to the truth and there is no such thing as a rational position.

      True believers embrace justificationism. They insist that some positions are better than others though they accept that there is no logical way to establish a positive justification for an belief. They accept that we make our choice regardless of reason: "Here I stand!". Most forms of rationalism up to date have, at rock bottom, shared this attitude with the irrationalists and other dogmatists because they share the theory of justificationism.

      According to the critical rationalists, the exponents of critical preference, no position can be positively justified but it is quite likely that one (or more) will turn out to be better than others in the light of critical discussion and tests. This type of rationality holds all its positions and propositions open to criticism and a standard objection to this stance is that it is empty; just holding our positions open to criticism provides no guidance as to what position we should adopt in any particular situation. This criticism misses its mark for two reasons. First, critical rationalism is not a position. It is not directed at solving the kind of problems that are solved by fixing on a position. It is concerned with the way that such positions are adopted, criticised, defended and relinquished. Second, Bartley did provide guidance on adopting positions; we may adopt the position that to this moment has stood up to criticism most effectively. Of course this is no help for people who seek stronger reasons for belief, but that is a problem for them, and it does not undermine the logic of critical preference."
      (Bold emphasis mine.)

      Note the latter attitude does not require some form of ultimate justification which, as Popper and Bartley pointed out, is impossible. You cannot justify any conclusion based on some previous conclusion because you'd eventually end up with an infinite regress. That's part of the progress we've made in the field of epistemology.

      Elijah2012: For goodness sake - learn to actually THINK! There is such a lack of thought with you that this discussion is becoming a colossal waste of time.

      More empty objections. Why don't you start out by explaining how this knowledge was created, then point out how biological darwinism doesn't fit that explanation. Please be specific.

      Oh that's right, you have a theological commitment that conflicts with even the existence of such an explanation. Knowledge in specific spheres only comes from authoritative sources and the explanation I presented didn't include any. As such, it cannot be an explanation of that knowledge.

      Delete
    73. Elijah2012: Thank you for that ongoing mess of an analogy that has nothing to do with where knowledge itself ultimately comes from.

      Yet, another empty objection. Are you saying the growth of human knowledge does not explain why vehicles exhibit specific traits over time? Are we not talking about the growth of knowledge in the genomes of organisms? If not, then was is your criticism?

      Elijah2012: No - Human knowledge may grow when we find answers, the mere act of criticism does not increase knowledge.

      It doesn't? For example, what of the criticism that answers are not actually out there for us to observe with our senses? We get out more than we put in. So how could we "find answers" in any meaningful way? How would that actually work, in practice?

      Scott: "The same principle applies in the biosphere. Namely, that the knowledge in the genome didn't exist until it was conjectured"

      Elijah2012: and how do you know that? Using justificationism are we?

      What's my theory of the growth of human knowledge? We've been over that before. It's not justifationism. I'm a critical rationalist. See the third attitude above. The idea that we prove theories are true or more probable, has not withstood rational criticism. Specifically, no one has formulated a "principle of induction" that actually works, in practice.

      Elijah2012: Because if the cosmos is infinite then its abilities are infinite and the laws controlling it are past infinite and anything derived through a process is subject to the infinite past rules of the cosmos and your "didn't exist until" is rendered as gibberish.

      I'm not following you. It's unclear how the existence of a cosmos with infinite past would necessitate infinite abilities as well. Nor is it clear what you mean by "past infinite".

      Delete
    74. Elijah2012: SO we can conclusively confirm that the very knowledge to construct an organism being subject to the laws of the universe WERE present before the organism.

      Where did I suggest the knowledge did not exist *before* the organism did? The issue is, did it *always* exist or was it created. It's unclear how "being subject to the laws of the universe" necessitates that knowledge was not created and had always existed.

      Elijah2012: they were written into the laws of the universe since an organism is at its most fundamental level constructed of quantum particles.

      I'm not following you here either. Are you saying that an organism should be able to replicate itself even if we remove the knowledge in its genome, because that knowledge was written into the quantum particles it is constructed out of, in an infinity past?

      Elijah2012: Your gibberish is tantamount to saying that knowledge just spontaneously arose and you have the hypocritical arrogance to claim that Id fails to give an "explanatory purpose" as if spontaenous generation of knowledge does.

      No, it's not. Knowledge starts out as a guess, which is tested and errors are discarded. It's an error correcting process. The spontaneous appearance of knowledge would be a designer putting knowledge in an organism without actually needing to possess that knowledge in the first place. It would have spontaneously appeared with the organism.

      Elijah2012: This is merely your claim. the imagination of every darwinist. However now we can see how much you lied in claiming it was an explanation for where knowledge comes from in the first form of life. natural selection does not apply until you have a living organism.

      Huh? What we're trying to explain are the specific features that biological organisms exhibit over time. Why feature X rather than Y, etc. We explain it in that the knowledge of how to build those different features was genuinely created through a form of conjecture and refutation. That's it.

      Currently, our best theory of abiogenesis includes proto-replicators which do not exhibit the properties of a replicator on their own, but do so when combined in specific environments. IOW, the ability to replicate in the case of the the first primitive replicators emerged from specific combinations of proto-replicators. These primitive replicators could have been significantly less complex that modern day cells, and only had to compete amongst themselves.

      Elijah2012: Now we know why you ran like a cheetah from answering the questions regarding abiogenesis

      Except, I'm not a justificationist. As such, I do not think an evolutionary explanation depends of being justified by abiogenesis. Again, it's a problem you are projecting on me. Pointing out that justification is impossible, and therefore not necessary to justify evolutionary theory, doesn't mean I'm running away from abiogenesis.

      Delete
    75. Elijah2012: A) you are a justificationist in your appeals without admitting it in that you DO appeal to it directly and indirectly. You make value assessments and justify them along the same lines

      See the third attitude above.

      Elijah2012: B) It is logically incoherent not to accept that there is a reality that exists simply because it exists. the chain of process is not infinite and even in an infinite regress system tht ITSELF would have no explanation.

      Huh? Where did I suggest I'm not a realist? Please be specific.

      If anyone appears to be confused here, it's you.

      Delete
    76. "That knowledge is part of the design of the organism, which is part of what ID proponents claim that needs to be explained. And it's knowledge because organisms replicate themselves, rather than being copied by a designer. "

      We have explained it by its own design not merely by appealing to an external knowledge. Thats your own sad caricature which you consistently try to conflate into our viewpoint. You really are quite clueless. Its the design itself tht clues us into the existence of the designer.

      "Why these particular laws of physics, rather than some other laws? "

      why does this reality exist and not another in ANY framework of reality? Your silliness is you think you can skirt having to answer the very same questions (as you do every single question posed to you)

      "If the designer has no limitations and can choose any laws he wants, "that's just what the designer must have wanted" explains nothing about those particular laws"

      and what is your explanation for reality being this way and not another? My goodness what density? oNly in you convoluted mind do you escape the very same questions you ask of ID.

      "We may not have explanations for everything, but this doesn't mean that we must accept explanation-less theories in their absence"

      we don't . we accept inveitable consequences which no surprise you fail post after post to address while hand waving a bunch of crappy positions that yu yourself cannot stand up to

      "You're also assuming I must justify the laws of physics before I can use them to take any theory seriously for the purpose of criticism."

      NO I am pointing out where you are being blitheringly idiotic and a hypocrite by claiming that an ultimate unexplained theistic source of knowledge is not "explanatory" while appealing to the laws of physics for which you have no explanation.

      Seriously - are you this dense or is this just your dance of rhetoric and hand waving to avoid ever having to answer any point put to you?

      apparently the latter because you are saying nothing new, answering no point and failing miserably at being either logical or intellectually balanced.

      Delete
    77. "You're assuming that unless someone excepts God as an ultimate authoritative justification, they must put some other ultimate justification in his place. But this isn't necessarally the case."

      aaaah will we finally have scott deal witht the issue of infinite regress? Will the running finally cease? or will he just throw up more fudging and dancing?


      "Note the latter attitude does not require some form of ultimate justification which, as Popper and Bartley pointed out, is impossible."


      Sigggh. No ladies and gents all we have is Scott doing what he always does - fudge and dance - appealing to the same old rant of justificationism yada yada and quoting an entire passage that doesn't do a thing in regard to exploring how to circumvent the logical inevitabilities of a proccess driven universe.

      Will scott again claim tht its because the other side is blind or does not understand? yes of course in the classical Emperor with the new clothes gambit.

      NOthing in tht entire long quote even begins to approach the issue of infinite regress in the universe. It mentions the phrase and goes nowhere near dealing with it.

      "You cannot justify any conclusion based on some previous conclusion because you'd eventually end up with an infinite regress. That's part of the progress we've made in the field of epistemology."

      We are not talking about infinite regress of human reasoning oh clueless one we ae talking about infinite regress of the universes processes and yes if we do not stop at some point then we WOULD go on to infinite regress. This is not a matter of tracing human reasoning this is a matter of tracing the inevitable end of the universe's processes. It is you in your ignorance tht keeps claiming that if we ever come to a point where there are no explanations we should throw it out on the basis of it not having "Explanatory purpose"

      "explanation......I presented didn't include any."

      ROFL... You have presented no explanation, nada,ZIP. NOTHING. YOur entire argument rests on your rebuttal of justification and an appeal to natural selectionand variation that takes place AFTER the knowledge is in the genome but in true hypocrite ignorance claim tht ID is deficient because in your mind it dosn't answer the questions which you fail to and run away from addressing.

      "Are you saying the growth of human knowledge does not explain why vehicles exhibit specific traits over time?"

      SO you want me to explain AGAIN what I have already told you before. No I am sayign that (And this ought to be embarassing to have me have to poith out to yu not once but twice) the analogy of humans making vehicles has next to no equivalency to the creation of the universe and the ultimate knowledge in it.

      WOW! Scott you obtuseness is testament to how a little philosophy reading can muddle ones mind up.

      Delete
    78. "What's my theory of the growth of human knowledge?"

      I nowhere asked you that. Stop fudging. Go back and read what was asked. You refuse to answer the questions put to you and then make up ones never asked you want to answer

      "Huh? What we're trying to explain are the specific features that biological organisms exhibit over time."

      No that was not your question to ID. the questions was where does the knowledge come frpm for the first form of life.

      "We explain it in that the knowledge of how to build those different features was genuinely created through a form of conjecture and refutation. That's it."

      Crapola. You have no framework to talk about conjecture and refutations in natural selection because you have no workable framework for abiogenesis. You must first have to have life to have any biological "conjecture and refutations"

      As I said all along you never at any time had an explanation for kowledge in the first form of life. You merely asked it of ID without requiring to answer it yurself. All you had was posturing and appeals to your own imagination and the silliness of your premise is that even with "conjecture and refutations" (your metaphor for evolution and natural selection) you would still need a workable framework that must have come from the very laws baked into the universe.

      So Tell me where did those laws come from? and be careful to make sure it has explanatory purpose. lol


      "I'm not following you. It's unclear how the existence of a cosmos with infinite past would necessitate infinite abilities as well. Nor is it clear what you mean by "past infinite"."

      Oh good night. What is the point? You are so completely clueless as to what is being discussed that you do not even understand basics.

      Infinite regress is all about past infinites and you are blank as to what that means even though claiming to have answered the issue better than IDist.

      I'm sorry scott . I do not have unlimited time to try and educate you further. With that admission of not knowing what in the world is being discussed I will end this back and forth.

      Delete
    79. Scott: "That knowledge is part of the design of the organism, which is part of what ID proponents claim that needs to be explained. And it's knowledge because organisms replicate themselves, rather than being copied by a designer. "

      Elijah2012: We have explained it by its own design not merely by appealing to an external knowledge. Thats your own sad caricature which you consistently try to conflate into our viewpoint. You really are quite clueless. Its the design itself tht clues us into the existence of the designer.

      What exactly does that mean? That "a designer just must have wanted knowledge to exist" doesn't explain *that* particular knowledge.

      We know that knowledge exists in the organism's genome because it copies itself, rather than being copied by some inexplicable designer it in some inexplicable realm. So, the entire idea of saying knowledge isn't necessary for the designer does not withstand rational criticism.

      Specifically, if we take your theory seriously, for the purpose of criticism, the designer would have had to have put that knowledge in the genome while it was supposedly designing the organism. If the designer didn't have *that particular knowledge*, then how else did it get there? What it is the origin of *that particular knowledge* which results in *that particular organism's* biological adaptations? (Which is the very thing we're trying to explain in the first place!)

      Perhaps, by explain, you mean that anything exists, including some arbitrary knowledge, rather than nothing? Or are you saying you're explained that particular concrete instance of knowledge, rather than some other particular concrete instance of knowledge?

      To whatever degree we explain anything, adding "That's just what some designer must have wanted" adds nothing to the explanation.

      For example, if your car broke down, the actual explanation of what parts were adjusted, replaced, etc. does not change due to adding "that's just what some designer must have wanted." Assuming "some designer intended it that way" does not result in us to following any additional steps or adjusting our strategy to repair it. Nor is way we actually solve the problem alternatively guided by or informed by assuming it.

      So, from the perspective of solving any problem, it adds nothing to the explanation of solving it.

      And if we cannot solve a problem, adding "that's just what a designer must have wanted" doesn't give us any additional advice as what specific actions we *should* take.

      To whatever degree we explain the inability to solve problem X due to one or more laws of physics, adding "that's just what a designer must have wanted" doesn't somehow guide us what steps we should take to make X possible. For all we know, we can't solve it because "that's just what the designer must have intended."

      If we figure out how to travel faster than the speed of light, it won't be because we added "that's just what some deigned must have wanted". Rather, It will be due to the application of an error correction process to conjectured explanations about how the world works.

      In the same sense, whatever degree we explain the growth of human knowledge, the addition of "Some designer must have wanted it to grow that way", adds nothing to the explanation. It does it inform or guide us in any additional way. This is why I keep asking, how do you explain the relatively rapid and exponential growth of human knowledge.

      As such, It's unclear how "[explaining] it by its own design not merely by appealing to an external knowledge." actually adds to the explanation of that knowledge itself.

      But, by all means, feel free to enlighten us as to how adding it actually informs as to what steps we should perform. Please be specific.

      Delete
    80. Elijah2012: and how do you know that? Using justificationism are we?

      Scott: "What's my theory of the growth of human knowledge?"

      Elijah2012: I nowhere asked you that. Stop fudging. Go back and read what was asked. You refuse to answer the questions put to you and then make up ones never asked you want to answer

      You asked me, a human being, how I knew something, which I wouldn't have known previously. If that's not asking for a theory of how human knowledge grows, then it's unclear how any further progress can be made.

      And I'm supposed to be embarrassed and need educating?

      Delete
    81. No what you should be embarrassed about and are not is you bare faced lying.

      Go ahead and show me where I ever stated ""that's just what a designer must have wanted"

      I'm waiting because if you don't you have proven your lying no matter what rant, diversion or dance you want to go on to claim

      Show me where any of the earliest theists some of who FOUNDEd branches of science claimed

      ""that's just what a designer must have wanted"

      and called it a day. this is an old, stale torn up and refuted, intellectually dishonest, rubbish, lying through the teeth fabrication trumpeted as the Gospel truth by darwinists.

      You are only the last person to tell the lie

      "So, from the perspective of solving any problem, it adds nothing to the explanation of solving it."

      and yet as theists you can go down the list of sciences and find theists pioneering many of them. All of them guided by an EXTREMELY productive belief that they would find a logical structures, and structured designs that egad - They found and oh my solved many things. Do you ever tire of demonstrating intellectual dishonesty?

      the whole thing is just plained stupid. I have used this analogy before. I get into a nice Maserati (since you seem to like car metaphors). Love the interior leather, the craftmanship of the dashboard. I turn the key and hear the engine roar as I give it gas. the owner says . "Would you like to see the engine?"

      "of course"
      But then he says it was designed by a master designer

      SO I say um well then never mind whatever way he designed it is how he designed it.

      See? utter Stupidness. Of course I want to see it. I want to see it even more. If I can and I have the time I want to see how it works what makes it sound so good and if I am the owner even how it does so I can make it last, Of course I want to see how it was put together. The fact that it was designed by a master designer makes me want to see it even more.

      Your silly drop down dead argument is that if I say the knowledge ultimately came from the designer and was crafted into the car's design thats going to dampen my interest or impede my learning how it works and that thinking it wasn't designed somehow is going to give me a better explanatory power

      NO silly the explanatory power of how it works IS FROM LOOKING AT THE DESIGN ITSELF and theism at no point in time anywhere hinders, impedes or dampens the quest to do that research. Thats a seperate issue

      Its rubbish and obvious rubbish

      "You asked me, a human being, how I knew something,"

      Stop being so dishonest -Not something a particular thing. Did you answer that particular thing? No you did not. You skirted it

      No More fudging on your part.

      answer at least one question

      Where do the laws of the universe ultimately come from? If you refuse to answer, dance from answering or try and go on to something else rather than answering then you will ve a confirmed hypocrite and be safely ignored.

      Delete
    82. "We know that knowledge exists in the organism's genome because it copies itself, rather than being copied by some inexplicable designer it in some inexplicable realm."

      whst are you up to now about four strawmen?

      At least!

      There is not Idist on the planet that thinks a genome is copied in some inexplicable realm unless earth is not explicable to you as well which given how lost you get in philosophy may well be the case any day now.

      [quote] So, the entire idea of saying knowledge isn't necessary for the designer does not withstand rational criticism. [/quote]

      Premise being crap conclusion is doomed to follow but hurray what are we up to now - about five strawmen? Nowhere will you see any theist Idist claim that knowledge is not necessary for the designer. You are fibbing again and you are getting so bad at hiding it its pretty obvious

      God to just about all the world's major religions is omniscience (that is having all knowledge) and here you are trying to float that I or any other theist claims God didn't have to have knowledge.

      Nope you are just conflating your ideas again into theists. Its like you don't know how to stop. What I said was that the knowledge in the genome, that is what is encoded in - need not be the exact same knowledge used to create the organism to begin with.

      Simple.


      anyway let me not give you places to run off. Come now Scott

      Where did the laws of the universe come from?

      Delete
    83. Scott having reviewed some of my posts. I withdraw some of the words I have used. though I find the lying extremely offensive. I should not have referenced "silly" as a noun or for that matter even used terms like "idiotic"

      For that you have my apologies.



      Delete
    84. Elijah2012: We have explained it by its own design not merely by appealing to an external knowledge.

      Scott: What exactly does that mean? That "a designer just must have wanted knowledge to exist" doesn't explain *that* particular knowledge.

      Elijah2012: Go ahead and show me where I ever stated "that's just what a designer must have wanted"

      If you're not appealing to any sort of external knowledge, then what else is left other than just the designer's will? For example, are organisms the way they are because the designer didn't want them that way? Or perhaps the designer was constrained by some other external factor, which explains that knowledge instead?

      We can ask the same about the laws of physics, which you said God could have made any way he liked. Are the laws of physics the specific way they are for any other reason than just God and God alone wanted them to be that way?

      Delete
    85. No More fudging on your part.

      answer at least one question

      Where do the laws of the universe ultimately come from? If you refuse to answer, dance from answering or try and go on to something else rather than answering then you will ve a confirmed hypocrite and be safely ignored.

      Delete
    86. E2012, Scott doesn't realize, even as an adult, that all explanation has finality to it. No infinite regresses are humanly possible. The only way out of it is to shift gears from talking about hypothetico-deductive explanation (which has finality to it for humans) to explanation by some other definition. He needs to define that other use of explanation and then clearly distinguish when he's talking about which. But he has yet to do it. And I doubt he will. Because he will be showing thereby just how little-to-nothing his pontifications have to do with science.

      Evolutionary theory explains precious little by the hypothetico-deductive definition of explanation. Naturalisitic UCA "theory" isn't even a theory since no one has articulated all the millions of ad-hoc assumptions one has to make to render it even coherent, never mind knowably consistent with other laws of physics and chemistry.

      Delete
    87. Apparently a recap is in order.

      CH: The explanation is, itself, in need of explanation.

      In which I provided Cornelius an explanation and asked him to criticize it.

      However, Cornelius knows that his target audience consist of justificationists. As such, he doesn't actually have respond. The idea that knowledge in specific spheres comes from automative sources is a core commitment of theism. He knows you won't accept it, even if he does nothing.

      Furthermore, Cornelius is apparently smart enough to realize any sort of explicit epistemological argument *for* justicationsm would require him to actually acknowledge the existence of other forms of epistemology. A which point, it becomes apparent his mantra of "no evidence for evolution" hinges on a specific epistemological view, which he cant argue for. Opening this can of worms does not suit his purpose, which is merely to rally the faithful into deny that progress can or has been made in these specific spheres.

      The specific epistemological position of justificationism plays the following roles in this denial.

      First is the claim that evolutionary theory itself must be justified before being accepted as an explanation. Unless we have an exhaustive explanation for abiogenesis, then evolutionary theory is not justified and should not be accepting into that sphere of human knowledge. Of course, the problem with this objection is that, can be applied to any idea. For example, even if we stumbled upon abiogenesis occurring on some other planet, or even had a time machine and could observe it happing in real time, you could always object because we haven't explained abiogenesis, etc.

      Again, the criticism that X isn't justified is a bad criticism because it can be applied to all ideas.

      Second is the mantra that, unless it was put there by a designer, the instructions of how to build copies of biological organisms, as found in there genome, does not represent the growth of knowledge, but is merely a random outcome. It doesn't belong in the sphere of knowledge because it's not justified by an authoritative source.

      Again, I'm referring to a specific version of the epistemological position of justificationism, which is outlined here

      "This dilemma creates conscientious objections to open-mindedness because a logical chain of argument apparently justifies dogmatism and resistance to counter arguments. To the despair of people who want to make full use of evidence and arguments to pursue both scientific truth and more effective actions, their opponents can defeat the principle of rationality on impeccably logical grounds. Bartley followed up an insight from Karl Popper who located a barely recognised and previously uncriticised assumption regarding justification and the justification of beliefs that permeates Western thought; this can be summed up in the formula.

      Beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind, generally the source of the belief in question, and this justification makes the belief either rational, or if not rational at least valid for the person who holds it.

      Bartley labeled this theory “justificationism” and he showed how it created a demand for positive justification which can never be met for the reasons outlined above. The solution is to abandon the quest for positive justification and instead to settle for a critical preference for one option rather than others in the light of critical arguments and evidence offered to that point. A preference may (or may not) be revised in the light of new evidence and arguments. This appears to be a simple, commonsense position but it defies the dominant traditions of Western thought which have almost all taught that some authority provides (or ought to provide) grounds for positively justified beliefs.
      "

      Delete
    88. Elijah2012: Where do the laws of the universe ultimately come from? If you refuse to answer, dance from answering or try and go on to something else rather than answering then you will ve a confirmed hypocrite and be safely ignored.

      This is merely an example of the first claim. Unless I can justify the laws of physics via some supernatural authoritative source, then I can't use them as part of an explanation. And this somehow make me a hypocrite, despite having abandoned justificationism since it is a criteria that can never be met.

      The problem is, this sort of canned "hypocritical" response is designed for other justificationists. Apparently, you don't actually understand the argument you're using well enough to know when it's appropriate, or you can't recognize your own conception of knowledge as an idea in the first place.

      Other ID proponents, on the other hand, seem to be trying to avoid acknowledging justificationism as a specific epistemological position, while still trying to argue for it.

      Jeff: E2012, Scott doesn't realize, even as an adult, that all explanation has finality to it.

      Apparently justificationism is obvious, so everyone except children accept it. This an attempt to argue for justificationism while attempting to avoid acknowledge it as an epistemological position.

      Jeff: No infinite regresses are humanly possible. The only way out of it is to shift gears from talking about hypothetico-deductive explanation (which has finality to it for humans) to explanation by some other definition. He needs to define that other use of explanation and then clearly distinguish when he's talking about which. But he has yet to do it. And I doubt he will. Because he will be showing thereby just how little-to-nothing his pontifications have to do with science.

      Despite providing detailed links, essays and available book references, I somehow haven't clarified by position in a way that distinguishes my attitude regarding the growth of knowledge. This is an attempt to deny or ignore the difference that represent the progress we've made in the field of epistemology.

      Specifically, I can't have made a distinction if no progress has been made.

      Delete
    89. Correction: For example, even if we stumbled upon abiogenesis occurring on some other planet, or even had a time machine and could observe it happing in real time, you could always object because we haven't justified abiogenesis with some other theory, etc.

      Delete
    90. "This is merely an example of the first claim. Unless I can justify the laws of physics via some supernatural authoritative source, then I can't use them as part of an explanation. And this somehow make me a hypocrite,"

      NO you are a blooming hypocrite because you are a blooming hypocrite. You ask IDist where Ultimate knowledge comes from then claim that their answer has no explanatory purpose then turn right around and invoke "the laws of the universe" with NO EXPLANATION of where that comes from. You retired ranted about justificationism is garbage because here you are merely being required to live by the same rules of the game youset up for yourself.

      You now try to run into your philosophical ramblings to hide the fact that invoking the laws of the universe has no explantory power above invoking a necessary uncaused cause designer.

      ROFL. Your recap of what Cornelius said is just a dodge. WE - ME AND YOU have been debating an issue for the last few days and you are now required to answer one question after running away from every single one posed to you.

      No More fudging on your part.

      answer at The question

      Where do the laws of the universe ultimately come from? If you continue to refuse to answer, dance from answering or try and go on to something else rather than answering then you will continue to confirmed being a hypocrite and can safely ignored.

      lol....For any objective person still reading through this here we have a PRIME example of the double standard backward logic of a Darwinist and also a PRIME example of the intellectually dishonest ploys they employ.

      Delete
    91. Elijah2012

      Where do the laws of the universe ultimately come from?


      From the evidence we have they appear to be emergent properties of our particular piece of space-time.

      But whatever you do, don't bother to read or research any scientific topics before shooting your mouth off. Just stick to screaming LIAR!!.

      Delete
    92. Scott criticism is nothing more than applying criteria. This is reducible to a specific deductive form with one of the premises asserting that the particular criteria being used in any particular case IS a criteria PER SE. And this means you really are arguing from grounds to conclusions, even though some of the grounds are probabilistic in nature. They are still used as if they are KNOWN to be probabilistic in nature.

      But you say we never increase the probability of any theory/explanation. But increase the probability from what? ZERO? If so, then absolutely NO beliefs are plausible. And in that case, no progress could be knowably made. We wouldn't even know if there's such a thing as progress with any probability at all. You are UTTERLY confused.

      Reasoning IS discursive. It "moves" from grounds to inference, even when those grounds are CRITERIA used in CRITICISM! Otherwise, the criticism isn't rational at all. You're UTTERLY confused. And so are all your sources.

      Delete
    93. Elijah2012: You ask IDist where Ultimate knowledge comes from then claim that their answer has no explanatory purpose then turn right around and invoke "the laws of the universe" with NO EXPLANATION of where that comes from.

      Are you referring to this?

      "some designer that "just was", compete with the knowledge of how to transform air, water, etc. into the specific biological adaptations we observe, already present, does not serve an explanatory purpose. This is because one could more efficiently state that biological organisms, "just appeared" compete with the knowledge of how to transform air, water, etc. into these biological adaptations, already present in their genome."

      Again, to the degrees that we actually explain anything, adding "some designer must have wanted it that way" doesn't add to the explanation.

      This doesn't mean that the degree that we explain anything is exhaustive. Nor does it mean that we have no explanation for the laws of physics at all, as Thorton pointed out. That's what I mean by "to the degree that we explain anything." It's a finite range of explanation.

      In the case of the biosphere, the degree to which we explain the specific adaptations of biological organisms is though the knowledge of what transformations the *organism* would have to perform to end up with a copy of those specific adaptations. Specifically, we explain that knowledge as being genuinely created though a conjecture, in the form of variation that is random to any problem to solve, and refutation, in the form of natural selection. It's part of our current, best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge as a whole, which includes the knowledge found in brains, books and organisms.

      Since it was genuinely created, we've explained the origin of this knowledge without having to infinitely justify it as being dictated by some ultimate authoritative source, which cannot be done. It's a non-justiifcationist explanation.

      Furthermore, saying some designer, "just was", compete with this knowledge, already present, doesn't add to the explanation. This is because we could more efficiently reformulate this as, organisms "just appeared" complete with that specific knowledge in their genome, already present.

      In the case of the designer, that *particular* knowledge is present for no other reason just the designer, and the designer alone, must have wanted it to be there. This doesn't add to the explanation of that *particular* knowledge. Why did it want that *particular* knowledge, rather than some other *particular* knowledge?

      Here's where you run into the problem.

      To the degree that you might try to explain why the designer wanted that *particular* knowledge, rather than some other *particular* knowledge, it's that explanation that explains why that *particular* knowledge is present, not the designer. This is why ID's designer is abstract, has no defined limitations and we cannot make progress to any degree about it. Furthermore, justification is impossible.

      In the case of the more efficient version, this knowledge "just appears", without any explanation. In both cases, we're left with that particular knowledge as the explanation for that organism's particular adaptations.

      Again, the degree in which we explain specific biological adaptations is the knowledge of what transformations the *organism* need to perform to make copies of those same adaptations. And those particular adaptations, rather that some other particular adaptations, are the question that biological darwinism actually addresses. It's not an explanation for why the first life appeared, or why there is something rather than nothing.

      Just because this finite explanation happens to conflicts with *your* infinite account of those things, this doesn't mean it must become infinite for everyone else as well.

      Delete
    94. Scott: Despite providing detailed links, essays and available book references, I somehow haven't clarified by position in a way that distinguishes my attitude regarding the growth of knowledge. This is an attempt to deny or ignore the difference that represent the progress we've made in the field of epistemology.

      Scott: Specifically, I can't have made a distinction if no progress has been made in the field of epistemology.

      jeff: Scott criticism is nothing more than applying criteria.

      Again, this is claim that there is no distinction to be made because "criticism is nothing more than applying criteria". It denies that we've made progress in the field of epistemology.

      Apparently, everyone except children knows no progress can or has been made. Yes, it's that bad of an argument.

      Delete
    95. "From the evidence we have they appear to be emergent properties of our particular piece of space-time."

      ROFL...Thanks T. Exactly my point - They are because they are. Emergent properties provides no explanatory powers beyond the brute fact that they are what they are. EXACTLY what Scot has been complaining about in regard to a theistic designer

      Thanks buddy :)

      Delete
    96. "This doesn't mean that the degree that we explain anything is exhaustive. Nor does it mean that we have no explanation for the laws of physics at all, as Thorton pointed out."

      More lying added on top of lying.

      Emergement properties referenced by Thorton is descriptive not explanatory. It says nothing of where they came from. If anything it makes the same claim as theology - they are because they are. PRECISELY your point against theism

      If the poor kid had even read his own wikipedia link he would have seen that emergence is merely descriptive but its thorton for goodness sake. We can't tax the child too much.

      So sorry you STILL have not answered the question and neither has Thorton who you sore threw you a lifeline but has only shown he is drowning as you are

      No More fudging on your part.

      answer at The question

      Where do the laws of the universe ultimately come from? If you continue to refuse to answer, dance from answering or try and go on to something else rather than answering then you will continue to confirmed being a hypocrite and can safely ignored.

      Delete
    97. Elijah2012: Emergent properties provides no explanatory powers beyond the brute fact that they are what they are.

      Did you bother reading the rest of the entry?

      In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.

      if a computer defeats you at chess, were you defeated by mere silicon atoms?

      EXACTLY what Scot has been complaining about in regard to a theistic designer.

      Actually, claiming that no distinction or progress can be made is one of my "complaints." And, essentially, you're claiming there is no distinction between emergence and a brute fact.

      Delete
    98. Elijah2012: It says nothing of where they came from.

      So, unless emergence says the laws of physics "come from somewhere", you do not consider it an explanation?

      This seems oddly familiar. Haven't we been over this before?

      However, Cornelius knows that his target audience consist of justificationists. As such, he doesn't actually have respond. The idea that knowledge in specific spheres comes from [authoritative] sources is a core commitment of theism. He knows you won't accept it, even if he does nothing.

      Delete
    99. "Here's where you run into the problem."

      I run into no problem whatsoever except trying to conceive how anyone could be so intellectually dishonest as you are. observe -

      "To the degree that you might try to explain why the designer wanted that *particular* knowledge, rather than some other *particular* knowledge, "

      I don't need to. that is your mumbo jumbo. In the theist position there is no "other" particular knowledge that God need access or implement but his own. Furthermore you even in your framework have no way of determining why reality constructs this knowledge rather than than some other knowledge distinct from your assumed knowledge from natural selection . So we are right back to your total dishonest hypocrisy of requiring explanatory purpose that you yourself cannot show.

      See? I have no problem. You have once again shown your ongoing problem of hypocrisy.

      "In the case of the more efficient version, this knowledge "just appears", without any explanation."

      and in your framework the laws of the universe which shape the very ability of the organism's knowledge "just appears"

      You make no sensible distinction . So AGAIN

      No More fudging on your part.

      answer The question

      Where do the laws of the universe ultimately come from? If you continue to refuse to answer, dance from answering or try and go on to something else rather than answering then you will continue to confirm yourself as being a hypocrite and can safely be ignored as having anything coherent to say.

      Delete
    100. jeff: Scott criticism is nothing more than applying criteria.

      Scott: Again, this is claim that there is no distinction to be made because "criticism is nothing more than applying criteria".

      J: No distinction of what two or more things?

      Scott: It denies that we've made progress in the field of epistemology.

      J: Progress in epistemology is only progress by applying parsimony to our naturally-formed beliefs. But that can only go so far for a HUMAN epistemology. Human epistemology can't improve infinitely. Because epistemology is nothing more than discovering the most fundamental propositions (some of which are criteria) with which we construct theories and reject explanatory hypotheses of our conscious experience. Our conscious experience isn't a static set. It is constantly changing in unique ways. But our epistemological APPROACH to explaining it cannot be said to be progressive if we can continually overturn our epistemological approach indefinitely. Because that would imply that what we interpreted to be past progress was actually just bogus inferences.

      Dude, there's no way around foundationalism. All belief is built on some subset of our NATURALLY-FORMED or NATRALLY-COMPELLED beliefs, whether they be true of false.

      Delete
    101. "Did you bother reading the rest of the entry?

      In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems."

      did you bother to engage your brain? the interactions are in fact controlled by the laws or are you now in babbling total tom foolery nonsense proclaiming that systems operate without any laws to govern them?

      Please present that wonderful piece of evidence because despite you and thorton's vain babblings emergent properties are descriptive not explanatory and even your own quotes show this

      My goodness what total idiocy you will go to to try and find a way out of your total hypocrisy. Read the article and read about emergence as even a child could and you will see it IS descriptive.


      " And, essentially, you're claiming there is no distinction between emergence and a brute fact."

      wrong again.. Are you trying to set a record for being wrong? Its not that emergence has no distinction from a brute fact . Its that USING emergence as an explanation for the laws of the universe is nothing more than claiming it as a brute fact.

      "So, unless emergence says the laws of physics "come from somewhere", you do not consider it an explanation?"

      LOL you are always so lost in you own mind. WHat was your question to ID theists?

      "Where does the knowledge come from?"

      So YOUR questions was for an explanation of where the knowledge comes from ( my goodness its like I have to break things down to a child's level). I in turn asked you where do the laws of the universe come from.

      SO of course the explanation that is required is and explanation of where the laws of the universe come from.

      Have I broken it down enough for you to get it yet?

      so get to it and stop trying to beg that you should be allowed to give some alleged explanation that does not answer the actual question.

      still waiting

      Delete
    102. Elijah2012: I don't need to. that is your mumbo jumbo.

      If it's mumbo jumbo, then why not ask for clarification?

      Then again, apparently you can't even be you even bother to quote the rest of the sentence, which is part of the actual context.

      Here's where you run into the problem.

      To the degree that you might try to explain why the designer wanted that *particular* knowledge, rather than some other *particular* knowledge, it's that explanation that explains why that *particular* knowledge is present, not the designer. This is why ID's designer is abstract, has no defined limitations and we cannot make progress to any degree about it. Furthermore, justification is impossible.


      Elijah2012: I don't need to. that is your mumbo jumbo.

      I didn't say you needed to. I'm saying you don't want to.

      To the degree that you explain the designer, that aspect is demoted from being inexplicably supernatural to just some unobserved entity or process. And it's that unobserved entity or process that becomes the explanation.

      If we could make progress explaining the designer, then that progress would be the explanation, not the designer.

      This is why ID's designer is abstract, has no defined limitations and represents a boundary where no progress can be made.

      Delete
    103. Elijah2012: LOL you are always so lost in you own mind. WHat was your question to ID theists?

      Elijah2012: "Where does the knowledge come from?"

      Except, that's not the question I asked.

      Elijah2012: SO go ahead ask the question again

      Scott: What is the origin of that knowledge? How do you explain it? I'm asking again because, as I've already pointed out above, adding a designer doesn't actually serve an explanatory purpose.

      So, apparently, every time I ask the question, you translate it into the form of "Where does the knowledge come from?"

      And I'm lost in my own mind?

      Delete
    104. "If it's mumbo jumbo, then why not ask for clarification?"

      Simple. Its not mumbo jumbo because it requires clarification its mumbo jumbo because no clarification that to be offered has saved or will save it from logical incoherence

      "Then again, apparently you can't even be you even bother to quote the rest of the sentence"

      You've made that silly appeal before. If we each quoted each other in entirety we would exceed the limit of characters every time. theres no point trying to imply anything from either of us not quoting each other in entirety when the posts are right above the replies. Its a silly observation.

      Your bolded parts make no difference except in your own mind. want me to quote it again? Fine

      "it's that explanation that explains why that *particular* knowledge is present, not the designer. This is why ID's designer is abstract, has no defined limitations and we cannot make progress to any degree about it."

      and how do you explain why that knowledge is present and not say an entirely different knowledge that even in your construct would not be a result of natural selection. You can't. All you can do is claim that this knowledge was a result of natural selection and it does nothing to explain why. Despite your garbage distinctions you find your self in the same veil of abstractness for anyone with an imagination not bounded by a darwinist framework. The only progress that can be made on either side is the study of the organism themselves and its laughable to watch someone pontificate about progress of of our knowledge of where the genome's knowledge come from that runs whenever possible from the well known abject failure in making any real progress in establishing a model for abiogenesis that does not fall on its face.

      "

      Delete
    105. Scott: It denies that we've made progress in the field of epistemology.

      Jeff: Progress in epistemology is only progress by applying parsimony to our naturally-formed beliefs.

      Which is yet another dental that any distinction can be made, which I've made at length.

      Jeff: Dude, there's no way around foundationalism. All belief is built on some subset of our NATURALLY-FORMED or NATRALLY-COMPELLED beliefs, whether they be true of false.

      Exctly why can't we get around it?

      Are you saying the field of epistemology consists only of foundationalism?

      Or are you're saying there is no distinction to be made here?

      Critical rationalism rejects the classical position that knowledge is justified true belief; it instead holds the exact opposite: That, in general, knowledge is unjustified untrue unbelief. It is unjustified because of the non-existence of good reasons. It is untrue, because it usually contains errors that sometimes remain unnoticed for hundreds of years. And it is not belief either, because scientific knowledge, or the knowledge needed to build a plane, is contained in no single person's mind. It is only available as the content of books.

      or here?

      By dissolving justificationism itself, the critical rationalist regards knowledge and rationality, reason and science, as neither foundational nor infallible, but nevertheless does not think we must therefore all be relativists. Knowledge and truth still exist, just not in the way we thought.

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

      Delete
    107. "Except, that's not the question I asked.

      Elijah2012: SO go ahead ask the question again

      Scott: What is the origin of that knowledge? How do you explain it? I'm asking again because, as I've already pointed out above, adding a designer doesn't actually serve an explanatory purpose."


      Heres a tip. when you decide to play a dishonest semantics game in the future at least make sure that you yourself did not use the phrase you are playing the game with

      "Come from" rather than "origin of" eh?

      -----------
      Scott: You think my theory "breaks down" and that I avoid "origins" because you think knowledge can only COME FROM an authoritative supernatural source"
      -------------

      So yes you dishonest soul. You DID challenge me on the basis of where knowledge "comes from".

      Which is why if you had some honesty you would address yourself to my equal challenge to explain where the laws of the universe come from in a way that has greater explanatory power.

      But my bet is you won't . You will just try to pontificate and parse your way out of your latest less than honest gaffe.

      Delete
    108. Jeff: Progress in epistemology is only progress by applying parsimony to our naturally-formed beliefs.

      Scott: Which is yet another dental that any distinction can be made, which I've made at length.

      J: Again, WHAT distinction? Progress or no progress? If both grounds and inferences have no warrant, beliefs PER SE are unwarranted. And in that case, no progress is knowably made. This ain't rocket science, dude.

      Scott: Exctly why can't we get around it?

      Are you saying the field of epistemology consists only of foundationalism?

      J: I'm saying that beliefs either occur naturally, or they're derived discursively (i.e., voluntarily). Either way, if no belief is knowably more probable than its negation, there is no way to make knowable progress. And if our grounds are blind beliefs (i.e., unwarranted in ANY sense), then all inferences derived from them are also blind.

      Just because there are different MUTUALLY-exclusive (if the law-of-non-contradiction is at least valid) positions amongst epistemologists doesn't mean any particular position is right. If you don't even understand that much, you're confused beyond belief.

      Delete
    109. Jeff: I'm saying that beliefs either occur naturally, or they're derived discursively (i.e., voluntarily).

      You seem to be saying there are two types of beliefs. The first type is inexplicable and involuntary, because they are natural, while the second type is voluntary and based on using induction to show one is more probable than other.

      Would this be an accurate assessment?

      Jeff: Just because there are different MUTUALLY-exclusive (if the law-of-non-contradiction is at least valid) positions amongst epistemologists doesn't mean any particular position is right. If you don't even understand that much, you're confused beyond belief.

      First, I've already indicated that criticism isn't limited to mutually-exclusive contradictions.

      Second, when you say "right", you mean true, justified belief? If so, then you are ignoring the distinctions I've indicated repeatedly in comments on other threads and directly above.

      For example I asked…

      Scott: … are you're saying there is no distinction to be made here? … or here?

      But you did not respond.

      Delete
    110. Elijah2012: So yes you dishonest soul. You DID challenge me on the basis of where knowledge "comes from".

      No, I ways trying to pull *your* position out of *you*, since you were avoiding the substance of the question. Specifically….

      Scott: You think my theory "breaks down" and that I avoid "origins" because you think knowledge can only come from an authoritative supernatural source".

      Elijah2012: Pure crap. Thats just trying to muddy the waters.

      Scott: Again, if I have *you* wrong, then *you* should have no problem enlightening us with what *you* think the right answer is.

      Scott: How do *you* explain this knowledge?


      At which point, I ask my question again in the same comment...

      Scott: IOW, If an organism was designed by ID's intelligent designer, what is the origin of the knowledge that designer would have put in the organism while intentionally arranging it?

      Delete
    111. "No, I ways trying to pull *your* position out of *you*, since you were avoiding the substance of the question."


      Voila! My bet won


      "But my bet is you won't . You will just try to pontificate and parse your way out of your latest less than honest gaffe."

      Delete
    112. Scott: You seem to be saying there are two types of beliefs. The first type is inexplicable and involuntary, because they are natural, while the second type is voluntary and based on using induction to show one is more probable than other.

      Would this be an accurate assessment?

      Jeff: Natural beliefs have causes. They can be caused by association or whatever it is that "supplies" categorical relations to raw sense data. E.g., the relations of before and after are not sense data. But we can't shake those relations--they're naturally-caused.

      Volitional, discursive beliefs can be derived deductively or inductively.

      Jeff: Just because there are different MUTUALLY-exclusive (if the law-of-non-contradiction is at least valid) positions amongst epistemologists doesn't mean any particular position is right. If you don't even understand that much, you're confused beyond belief.

      Scott: First, I've already indicated that criticism isn't limited to mutually-exclusive contradictions.

      Jeff: That's beside the point. Because whether deductive or inductive, the axioms of both kinds of criticism are accepted FOUNDATIONALLY/AXIOMATICALLY! We have no other choices on the menu!

      Scott: Second, when you say "right", you mean true, justified belief?

      Jeff: Scott, we agree that we can never prove absolutely that any proposition is true. We agree that our axioms, too, could be wrong. That's beside the point. Every time you state a proposition in the indicative mood, you're implying you BELIEVE that it's TRUE! You believe a proposition is true either because the proposition formed naturally in the indicative mood, or because you derived it discursively FROM a naturally-formed indicative-formed proposition.

      Scott: If so, then you are ignoring the distinctions I've indicated repeatedly in comments on other threads and directly above.

      Jeff: On the contrary. I'm showing that your claims are not even intelligible. One can't discursively derive beliefs without starting from grounds. This is true by definition. What you're stating is LITERALLY unintelligible, once analyzed. The distinction exists in your mind only in the sense of contradictory statements. It's the attempted analysis of the MEANING of your view which shows it to be pure gobbledygook.

      If no beliefs are more probable than any other, there is no normativity to belief at all. In that case, there's literally NOTHING to debate.

      Delete
    113. Scott: You seem to be saying there are two types of beliefs. The first type is inexplicable and involuntary, because they are natural…

      Jeff: Natural beliefs have causes. They can be caused by association or whatever it is that "supplies" categorical relations to raw sense data. E.g., the relations of before and after are not sense data. But we can't shake those relations--they're naturally-caused.

      I appreciate your response. However, it's still not clear if you think the first type of beliefs are inexplicable. Should I assume this is a accurate assessment since you did not contradict it?

      Also, which of the two types of belief does this first "belief" itself fall under? Is it foundational as well?

      Jeff: Because whether deductive or inductive, the axioms of both kinds of criticism are accepted FOUNDATIONALLY/AXIOMATICALLY! We have no other choices on the menu!

      Is our lack of other choices a belief that is itself foundational or discursive?

      Scott: ...while the second type is voluntary and based on using induction to show one is more probable than other.

      Jeff: If no beliefs are more probable than any other, there is no normativity to belief at all. In that case, there's literally NOTHING to debate.

      Again, I appreciate your response. However, it's still not clear that you think that we use induction to "show" something is more probability than another. Should I also assume this is a accurate assessment since you did not contradict it?

      If so, is the belief that we use induction to show some ideas are more probable than other a foundational belief or discursive?

      Jeff: Every time you state a proposition in the indicative mood, you're implying you BELIEVE that it's TRUE! You believe a proposition is true either because the proposition formed naturally in the indicative mood, or because you derived it discursively FROM a naturally-formed indicative-formed proposition.

      Except we still have a few things to clear up. I'll address this once we have.

      In the mean time, is the belief that these two tables *are* longer and wider than the other a foundational or discursive belief?

      Specifically, if we take away the the lines, the illusion returns. So, what category does it fall under?

      Jeff: If no beliefs are more probable than any other, there is no normativity to belief at all. In that case, there's literally NOTHING to debate.

      Except, we still haven't cleared how you think some belief is more probable than another, or what you mean by probable in the first place. Please see above.

      Delete
    114. Elijah2012: "But my bet is you won't . You will just try to pontificate and parse your way out of your latest less than honest gaffe."

      Are you trying to suggest that a proposed answer to a question is the same things as the question itself? Is pointing out they are two separate things,"pontificating and parsing"?

      Specifically, the question does not necessitate the proposed answer assumes the knowledge merely "comes from" some source. The question is open to a degree that the answer was not.

      Delete
    115. "Are you trying to suggest that a proposed answer to a question is the same things as the question itself? "

      Sigh

      NO I am saying you are a totally dishonest individual that will pontificate about anything in order to side step your dishonesty just like you just did.

      You hypocritically take issue with me saying "come from" rather than the "origin of" when as I have demonstrated CONCLUSIVELY you YOURSELF used the expression "comes from" in a direct sentence related to "Origin" precisely how I did. (yes we know you will pontificate some more to beg a difference)

      People like you do not learn from philosophy. You attempt to use it and verbage to squirm out from your own words and the standards you try to unilaterally impose on others. Its an exercise in tickling your own mind and swearing your own brilliance while fabricating and invoking fallacies.

      You are like the guy that says its overcast outside so he is staying in. You show him the blue sky outside and he then launches into parsing the word "overcast" and how we can never truly know that it is not overcast without trusting in our eye sight - all just to sidestep being wrong

      Thats all. NO brilliance, NO real insight.

      Further half the time you don't not even understand the philosophical principles you blather on about as Jeff has clearly demonstrated. Like a first year college philosophy student you read a little philosophy and confuse yourself beyond logical comprehension.

      Take your constant rant about justificationism and your reference link. You read a page there and its main early example is that of christian and religious authoritarianism justification and you swear that justificationism has special application to theism.

      IT doesn't. IT relates to any belief or conclusion derived at by reliance on ANY authority. It has nothing AT ALL to do with a theistic conclusion or ANY particular conclusion but has to do with the methodology of coming to a conclusion

      Are you then a justificationist? Why of course you are and when I claim you are you only show your own continuing ignorance by proclaiming that I think that because I think a supernatural authority source of knowledge is inevitable as if justificationism only applies to supernatural authority.

      Again it doesn't. How then are you a justificationist? simple

      You appeal to "our best theories". How do you determine what is best? I believe you claimed to be a programmer but even the best scientists seldom gets to see first hand all the evidences in their field.

      SO lets put your justificanationism clap trap to bed (even though yes we know you will whine for ever otherwise). even world renown scientist rely on published papers from authoritative journals to derive a framework for determining the best in their field. Even in their own specialty they never have the time or means to independently verify each fact they rely on or the facts that those facts rely on.

      They ALL rely on authority at some point. Textbooks, papers, interviewing authorities and they ALL have beliefs based on those points derived from authorities.

      So we have three choices

      A) Scott is more brilliant than any scientists on the planet and has verified every fact independently upon which he bases his "best theories" on
      B) Scott is full of pure crap and has no idea whatsoever about any scientific theory
      C) at some point (in fact multiple points) Scott DOES rely on authoritarianism justification in determining what he believes is the best theories.

      We can most definitely rule out A. as much as I would be inclined to choose B even scott is not that bad. So we have C

      Scott IS a justicationists at some point.

      Scott is full of all smoke and no fire.

      Delete
    116. Elijah2012: You hypocritically take issue with me saying "come from" rather than the "origin of" when as I have demonstrated CONCLUSIVELY you YOURSELF used the expression "comes from" in a direct sentence related to "Origin" precisely how I did. (yes we know you will pontificate some more to beg a difference)

      Just so I'm clear, are you saying there is no difference between using the words "comes from" in describing what I think *someone else* thinks, and using the words "comes from" in describing what *I* think?

      What I'm trying to do is make progress, despite implications that progress has not or cannot be made.

      Our current, best explanation for the growth of knowledge is conjecture controlled by criticism. In the light of this, I conjectured what your answer was to the question "what is the origin of this knowledge?", was so we could criticize it. This means taking that conjectured theory seriously for the purpose of criticism, rather than actually believing it is true, personally.

      This is why I asked: "Or, do I have it wrong somewhere?"

      So, I'm trying to get you to criticize your own theory, rather than mine.

      Delete
    117. Scott: So, I'm trying to get you to criticize your own theory, rather than mine.

      What do I mean by this? I'm trying to get you to clarify your own theory. Just because I've used the words, "comes from", this doesn't mean it's my theory as well.

      Yes, in a sense, it is my theory, but it's a theory about what *your* conception of human knowledge is, not mine. And I've had to conjecture it because I cant get you to take your own theory seriously for the purpose of criticism.

      Elijah2012: Scott IS a justicationists at some point.

      By definition, if you are a justicationist, then you would claim that I also must also be a justificationitst at some point. Thats what it means to be a justicationist.

      It's an epistemological view about knowledge, and you're applying that view to the very subject we're discussing. You're assuming that, If I know anything, then I must have justified it somehow. So, you're projecting that view on myself and others.

      That's precisely my point.


      Delete
    118. Scott: I appreciate your response. However, it's still not clear if you think the first type of beliefs are inexplicable. Should I assume this is a accurate assessment since you did not contradict it?

      J: There's always a limit to explaining. Infinite regresses are not humanly possible. E.g., I can think association is a necessary condition of memory, but that doesn't mean I've accounted for the sufficient conditions of either.

      Scott: Also, which of the two types of belief does this first "belief" itself fall under? Is it foundational as well?

      Jeff: It's discursive. It requires intentional analysis. But even analysis is of no value if there are no foundational beliefs that limit possibilities, like, e.g., the law of non-contradiction. IOW, if real possibilities aren't a subset of logical possibilities, we can't know anything.

      Scott: Is our lack of other choices a belief that is itself foundational or discursive?

      Jeff: It too is the conclusion of analysis at first. It can be remembered naturally thereafter.

      Scott: Again, I appreciate your response. However, it's still not clear that you think that we use induction to "show" something is more probability than another. Should I also assume this is a accurate assessment since you did not contradict it?

      Jeff: Relative probability/plausibility is always relative to what you're comparing. In that sense, we never show anything is more probably true absolutely, including whether we know anything at all. Remember, solipsism is a logical possibility, even if real possibilities are a subset of logical possibilities. We just show that one or more propositions are more or less plausible than others, using criteria like parsimony, etc, in terms of our currently "accepted" memory of our experience thus far.

      Scott: If so, is the belief that we use induction to show some ideas are more probable than other a foundational belief or discursive?

      J: My belief that you use induction is an inductive inference. My belief that you exist is an inductive inference.

      Scott: In the mean time, is the belief that these two tables *are* longer and wider than the other a foundational or discursive belief?

      J: That there is such a thing as a table or a composite of particles that we classify as a table is an inductive inference. Solipsism is a logical possibility.

      Scott: Specifically, if we take away the the lines, the illusion returns. So, what category does it fall under?

      J: What lines?

      Jeff: If no beliefs are more probable than any other, there is no normativity to belief at all. In that case, there's literally NOTHING to debate.

      Scottt: Except, we still haven't cleared how you think some belief is more probable than another, or what you mean by probable in the first place. Please see above.

      Jeff: Wrong. If no beliefs are knowably more probable than any other, there is no normativity to belief at all. In that case, there's literally NOTHING to debate. This has nothing to do with whether my epistemology is true.

      Delete
    119. Scott: However, it's still not clear if you think the first type of beliefs are inexplicable.

      Jeff: There's always a limit to explaining. Infinite regresses are not humanly possible.

      Here, you're saying is inexplicable, in practice. What but what about in principle? Take number systems, for example.

      Before the Arabic number system, not only was it impossible to represent any (infinite) number, in practice, but it was impossible in principle. This is because earlier number systems were only capable of representing a finite set of numbers. So, we can say that the Arabic number system made the leap to universality, in that it can represent any finite number, in practice, because it can represent any infinite number in principle.

      So, in the same sense, are beliefs of the first type inexplicable, in principle?

      Scott: Also, which of the two types of belief does this first "belief" itself fall under? Is it foundational as well?

      Jeff: It's discursive. It requires intentional analysis.

      Ok, but then you added….

      Jeff: But even analysis is of no value if there are no foundational beliefs that limit possibilities, like, e.g., the law of non-contradiction. IOW, if real possibilities aren't a subset of logical possibilities, we can't know anything.

      Which doesn't help clarify the answer..

      To rephrase, is the belief that "natural beliefs are foundational" itself a natural belief, or is it discursive? If it's discursive, then what aspect is open for discussion? Which set of beliefs are natural, and therefore foundational, or that beliefs are foundational because they are natural?

      Scott: Is our lack of other choices a belief that is itself foundational or discursive?

      Jeff: It too is the conclusion of analysis at first.

      OK, but then you add..

      Jeff: It can be remembered naturally thereafter.

      This to is not improved by your clarification. For example, it's unclear what it means to say that something is remembered "naturally". Does it change status or do we had an additional recollection of having reached it discursively in the past?

      Delete
    120. Scott: … it's still not clear that you think that we use induction to "show" something is more [probable] than another.

      Jeff: Relative probability/plausibility is always relative to what you're comparing. In that sense, we never show anything is more probably true absolutely, including whether we know anything at all.

      What do you mean by "what you're comparing"? For example, there are an infinite number of logical possibilities that could account for any observation. However, there are only a finite number of conceived explanations for any observation.

      In the case of the former, how do we determine which particular finite set of infinite logical possibilities to compare and in what way are the relative to each other? Is the contents of that set foundational or discursive? This is in contrast to comparing explanations.

      For example, you went on to write...

      Jeff: Remember, solipsism is a logical possibility, even if real possibilities are a subset of logical possibilities. We just show that one or more propositions are more or less plausible than others, using criteria like parsimony, etc, in terms of our currently "accepted" memory of our experience thus far.

      However, we discard an infinite number of logical possibilities every day, in every field of science, such as the mere logical possibility that eating a square foot of grass every day for a week could cure cancer. And we do so, a-priori, before performing any empirical tests.

      Would we have done so because it's logically impossible? No. Is it because it is untestable? No, testing it would be trivial. So then why would discard such a plentiful, inexpensive cure for cancer a-priori? because we have no explanation as to why eating a square foot of grass every day for a week could cure cancer.

      Why would solipsism, as a mere logical possibility, any different?

      Scott: If so, is the belief that we use induction to show some ideas are more probable than other a foundational belief or discursive?

      Jeff: My belief that you use induction is an inductive inference. My belief that you exist is an inductive inference.

      This does not indicate which of the two it falls under. Is that belief foundational or discursive?

      Delete
    121. Scott: In the mean time, is the belief that [one of] these two tables *are* longer and wider than the other a foundational or discursive belief?

      Jeff: That there is such a thing as a table or a composite of particles that we classify as a table is an inductive inference. Solipsism is a logical possibility.

      I was referring to the specific tables depicted at the linked page and the belief that one is longer or wider than the other.

      Scott: Specifically, if we take away the the lines, the illusion returns. So, what category does it fall under?

      J: What lines?

      The yellow and blue lines the third illustration at the linked article. When they are added, one's belief regarding the size variations is criticized. However, when they are removed, the illusion returns. Which category does it fall under, natural or discursive? Does it change status when the lines are added and removed?

      Scott: Except, we still haven't cleared [up] how you think some belief[s are] more probable than another, or what you mean by probable in the first place. Please see above.

      Jeff: Wrong. If no beliefs are knowably more probable than any other, there is no normatively to belief at all. In that case, there's literally NOTHING to debate. This has nothing to do with whether my epistemology is true.

      I'm not following you. Are you saying what *you* mean by "more probable" and how you use induction to determine which beliefs are "more probable" is clear because, otherwise, there would be nothing to debate?

      Wouldn't it be the opposite? Specifically, wouldn't their be nothing to debate if induction, and the role it played in making a theory more probable, was obvious to everyone? Wouldn't we just naturally all agree?

      Specifically, I'm looking for an "principle of induction" that we can reliable apply that provides guidance we can use, in practice. How do you explain it? Or is it inexplicable because it is foundational?

      Delete
    122. What do I mean by this?

      From the wikipeia article on induction...

      The classic philosophical treatment of the problem of induction was given by the Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume highlighted the fact that our everyday habits of mind depend on drawing uncertain conclusions from our relatively limited experiences rather than on deductively valid arguments. For example, we believe that bread will nourish us because it has done so in the past, despite no guarantee that it will do so. Hume argued that it is impossible to justify inductive reasoning: specifically, that it cannot be justified deductively, so our only option is to justify it inductively. Since this is circular he concluded that it is impossible to justify induction.

      However, Hume then stated that even if induction were proved unreliable, we would still have to rely on it. So instead of a position of severe skepticism, Hume advocated a practical skepticism based on common sense, where the inevitability of induction is accepted.

      You seem to be taking Hume's position of inevitability when you say...

      Jeff: Wrong. If no beliefs are knowably more probable than any other, there is no normatively to belief at all. In that case, there's literally NOTHING to debate. This has nothing to do with whether my epistemology is true.

      We must rely on induction anyway, otherwise there would be no debate. But there is debate, so induction must be what we're using?

      If this is the case, is this inevitability a natural belief or discursive?

      Delete
    123. Scott: are beliefs of the first type inexplicable, in principle?

      J: We might acceptably explain association and memory, but the explanation might be wrong. If we can explain things in principle, that doesn't assure us that the explanation is true. We just do the best we can using parsimony, etc.

      Scott: is the belief that "natural beliefs are foundational" itself a natural belief, or is it discursive?

      J: It's discursive in the sense that one has to analyze to see it. But I'm not saying all natural beliefs are foundational to discursive MODES of thought. A false memory is a natural belief. But it's not only not knowledge, it's anti-knowledge.

      Scott: If it's discursive, then what aspect is open for discussion?

      J: We distinguish between natural and foundational, true and false, etc. We try to limit the number of foundational beliefs to the most parsimonious set required to account for our indispensable knowledge.

      Scott: it's unclear what it means to say that something is remembered "naturally". Does it change status or do we had an additional recollection of having reached it discursively in the past?

      J: Suppose I run into an old high school buddy. He asks, "do you remember when ...," and I remember it. Is that a voluntary memory? On the other hand, if I'm racking my brain to remember where I left something, that is intentional. Association is necessary for either, seemingly. But I can regulate associations by thinking about specific things.

      Scott: because we have no explanation as to why eating a square foot of grass every day for a week could cure cancer.

      J: That has nothing to do with it. I can't explain memory. That doesn't mean I don't believe memory occurs and that it's not caused. Virtually no one would be willing to eat a square foot of grass every day even if it did cure cancer. Think about how many people won't quit smoking when they have lung problems.

      And it's not true that people discard an infinite set of scenarios. People are, in large part, compelled by association alone to problem-solve in constrained ways. IOW, it's like psychologists say--people can't live outside of their comfort zone all the time. When they do, they get ill, they become less productive, they have more accidents, and so on.

      Scott: If so, is the belief that we use induction to show some ideas are more probable than other a foundational belief or discursive?

      J: Discursive.

      Scott: In the mean time, is the belief that [one of] these two tables *are* longer and wider than the other a foundational or discursive belief?

      J: Inferring 3-dimensionality is discursive originally. But eventually, it's just second nature. So in that sense, it's natural. But it's not foundational in the same way a false memory isn't foundational to a discursive MODE of thought.

      Scott: Are you saying what *you* mean by "more probable" and how you use induction to determine which beliefs are "more probable" is clear because, otherwise, there would be nothing to debate?

      J: I'm saying that debate is done to increase satisfaction. If no beliefs could ever be knowably more or less plausible/probable, then how could well-intending humans get satisfaction from debating?

      Scott: If this is the case, is this inevitability a natural belief or discursive?

      J: An inevitability is not a belief. We can be inconsistent in our use of parsimony, analogical extrapolation, etc. But we can't totally abandon them either. We know from experience that they increase long-term satisfaction.

      Association highly constrains what is satisfying for humans. Induction constrains it further by looking for deductive relationships that fit inductive patterns that render predicatability consistent with satisfaction. Induction doesn't fight association and foundational beliefs. It uses them. Solipsism works AGAINST association and natural beliefs. It's totally unsatisfying. And that's why it's rejected out of hand.

      Delete
    124. And even to the extent that we think eating grass wouldn't cure cancer (your explanation), it's because of how induction works. We already know that eating grass is BAD for us. So why would we think that taxing an already disfunctional system thus would help that same SYSTEM heal itself of cancer? It's counter-inductive, right or wrong.

      Delete
    125. Scott: are beliefs of the first type inexplicable, in principle?

      Jeff: We might acceptably explain association and memory, but the explanation might be wrong. If we can explain things in principle, that doesn't assure us that the explanation is true. We just do the best we can using parsimony, etc.

      I appreciate your response. However, it's still not clear if you think beliefs of the first type are inexplicable, in principle, in the same sense that we could not represent any possible number, in principle, before the advent of the Arabic number system. Should I assume this is an accurate assessment since you did not contradict it?

      For example, no explanation can actually be exhaustive, so we know that all explanations are incomplete, And if they start out as conjectures then we expect them to contain errors to some degree. But that is in regards to explanations, in practice, not in principle.

      So, to rephrase, are there any kind of belief that is inexplicable, in principle?

      Scott: is the belief that "natural beliefs are foundational" itself a natural belief, or is it discursive?

      Jeff: It's discursive in the sense that one has to analyze to see it. But I'm not saying all natural beliefs are foundational to discursive MODES of thought. A false memory is a natural belief. But it's not only not knowledge, it's anti-knowledge.

      I'm trying to determine which category of belief that specific belief is, not whether it is true or false. You seem to imply there is some kind of connection there, it's not quite clear as to what that connection is. Perhaps you're implying that a natural belief is not foundational if it is false? But I'm under the impression that we've already agreed that *our* beliefs cannot be proven to be true in this sense, which would also include those beliefs.

      Delete
    126. Scott: So then why would discard such a plentiful, inexpensive cure for cancer a-priori? Because we have no explanation as to why eating a square foot of grass every day for a week could cure cancer.

      Jeff: That has nothing to do with it. I can't explain memory. That doesn't mean I don't believe memory occurs and that it's not caused.

      First, perhaps you mean "justify memory", rather than explain it? Again, explanations cannot be exhaustive. Nor are they without errors to some degree. However this doesn't mean that our current, best explanations for our memories are empty and we have made no progress. Damage in specific areas effects different kinds of memory. Even if this is an incomplete explanation, it represents progress.

      Second, I'm referring to discarding a logical possibility as a *potential* cancer cure. For example, It's also logically possible that singing show tunes in the shower every day for a week could cure cancer, or standing on one's head for 30 seconds every day for a month, etc/, for some reason we have yet to conceive.

      Jeff: Virtually no one would be willing to eat a square foot of grass every day even if it did cure cancer. Think about how many people won't quit smoking when they have lung problems.

      Are you suggesting that cancer patients currently undergoing existing expensive and highly detrimental treatments, such as chemo, surgery or radiation would not switch to eating a square foot of grass every day? Sure, humans cannot digest most kinds of grass, but it would be a supplement, not a replacement.

      Jeff: And it's not true that people discard an infinite set of scenarios.

      We discarded an infinite number of mere logical possibilities before we even bother to test if they have any effect on cancer. This doesn't mean they are false, but we do not bother testing them. This is in contrast to explanatory theories. The mere logical possibility that repeating the same phrase every 30 minutes for a week isn't an explanation. Or you could change the phrases, timing, duration, etc. Why do we not bother with this line of testing? Because we have no explanation how repeating phrases would cure cancer.

      We explain our relatively recent and exponential growth in that we focus on good explanations, which offer the most potential for criticism. This results in explanatory knowledge, which has significantly more reach, rather than a merely useful rule of thumb, which has significantly less reach.

      Delete
    127. Jeff: People are, in large part, compelled by association alone to problem-solve in constrained ways.

      Again, observations that my cupboards are empty does not necessary tell me what I *should* fill them with. While I would be constrained by observations of the dimensions of each cupboard, those observations are also based on explanations about what happened in a particular time and space, etc.

      Scott: Are you saying what *you* mean by "more probable" and how you use induction to determine which beliefs are "more probable" is clear because, otherwise, there would be nothing to debate?

      Jeff: I'm saying that debate is done to increase satisfaction. If no beliefs could ever be knowably more or less plausible/probable, then how could well-intending humans get satisfaction from debating?

      We make progress towards our preferences when human knowledge grows, so we must have used induction to cause that growth?

      Wikipedia: However, Hume then stated that even if induction were proved unreliable, we would still have to rely on it. So instead of a position of severe skepticism, Hume advocated a practical skepticism based on common sense, where the inevitability of induction is accepted.

      Scott: If this is the case, is this inevitability (the belief that we would still have to rely on induction) a natural belief or discursive?

      Jeff: An inevitability is not a belief. We can be inconsistent in our use of parsimony, analogical extrapolation, etc. But we can't totally abandon them either. We know from experience that they increase long-term satisfaction.

      "Knowledge grows via induction" is not a belief?

      Jeff: Association highly constrains what is satisfying for humans.

      What humans find satisfying isn't related to our preferences? Do we not adopt new ideas about how the world works when we change our preferences?

      Jeff: Induction doesn't fight association and foundational beliefs. It uses them.

      If Induction uses them, you shouldn't have a problem presenting a "principle of induction" that we can reliable apply to provide guidance in choosing between theories. Please be specific.

      Jeff: Solipsism works AGAINST association and natural beliefs. It's totally unsatisfying. And that's why it's rejected out of hand.

      Again, I'm not a non-Solipsist merely because it's unintuitive. I'm a non-Solipsist because it does not survive rational criticism. The tables illusion I referenced is one such example. When we remove the lines, the illusion returns. But this doesn't mean we must also return to the assumption that one table really is wider / taller than the other. We've make progress.

      As a mere logical possibility, we discard Solipsism - just like the logical possibility that eating a square meter of grass every day for a week could cure cancer.

      When we attempt to take Solipsism serious for the purpose of criticism, it does not explain why object-like facets of my internal self would obey laws of physics-like facets of my internal self. Nor does it explain why other conscious being-like facets of my internal self would disagree with me about Solipsism, etc.

      It's a convoluted elaboration of realism. As such, we discard it. We're not limited to merely intuition or "satisfaction"

      Delete
    128. Jeff: And even to the extent that we think eating grass wouldn't cure cancer (your explanation), it's because of how induction works.

      You seem to have confused explaining why we wouldn't have tested the *logical possibility*, with an *explanation* as to why it wouldn't cure cancer.

      For example If, tomorrow, someone were to conceive of a good explanation of how eating grass would cure cancer, we would test it. But until that time, we discard it as one of an infinite number of explanation-less logical possibilities

      Jeff: We already know that eating grass is BAD for us.

      While there are few grasses that human can break down into nutrients that sustain us, this doesn't mean it's logically impossible that eating a square meter of grass every day would't cure cancer. We're not referring to it as a food replacement, which would be explanatory anyway, but as a logically possible way to cure cancer via some yet to be explained means.

      Jeff: So why would we think that taxing an already disfunctional system thus would help that same SYSTEM heal itself of cancer? It's counter-inductive, right or wrong.

      First, not all cancers tax the digestive system. Second, chemotherapy, surgery and radiation treatments tax the system as well. That's part of the explanation of why these treatments would be effective. People need to be treated because cancer has become part of the system itself.

      It's the same sort of quality of service (QoS) problem we see with networking systems.

      Non-critical services (cancer cells) end up consuming more bandwidth (energy and resources) than critical services (normal, heathy cells). In the case of cancer, critical systems fail and the patient dies.

      However, modern day networking hardware, including some consumer routers, include QoS features built in as part of the design. This allows us to designate specific services, such as video and audio playback, as requiring a minimum amount of bandwidth before they degrade in a significant way. An FTP transfer might take longer to complete, but it has no minimum bandwidth requirement, as video or audio playback does. If the network connection becomes saturated, critical systems receive more resources, while non-critical systems are throttled, paused or even disconnected and blocked.

      Too bad the designer of human beings did not include a similar QoS system, which would allow us to prioritize resources to critical biological systems, while throttling or even blocking cancer cells.

      Delete
  10. Stephen Jay Gould argued in his Panda's book that "odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution -- paths that a sensible God would never tread."

    This statement was Gould's coup d'état of his book.

    So, what's the problem with five fingers having GREAT DEXTERITY plus an extra bone that very efficiently strips bamboo? Nothing. In fact, just the opposite, but we see here how evolutionist imaginations failed again and their clueless to see their problem.

    Of course, Gould was sticking with only the hard science here, like Darwin's Origin of Species, in not making any arguments based on where God would would never tread.


    Lost to the evolutionists is that they don't see the deep metaphysical lore they cast (see Gould) nor the fact that their silly arguments from the "odd arrangements" angle always turns out to be exactly opposite.

    Evolutionists build a dumb argument out of ignorance and then try to turn it around. They own the "Panda's Thumb" argument from A to Z.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This YEC sees penguins as adapting quick to swimming. Possibly by unknown mechanisms.
    Not by small steps.
    Everyone must accept bodies did and can change.
    Everyone must explain how human beings changed colours and many other details of our bodies from a original tribe.
    My fellow YEC creationists don't do a good job because they don't like mystery mechanisms.
    Yet it must of been quick and within a single generation and so must be from innate abilities of bodies to have great changes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "This YEC sees penguins as adapting quick to swimming."

      So ultra-fast evolution is okay but longer term evolution is not?

      "Possibly by unknown mechanisms."

      Hey wait a second! I thought that god-did-it?

      "Not by small steps."

      Why not by small steps? Where in the bible does it say that small steps are bad but huge, ultra-fast steps are good?

      "Everyone must accept bodies did and can change."

      Yeah, my body has changed quite a lot since I was conceived. The bodies of birds also change from conception to death and from generation to generation (each generation is not a clone of the previous one) but I've never heard of a pair of flighted birds producing a penguin in a single generation. Have you?

      "Everyone must explain how human beings changed colours and many other details of our bodies from a original tribe."

      Everyone?

      It's easy to change colors, robert. Just go to a tanning salon or use some spray on tan.

      Seriously, many of the differences between humans and our ancestors, including "colours", have been explained by scientists and continue to be studied and explained.

      Original tribe? I thought that adam and eve were the original tribe? And weren't adam and eve 'white'? That's how they're always depicted. Where did 'black' people come from? How about 'yellow' and 'red' people? What "colour" is 'God'?

      "My fellow YEC creationists don't do a good job because they don't like mystery mechanisms."

      Yep, there's nothing mysterious about an uncaused, eternal, infinite, supernatural, miraculous, invisible, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfect, loving, merciful allah-yhwh-jesus-holy-ghost-satan-god that is afraid to show itself and will eternally torture everyone in a lake of fire if they don't kiss its ass.

      "Yet it must of been quick and within a single generation and so must be from innate abilities of bodies to have great changes."

      Hell yes, and that explains how synapsids produced blue whales, wombats, and humans in a single generation and all in the same litter! Damn, I learned something new today!

      Delete