Saturday, June 1, 2013

Being An Evolutionist

Masatoshi Nei and Evolution’s Hard Core

Do you think the world arose spontaneously? No one would agree with that, not even an evolutionist. But that is, in fact, what evolutionists believe. Indeed they say it is a fact. A fact as much as gravity or the round Earth. There must be no design, no final causes, no teleology. The world must have arisen by itself—spontaneously. And no, natural selection does not change that. There is no magic ratchet or feedback loop to make the hypothesized evolutionary process not a spontaneous process. And in any case natural selection is finally meeting its long-awaited demise, thus confirming even more so what it is to be an evolutionist.

Here’s a test. When I give you a word, you tell me the first thing that comes to mind. Here’s the word: Evolution. Answer: Natural selection, right? If your biology teacher could have used only one idea to describe evolution it probably would have been natural selection. It was practically synonymous with evolution.

But that was then and this is now.

The concept of natural selection always had problems and in recent years they have only grown stronger. So strong that evolutionists, one by one, are slowly admitting that selection could not be the important, primary force it was held to be for so long.

Consider, for example, Masatoshi Nei’s new book, Mutation-Driven Evolution. The term “mutation-driven” means that mutations not only are supposed to provide the raw materials for evolutionary change, but that they also are supposed to cause evolutionary change without the help of the venerable natural selection.

You might be crying foul if you remember all the times you were told that neoDarwinism—evolution by random mutation and natural selection—was a fact. If evolutionists such as Nei are now so easily discarding that once vaunted “fact” then why should we believe their new version? Particularly when the new version is even more unlikely than the old version, if that were possible.

But be careful. Evolutionists never really meant that neoDarwinism was a fact. I know that is what they said, and quite forcefully. But they said that only because neoDarwinism was the current version of evolutionary theory. What they really meant was that evolution, broadly construed, is a fact. NeoDarwinism, like all particular hypotheses of evolution, was always forfeitable.

Hypotheses of evolution can be thrown under the bus at any time. What cannot be questioned is evolution broadly construed, or as Ernst Mayr used to put it, evolution per se. And what is evolution per se? That the species arose according to random events and natural law—chance and necessity. Biology had no guiding hand, no design or final causes. It must have arisen spontaneously. That, as Lakatos would have put it, is evolution’s hard core.

And that is what it is to be an evolutionist.

471 comments:

  1. Do you think the world arose spontaneously? No one would agree with that, not even an evolutionist. But that is, in fact, what evolutionists believe.

    That does even make any sense. 'Evolutionists wouldn't agree. But they believe it.'

    WHAT?!

    There must be no design, no final causes, no teleology.

    'Evolutionists' (ie, actual scientists) have no problems with designs or final causes per say. But when the designers and final causes you posit are SUPERNATURAL then your ideas are simply not science!

    Science can never, ever invoke the supernatural. Not one field, biology, chemistry nor physics.

    It truly is incredible that you simply cannot understand this point. ID's catch-all "It was designed" explanation (though it doesn't really deserve the term since of course it explains nothing) falls flat because the designer they invoke is GOD. Why can't you grasp that this is the problem here?

    There is no magic ratchet or feedback loop to make the hypothesized evolutionary process not a spontaneous process.

    What do you mean by 'spontaneous'?

    Natural selection does indeed act like a ratchet. By constantly preserving only beneficial mutations and winnowing out only deleterious ones, organisms evolve in one direction only - towards greater fitness.

    And in any case natural selection is finally meeting its long-awaited demise, thus confirming even more so what it is to be an evolutionist.

    Utter rubbish.

    There are other mechanisms that drive evolution, it is true. But that is no secret. We have long known about, for example, genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer.

    What I'm missing is how discovering that evolution has other mechanisms as well means that natural selection is not also a mechanism. Or, more broadly, how this means that evolution is not true.

    And what is evolution per se? That the species arose according to random events and natural law—chance and necessity. Biology had no guiding hand, no design or final causes

    Again, utterly wrong.

    'Evolution per se' (in a biological sense) is simply the notion that life on Earth has changed over time. That is all. It's proposed mechanisms (such as natural selection) describe HOW it has changed.

    The notion that 'there must be no guiding hand; no design' is merely the application of methodological naturalism - a must for absolutely any scientific theory.

    ALL science absolutely necessitates methodological naturalism. Every theory in every field. It is impossible to perform science without methodological naturalism. I simply cannot overstate this. It is a point I have made on here a hundred times (it feels like) and yet Cornelius has never addressed it - merely ignored it and carried on writing outraged post after post after post as though science COULD invoke miracles and magic as part of their scientific explanations.

    You relentlessly criticise this one very specific scientific theory for necessitating methodological naturalism simply because you want to substitute it with your own 'theory' - that Goddidit, and you are crying foul because your ideas are transparently not science.

    That is what it is to be an ID-Creationist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since the statement 'ALL science absolutely necessitates methodological naturalism' itself is not derivable from methodological naturalism, from whence do you find this arbitrary rule to limit scientific explanations to only that which can be explained in naturalistic terms? This is called 'assuming your conclusion' beforehand.

      If one restricts science to the natural, and assumes that science can in principle get to all truth, then one has implicitly assumed philosophical naturalism.
      - Del Ratsch, philosopher

      Treasure Island
      http://bevets.com/ti.htm

      Does Epistemological Naturalism Imply Metaphysical Naturalism? - William Lane Craig - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yNddAh0Txg

      Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? - William Lane Craig - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ

      Furthermore science, or more particularly the scientific method, in reality, only cares to relentlessly pursue the truth and could care less if the answer is a materialistic one or not. Moreover since truth itself is a transcendent entity which is itself not reducible to purely material/natural processes then Methodological Naturalism will never be able reach ‘the absolute truth’ by the scientific method alone since Methodological Naturalism precludes purely transcendent answers from being considered!

      Comprehensibility of the world

      Excerpt: ,,,Bottom line: without an absolute Truth, (there would be) no logic, no mathematics, no beings, no knowledge by beings, no science, no comprehensibility of the world whatsoever.
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/mathematics/comprehensibility-of-the-world/

      Delete
    2. BA,
      Furthermore science, or more particularly the scientific method, in reality, only cares to relentlessly pursue the truth and could care less if the answer is a materialistic one or not.


      How do you test a non materialistic answer? How does the non materialistic interact with the materialistic world?

      Moreover since truth itself is a transcendent entity which is itself not reducible to purely material/natural processes then Methodological Naturalism will never be able reach ‘the absolute truth’

      Luckily science only seeks limited truth,knowing that many of its models are inaccurate, but are useful steps toward greater knowledge.

      But since you brought it up, what is the means of determining " absolute truth", what has it discovered, and what is the absolute proof for that truth? How is the absolute truth used to predict where Saturn will be on Mar 25, 2014?

      Delete
    3. Ritchie: Science can never, ever invoke the supernatural. Not one field, biology, chemistry nor physics.

      Jeff: Define supernatural. I dare you.

      Ritchie: It truly is incredible that you simply cannot understand this point.

      Jeff: Again-I dare you. What is incredible is that you don't realize that to define "supernatural" after admitting to teleological (libertarian) causality, you have to be arbitrary. If science is applied reason, then it certainly isn't arbitrary.

      Delete
    4. Jeff

      Something supernatural exists outsite the scope of the natural world. Something which is not subject to the laws of physics.

      We can, of course try to identify and discover forces as yet unknown to physics. But we cannot presume them and include them in our explanations of other things.

      What is incredible is that you don't realize that to define "supernatural" after admitting to teleological (libertarian) causality, you have to be arbitrary.

      When have I admitted to libertarian causality? That is philosophy, not science.

      Delete
    5. OK. Now you've made the relevant admission, Ritchie. You say there's no such thing as libertarian causality. There's no such thing as teleology without libertarian causality. Thus, per your approach, the reason why ID is false is because intelligent design never occurs at all, even by humans. That's a coherent position. But surely you're not so stupid as to be oblivious to the fact that people who believe there is libertarian causality are not the least bit concerned that you DON'T, right?

      As I've said before, when US courts deny the existence of libertarian causality, the ID debate will cease. But not one minute before then.

      Delete
    6. BA77 You might like this video also. John Lennox explains why science and God are not mutually exclusive. http://johnlennox.org/jresources/god-versus-science-stellenbosch-university/

      Delete
    7. "Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God"

      As I've said before, when US courts deny the existence of libertarian causality, the ID debate will cease. But not one minute before then.

      Legally the difference in punishment between premeditated actions and crimes of passion reflect the acknowledgement that human nature plays a part in human decisions. It supported at best a quasi libertarian view.

      No court action would or could ever prove that god did not design life, to ID supporters.

      Delete
    8. "That does even make any sense. 'Evolutionists wouldn't agree. But they believe it.'

      WHAT?!"


      You mean you don't realize that people can believe things that are totally contradictory? You of all people should know it because you are one of them

      "'Evolutionists' (ie, actual scientists) have no problems with designs or final causes per say. But when the designers and final causes you posit are SUPERNATURAL then your ideas are simply not science!"

      Since Evolutionists have no problems with FINAL causes then they have no problem with entities that have no further explanation, that exist unto themselves, that have no natural reason for being except that they are what they are, that are either eternal or exist without reference to time and are the eternal infinite source off all power, abilities and objects and I might add are free from the entropy seen everywhere in our very natural world.

      Without twisting yourself into a pretzel please explain you definition of supernatural that has you claiming that all of that is not supernatural because it is quite clear that all you are trying to do is redefine what the word supernatural actually means. if you scan above you will see almost every property ascribed to God sans intelligence (and yet logic itself must be an ability of that "final cause")

      "Science can never, ever invoke the supernatural. Not one field, biology, chemistry nor physics."

      right because everything from nothing that people Like Krauss preaches is not supernatural but the by that definition nothing is supernatural therefore Science is free to consider theism and just about anything else imaginable or even unimaginable.

      "It truly is incredible that you simply cannot understand this point."

      It is beyond stunning that you cannot grasp even the most basics of your self inconsistencies but are claiming other people cannot understand points.

      "you are crying foul because your ideas are transparently not science"

      and you are crying foul because your ideas are transparently illogical and contradictory in regard to final causes. If they had a lick of logic you would realize that science could never exclude a final intelligent cause with no further explanation because it cannot exclude any kind of final cause/explanation.

      Your logic is busted irreparably so.

      Delete
    9. "Something supernatural exists outsite the scope of the natural world. Something which is not subject to the laws of physics."

      Jeff a follow up to your question that you might ask at this point is what is the "natural world"? It should be obvious that it is the universe we are now in but its remarkable how often atheists duck and dodge the supernatural while talking directly or indirectly about the ORIGIN of this universe.

      Delete
    10. Jeff

      OK. Now you've made the relevant admission, Ritchie. You say there's no such thing as libertarian causality.

      No, Jess, you are putting words in my mouth to fight a strawman. that is not what I said. I said that libertarian causality is a position of philosophy, not of science. Scientists are free to take whatever stance they like on libertarian causality, much as they are free to hold any political views they wish.

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

      Delete
    12. Elijah

      You mean you don't realize that people can believe things that are totally contradictory? You of all people should know it because you are one of them.

      No I am not. Cornelius (are you too, apparently) are flat out saying 'evolutionists' believe both A and not-A. That is just ridiculous.

      Since Evolutionists have no problems with FINAL causes then they have no problem with entities that have no further explanation...

      The problem with God (scientifically speaking) is not that He is a final cause per se, but that he is totally unevidenced and untestable.

      We can follow the chain of known causes back to Cause A. Whether Cause A itself has a cause (or is just one link in an infinite chain of causes) or is simply a Final Cause is up for debate, and may indeed be more philosophy than science. But just inventing a hypothetical cause for Cause A is not rationally justified until we have some evidence for this preceding cause. Occam's Razor was designed specifically to cut away these extraneous hypotheticals.

      right because everything from nothing that people Like Krauss preaches is not supernatural but the by that definition nothing is supernatural therefore Science is free to consider theism and just about anything else imaginable or even unimaginable.

      What?

      Please stop trying to make this more complicated than it is. It is really very simple: when you create a scientific theory, you must use known forces. If, at any point, you invoke totally unknown and hypothetical ones such as 'magic', 'miracle' or 'the intervention of magic creature X' then you have a problem. Your theory is not scientific.

      If they had a lick of logic you would realize that science could never exclude a final intelligent cause with no further explanation because it cannot exclude any kind of final cause/explanation.

      Again, we do not exclude God on the basis that He is a final cause. We exclude him on the basis that he is totally unevidenced and untestable. His methods are never described and his intervention is unquantified and, by traditional accounts, unquantifiable. That completely excludes Him from the arena of science.

      Jeff a follow up to your question that you might ask at this point is what is the "natural world"? It should be obvious that it is the universe we are now in

      I'll go along with that.

      but its remarkable how often atheists duck and dodge the supernatural while talking directly or indirectly about the ORIGIN of this universe.

      The origin of the universe is an unknown. To the best of our knowledge it was once very dense and very hot - a singularity, which began a period of rapid expansion called the Big Bang. The origin of the singularity is simply unknown. And, like with any unknown in science, it will not do to simply guess. That the singularity was created by God is a guess, and one that - crucially - cannot be tested, and thus is scientifically useless.

      Delete
    13. Regarding the "natural world", elijah said:

      "It should be obvious that it is the universe we are now in"

      In the context of the questions that have been asked and the statements that have been made, why limit it to the universe we are now in? Why not define it as everything that exists, everywhere?

      Delete
    14. Ritchie: No, Jess, you are putting words in my mouth to fight a strawman. that is not what I said. I said that libertarian causality is a position of philosophy, not of science. Scientists are free to take whatever stance they like on libertarian causality, much as they are free to hold any political views they wish.

      Jeff: But some scientists posit that events can occur a-causally. So by that approach, science doesn't even assume events qua events are caused. So what's the "scientific" criteria that allows "scientists" to distinguish between caused and uncaused events? And if there isn't one, then is it "scientific" to posit that all events are uncaused merely because that can be done atheistically?

      Delete
    15. V: "Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God"

      J: Which is just another way of saying bona-fide "choice" occurs and is CAUSAL.

      V: Legally the difference in punishment between premeditated actions and crimes of passion reflect the acknowledgement that human nature plays a part in human decisions.

      J: First of all, apart from natural causality, what other conceivable causal mode is there other than libertarian causality? Second, punishment, if it has anything to do with bona-fide desert, assumes the reality of libertarian causality AND the reality of non-relativistic normativity. No libertarian causality, no desert. So what is "punishment" apart from the reality of libertarian causality? Define that for me.

      V: No court action would or could ever prove that god did not design life, to ID supporters.

      J: That's not the issue. The issue is whether ID explanation has any relevance to publicly-funded "explanation" at all--and it clearly does, despite what Ritchie says. Inferring an automobile is designed is an ID inference. It IS explanatory. If you deny design for apparent designoids, then, short of an evidentiary argument for that conclusion, are you not implying that libertarianism is unreal?

      Delete
    16. "No I am not. "

      Sure you are. Want another round of showing you are?

      " he is totally unevidenced and untestable."

      Says you which is hardly an authoritative source. There is a HUGE difference between unevidenced and evidence that you do not accept. You are only reciting that standard lacking of any depth argument that because you can argue an alternative explanation for an evidence the evidence disappears. In the process conflating evidence with proof. The vast majority of human beings on the planet see evidence of design. You may argue that it does not prove it but you cannot logically argue the evidence they see disappears because you have an alternate explanation ( which is full of huge holes).

      so your "unevidence" and claims of invention can be dismissed without merit.

      Furthermore you are not even thinking. Whenever you get to a final cause it will not be testable in the same sense that we test everything else that has a cause. Your logic is circular. All you are essentially arguing is that the final cause be the same kind of physical reality which in our natural world always has explanation. Think before you answer. You just might see at last the total contradiction. Yes you are contradictory in your beliefs.

      "But just inventing a hypothetical cause for Cause A is not rationally justified"

      Thats just your hollow caricature of theism and/or ID and as such has no logical weight. You are merely invoking your premise in order to argue for the validity of your reasoning which is fallacious.

      Theists see logical order in the universe which they did not "invent" and outside of severe bias it is sheer stupidity to claim that a logical order gives no "rational justification" for positing the possible property of logic in a final explanation.

      Thats just you again inserting your views of ID into ID in order to make an argument against them - strawman fallacy




      Delete
    17. "Please stop trying to make this more complicated than it is. It is really very simple:"

      really? LOL Please Go ahead and explain it bearing in mind that I specifically referenced Krauss" well received in many atheist circles proposal that everything comes out of nothing. This should be fun. Hilarious even since its soooo simple.

      "when you create a scientific theory, you must use known forces."

      What are the known forces of nothing particularly nothing which includes no space time?

      " If, at any point, you invoke totally unknown and hypothetical ones such as 'magic', 'miracle'"

      ah but we can invoke total nothingness without even spacetime creating everything and that is okay? I mean just as long as we don't use the specific words "magic" or "miracle"? Do you even read the drivel you are writing? You are proving Cornelius's point.

      "Your theory is not scientific"

      Please provide a single scientific experiment which will test the proposition that everything including space and time was created out of nothing.

      Since we both know you cannot provide one please explain to the class how many scientists espouse this as science but Theists are forbidden from merely attaching to nothing a something called intelligence.

      "The origin of the singularity is simply unknown. And, like with any unknown in science, it will not do to simply guess."

      Well you see that is an interesting statement. Because I would have thought by your rambling that you knew nothing about a singularity because the singularity is NOT the natural state of our universe now and you have been arguing that anything that is supernatural is unscientific. Now with "super" meaning beyond and natural referring to the universe as we can extrapolate it its just a wonderful piece of hypocrisy to talk about the origin of the universe without admitting that that implies something beyond (and I do not refer to geographics) it or proceeding it.

      You have not a ground to stand on that isn't sinking all around you

      "That the singularity was created by God is a guess, and one that - crucially - cannot be tested"

      Crapola and obvious crapola. SURPRISE! It IS conceivable that we could at some point in the future test for God. Theism claims that he is in the now and in him we move and have our being. We have more possibility as we learn more about the quantum world to test for intelligence than we will EVER have to go back in time and test any hypothesis of a singularity in the origin of the universe.

      I am not alone in that thought. Many scientists admit that related theories such as the multiverses will not be able to be tested. That doesn't stop many a materialists from invoking multiverses as an explanation for the fine tuning of the universe.

      Your arguments against the supernatural in science is just the usual double talk from materialists that reference the supernatural all the time.

      Delete
    18. "In the context of the questions that have been asked and the statements that have been made, why limit it to the universe we are now in? Why not define it as everything that exists, everywhere?"

      Because

      A) that is NOT the definition of the word
      B) because its nonsensically circular. If we included everything that exists then we would have to know everything that exists.

      Every time we use the word natural we are referring to the physical existence we know of or can access physically by some means.

      therefore everything beyond or before our universe is supernatural.

      Delete
    19. elijah, you are seriously screwed up and dishonest. Among other things, you said:

      "but Theists are forbidden from merely attaching to nothing a something called intelligence."

      Nobody is stopping you god pushers from attaching anything you want to whatever you say but that doesn't mean that science is going to accept it or should accept it. Besides, calling "nothing" "intelligence" is not what you dorks do. You call "nothing" or whatever it is that you believe is the creator of the universe "God" and a lot of other labels, AND you attach a pile of fairy tales that are monstrous, ridiculous, threatening, and impossible.

      If all anyone were to say is 'it's possible that there is some sort of creative intelligence behind the universe', and leave it at that, I doubt that there would be a lot of argument against it. But no, you lunatics won't settle for that. You just have to go on and on and on about your imaginary god and associated fairy tales, and you constantly bash the scientists who are trying to find all of the real answers.

      "It IS conceivable that we could at some point in the future test for God."

      Aha, so there is no current test, eh? Thanks for admitting that you don't know jack about whether your chosen god or any god actually exists.

      "Theism claims that he is in the now and in him we move and have our being."

      "Theism" claims a lot of things and the claims are crazy.

      "A) that is NOT the definition of the word"

      Remember the "in the context" part of what I said? No? Big surprise, not.

      "B) because its nonsensically circular. If we included everything that exists then we would have to know everything that exists."

      Oh really? So "we" would have to know everything about anything before applying a label and definition to it? Not everything is known about humans (and a lot of other stuff) but humans have still applied labels and definitions to humans and a lot of other stuff.

      If it makes you feel better, how about instead of natural world, the word nature is attached to the definition 'everything that exists, everywhere'?

      By the way, it seems to me that bible thumpers often say that 'world' can (and does according to the bible) apply to at least the entire universe, depending on the context in which the word is used.

      One more thing, for now, what happened to the original topic of this thread? You know, mutations, evolution, and all that jazz.

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

      Delete
    21. TWT,

      Come on you can do better More name calling. More talking garbage because you can't understand basic logic. Just "God pushers"? Dorks? What happened to the "Wahmbulance" stuff.

      We demand more insults, More twelve your old putdowns. WE WANT OUR MONEY'S WORTH ;)

      You are not living up to your potential. Its a shame. Wheres T. Maybe the two of you can try and up your game cause there is just not enough insults. no screaming

      "Aha, so there is no current test, eh? Thanks for admitting that you don't know jack about whether your chosen god or any god actually exists."

      DIrect current test For a particular God? NO just ton loads of evidence. Overwhelming in fact. and um guess what? Check the opinion polls. Guess who the majority agrees with ? LOL You got any direct evidence of nothing creating everything? DO tell or DIRECT evidence of a transitional form - beyond begging that a fossil be considered one? Nope. Got any direct test for the ultimate path from primates to humans rather that just your inferences? Nope

      BUt I don't want to tax you with too much. We know you are only good for one thing. More blathering about fairy tales while pushing your own.

      DO we have to write down a list of extra names you can call IDists. You clearly don't have enough. We demand more. WIth variation, creativity vim and vigor.

      Come on try again harder this time . More passion, more foaming at the mouth insults

      WE DEMAND MORE. GET TO IT!

      Make sure your next post deliver

      Delete
    22. Jess

      But some scientists posit that events can occur a-causally.

      Some do. Some don't.

      Some scientists are Republican, some are Decomcrat.

      What's your point?

      Delete
    23. Elijah

      Sure you are. Want another round of showing you are?

      No, I am really not.

      Really, if you want a mature debate with another adult, then do not presume to tell me what I do and do not believe. It is the very height of arrogance.

      Says you which is hardly an authoritative source. There is a HUGE difference between unevidenced and evidence that you do not accept

      If you have any evidence at all for God, then please present it. I am all ears.

      The vast majority of human beings on the planet see evidence of design. You may argue that it does not prove it but you cannot logically argue the evidence they see disappears because you have an alternate explanation ( which is full of huge holes).

      That is not evidence. It is a shared delusion. If you cannot tell the difference between evidence and common opinion then there is no hope for you here.

      so your "unevidence" and claims of invention can be dismissed without merit.

      They cvannot. There is no evidence for God. If there were, then His believers would not need faith, would He?

      Whenever you get to a final cause it will not be testable in the same sense that we test everything else that has a cause. Your logic is circular.

      Completely wrong. We have evidence the Big Bang happened. And that is the first cause that we know of. If you think you can identify the cause of the Big Bang then you require evidence of such.

      Thats just your hollow caricature of theism and/or ID and as such has no logical weight.

      If you think I am wrong, then you will have to present some kind of evidence for a designer.

      Good luck with that.

      Theists see logical order in the universe which they did not "invent" and outside of severe bias it is sheer stupidity to claim that a logical order gives no "rational justification" for positing the possible property of logic in a final explanation.

      Absolutely wrong. Again, you are confusing common opinion with evidence. "Lots of people believe it" is not evidence. It is perfectly possible for lots of people to believe something which is incorrect.

      really? LOL Please Go ahead and explain it

      That is exactly what I did above.

      bearing in mind that I specifically referenced Krauss" well received in many atheist circles proposal that everything comes out of nothing.

      Maybe it did and maybe it didn't. Who's to say either way? But one thing is for sure - your invented and totallyl hypothetical explanation hold no more water than the next.

      What are the known forces of nothing particularly nothing which includes no space time?

      That doesn't even make sense.

      ah but we can invoke total nothingness without even spacetime creating everything and that is okay?

      You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, do you?

      The origin of the universe is a mystery. That is all. Any invented explanation of it is no better or worse than any other. It remains entirely hypothetical.

      Please provide a single scientific experiment which will test the proposition that everything including space and time was created out of nothing.

      I cannot.

      And I don't need to. We only need go as far as 'The origin of the universe is a mystery'. Which is a perfectly acceptable scientific position.

      And that does not justify us simply inventing hypotheitcal explanations.

      Since we both know you cannot provide one please explain to the class how many scientists espouse this as science but Theists are forbidden from merely attaching to nothing a something called intelligence.

      Most scientist that I am aware of will tell you the origin of the universe is a mystery. And that is a scientific position. Perfectly honest and rational.

      Delete
    24. Elijah (cont)

      Well you see that is an interesting statement. Because I would have thought by your rambling that you knew nothing about a singularity because the singularity is NOT the natural state of our universe now and you have been arguing that anything that is supernatural is unscientific. Now with "super" meaning beyond and natural referring to the universe as we can extrapolate it its just a wonderful piece of hypocrisy to talk about the origin of the universe without admitting that that implies something beyond (and I do not refer to geographics) it or proceeding it.

      Oh dear. You clearly know nothing about this subject at all.

      Singularities occur all the time. They are rather common in our universe.

      That is not to say we know much about them. Indeed, our best scientific theories break down when we try to investigate them.

      That does not mean there is anything supernatural about them. They are merely beyond our understanding. And so we investigate them.

      Seriously, what don't you understand about this?

      Crapola and obvious crapola. SURPRISE! It IS conceivable that we could at some point in the future test for God.

      Not good enough!

      Can we test for it right here and now? If so, how? If not, then it is unscientific.

      Many scientists admit that related theories such as the multiverses will not be able to be tested. That doesn't stop many a materialists from invoking multiverses as an explanation for the fine tuning of the universe.

      The difference here is that we know at least one universe exists - ours. Therefore it is not much of a stretch to conceive that other exist too.

      On the other hand, positing magical, unevidenced, and limitless beings IS without precedent in our experience. Therefore it requires a wild leap of faith.

      Your arguments against the supernatural in science is just the usual double talk from materialists that reference the supernatural all the time.

      If you think so then you simply do not understand that science absolutely must necessitate methodological naturalism.

      Delete
    25. Ritchie: "But some scientists posit that events can occur a-causally."

      Some do. Some don't.

      Some scientists are Republican, some are Decomcrat.

      What's your point?


      J: I followed up with this:

      So what's the "scientific" criteria that allows "scientists" to distinguish between caused and uncaused events? And if there isn't one, then is it "scientific" to posit that all events are uncaused merely because that can be done atheistically?

      Can you answer the questions or not?

      Delete
    26. Jeff

      So what's the "scientific" criteria that allows "scientists" to distinguish between caused and uncaused events?

      It is whether or not we know the cause.

      If we do, then the event was caused.

      If we do not, then we do not know whether the event was caused or not.

      It really is not complicated.

      Delete
    27. Ritchie, you can't know the cause of an event prior to knowing the event is caused. That's sheer non-sense. Besides that, science is tentative. You never DO know with certainty the cause of any event if science is tentative. You're utterly confused, dude. This is why CH doesn't waste time with you and your ilk. You can't logically think your way out of a wet paper bag.

      Delete
    28. "if you want a mature debate with another adult, then do not presume to tell me what I do and do not believe. It is the very height of arrogance"

      You mean like you coming on an ID blog and telling the author what he believes? and week aftee week misreprsenting his posts? DO tell. I will point out where your theories contradict any time I please and as often as I please. You give no directions around here.

      "That is not evidence. It is a shared delusion. If you cannot tell the difference between evidence and common opinion then there is no hope for you here."

      Verbage. only someone delusional in the minority looks at the majority and claims they are all delusional. The majority looks at the evidence of design and sees the work of a designer. Get over it. Their disagreement with the minority makes them delusional only in your own mind.

      "They cvannot. There is no evidence for God. If there were, then His believers would not need faith, would He?"

      They can and there is. You are demonstrating your blithering ignorance of what biblical "faith" is. If a friend should have faith in you does it mean they have no evidence of your existence? That is the context of faith in the Bible if you ever cracked it open and learned a thing about what you oppose you would know. You are totally out of your depth and will only embarass yourself further trying to pontificate about theological terms you are at this point totally ill equipped to debate me on.

      "Completely wrong. We have evidence the Big Bang happened. And that is the first cause that we know of."

      silliness. You demonstrate again your lack of understanding of what is being discussed. the big bang is not a final explanation. You are desperately trying to fudge "first cause that we know about" to final explanation. Pick up a rudimentary book on cosmology and you will note that big bang is preceded by yet another explanation which means it is NOT the final explanation. You goofed and it is an obvious goof to anyone who has read any books on on cosmology.

      "If you think I am wrong, then you will have to present some kind of evidence for a designer. "

      RIght after you present evidence for the existence of chance, a viable alternative for abiogenesis or an explanation for the logical order of the universe. People who believe that nothing created everything can beg all they want that the other side has the burden of proof. Perhaps you haven't thought that far but that is your own issue. They first have to establish their fantasy that everything comes from nothing or else be considered to use your word - delusional

      Get to work and stop trying to make the weak argument that the majority that does not agree with you are all delusional.

      "That doesn't even make sense."

      LOL - precisely my point - that is the babbling nonsense coming from your side while they try to circumvent the problems of infinite regress which you seem clueless is something you HAVE to deal with.

      Delete
    29. richie said:

      "That does even make any sense. 'Evolutionists wouldn't agree. But they believe it.'

      WHAT?!"


      Ritchie. often an individual, cornered into defending an, often time absurd position they are beholding to, will defend their position, even if it contradicts reason. This, I believe, is what Cornelius is referring to.


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

      Delete
    31. "Elijah:ah but we can invoke total nothingness without even spacetime creating everything and that is okay?

      Ritch:You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, do you?.

      Your objection that I don't know what I am talking about makes no sense or are you denying that that is the position of many scientists including Krauss" That IS what I was talking about. IF you are ignorant on the subject then go read it up don't project your ignorance to me. He most definitely does hold that so your denial is more garbage.

      "And I don't need to. We only need go as far as 'The origin of the universe is a mystery'. Which is a perfectly acceptable scientific position."

      You are hoplessly confused by popular phrases. Not knowing something is not a scientific position. Its simply no position at all. If materialists would shut up when they do not know something they would be intellectually coherent but like you they are not. Just like you they claim it is unknown but then pontificate that although thry don't knoe they know it is not necessary to have a designer. Only gibberish claims to know anything about something entirely unknown.

      "Oh dear. You clearly know nothing about this subject at all.

      Singularities occur all the time. They are rather common in our universe."

      oh dear someone has fallen and hit his head. Have we seen those singularities creating universes or big bangs? did I not say "THE singularity"? Then what pray tell does proposed singularites like those in a black hole that have to do with THE singularity that is claimed to have resulted in our universe that was under discussion? Nothing. are you that dense in regard to cosmology to confuse THE singularity with any proposed singularity. You are just hand waving because you find yourself at a lost to rebut the point. We were Specifically talking about the singularity in regard to the formation of our universe. Your theatrics are embarassing.

      "Not good enough!

      Can we test for it right here and now? If so, how? If not, then it is unscientific."

      Excellent! so may we now claim that since we have no test in the last 50 years or now that proves abiogenesis that the creation of life by purely naturalistic means is a totally unscientific position.

      I'm game :)

      Or will you pull a hypocritical 180 and claim that that is different.

      I know where I would put my money - a hypocritical 180. Its the kind of hypocrisy I see all the materialists here do. Make up a rule and then fail to live by it when it bites your own theories in the rear.

      "The difference here is that we know at least one universe exists - ours. Therefore it is not much of a stretch to conceive that other exist too."

      I'm sorry but this is a drop down stupid argument. It is basically claiming if we have one reality it is no stretch to consider two realites regardless if we have any evidence for the second one. see the kind of nonsense you are willing to conceive while claiming theists are illogical for conceiving intelligence?

      pure hypocrisy.

      Delete
    32. "Maybe it did and maybe it didn't. Who's to say either way? But one thing is for sure - your invented and totallyl hypothetical explanation hold no more water than the next.'

      and therefore no less than many a respected scientists position no? ;)

      ROFL ...Everything out of nothing that Kruass claims and you say "may be whose to say" but the theist position is "magical" and unfounded. by what standards? Your bias and hypocrisy is showing. But the point that you are entirely missing is that logic DEMANDS an uncaused cause. In fact egad! SCIENCE demands it logically. There is therefore nothing hypothetical about positing an entity with all abilities, infinite orgin (or timeless) creating all that there is of reality. It is a given inescapable conclusion for those that bother to think it through

      WHy is Krauss as a respected scientist making such a grand claim if he need not? Krauss is not invoking an everthing from nothing because he feels like it. He is invoking it because unlike you he realizes it is an issue that MUST be dealt with or he cannot maintain his atheism. Hawkins has come to a similar position.

      Natural processes can not be claimed in an unending pattern of infinite regress. saying its mysterious does not give you an escape hatch from logic. IF infinite regress is even applied it would be its own uncaused cause by the very definition of infinite regress. You do what all materialist do - fail to think. if you did you would realize the only thing tht separate an atheist from a theist is the issue of intelligence, every other characteristic ascribed to an uncased cause by logical neccesity is ascribe to God in theology. Your invented and hypothetical charge is therefore garbage.

      Delete
    33. "You can't logically think your way out of a wet paper bag."

      Too true Jeff.

      Third one I have debated this week on the issue of ultimate origins and the problems of infinite regress and not a one of them are any better than the other. they can copy and paste a a paper but think?

      Not a drop.

      Delete
    34. Jeff -

      Ritchie, you can't know the cause of an event prior to knowing the event is caused. That's sheer non-sense.

      I didn't say you could. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. Stop trying to make out that I am saying things I am not and actually ready the words I am writing.

      Do we know the cause of an event? If so, we know the event is caused. If not, we do do not whether it is caused or not. Stop tring to make this more complicated than it is.

      Besides that, science is tentative. You never DO know with certainty the cause of any event if science is tentative.

      That is true, but a technicality.

      But very well, if you want to get pedantic: if we can infer a probable cause then we can be relatively sure that the event is caused.

      If we cannot, then we do not know whether the event is caused or not.

      You're utterly confused, dude. This is why CH doesn't waste time with you and your ilk. You can't logically think your way out of a wet paper bag.

      Pointless bluster. Nothing I am saying here is complicated. You are simply putting words in my mouth to make it sound like I am saying nonesense things. It is called being disingenuous.

      Delete
    35. Elijah -

      You mean like you coming on an ID blog and telling the author what he believes?

      I do not need to tell him - he tells us in his posts. And, crucially, whenever Cornelius has replied and told me I have his opinion wrong, then I accept that is true and listen to his clarification (whether or not I think it is factual or makes logical sense is another matter). That is the mature - and rational - response. I do not continue to insist that I know his mind better than he does, which is kinda what you're doing here. That speaks of quite jaw-dropping conceit.

      I will point out where your theories contradict any time I please and as often as I please.

      You are welcome to try. But you have to point out contradictions that I ACTUALLY make. Not put words in my mouth and then attack me for being silly. That is called fighting a strawman.

      You give no directions around here.

      I am not saying this because I think I have any authority over you. I am saying this to point out the errors in your argument. Whether you are mature enough to accept this is down to you.

      Verbage. only someone delusional in the minority looks at the majority and claims they are all delusional.

      Completely wrong.

      This is where the concept of evidence comes in. If the majority believe something for which there is no evidence, then their belief alone counts for absolutely nothing.

      It is not evidence simply because someone - or indeed the majority of people - believe it. Belief has no bearing on a claim's veracity. I realise this idea might be quite scandalous to a religious mind, of course...

      The majority looks at the evidence of design and sees the work of a designer. Get over it.

      What evidence of design? You still have not produced any.

      They can and there is.

      Again, you claim so, but you fail to demonstrate any. Funny, that.

      If a friend should have faith in you does it mean they have no evidence of your existence?

      A friend does not need faith in my existence if he knows I am real. He knows it. He has evidence of my existence. Exactly the sort of evidence that is lacking with God.

      That is the context of faith in the Bible if you ever cracked it open and learned a thing about what you oppose you would know.

      Like many atheists I have indeed read the Bible. Which is part of the reason I am an atheist. Do not assume I am ignorant of what that backward, self-contradicting, morally repugnant text says.

      You are totally out of your depth and will only embarass yourself further trying to pontificate about theological terms you are at this point totally ill equipped to debate me on.

      Bring. It. On.

      the big bang is not a final explanation. You are desperately trying to fudge "first cause that we know about" to final explanation. Pick up a rudimentary book on cosmology and you will note that big bang is preceded by yet another explanation which means it is NOT the final explanation. You goofed and it is an obvious goof to anyone who has read any books on on cosmology.

      You think cosmologists have identified a cause of the Big Bang? Really? What is this cause? You wax rhetorical about it, yet you don't actually stipulate. This is becoming something of a habit with you.

      In any case, that does not undermine my point. Whether or not the Big Bang is the earliest known cause, that does not justify us inventing hypothetical ones to add to the chain. That was my point, which you demonstrably failed to grasp. I am not trying to identify the first known cause as a final cause; I am saying that we cannot simply start guessing causes. We simply don't know how long the chain of causes is.

      Delete
    36. Elijah (2)

      RIght after you present evidence for the existence of chance, a viable alternative for abiogenesis or an explanation for the logical order of the universe.

      That is called deflection. You have evidence or you do not. And playing the "I have evidence but I'm not going to show you any until you show me XYZ" game merely serves to highlight that you do not.

      In any case, you never need evidence for chance. It is the deferred hypothesis. You have to show your mechanism is statistically more likely than chance to have it accepted. But chance is always assumed, default explanation. Just fyi.

      People who believe that nothing created everything can beg all they want that the other side has the burden of proof. Perhaps you haven't thought that far but that is your own issue. They first have to establish their fantasy that everything comes from nothing or else be considered to use your word - delusional

      Yet again you swing and miss.

      You do have the burden of proof. And you cannot shirk it. Provide evidence for your position or you have absolutely no right to expect anyone else to take your ideas seriously.

      I am not advocating anything I need evidence for. I am saying the origins of both life and the universe are mysteries. That is perfectly rational, and not a position that needs evidence. You are the one who thinks you have an explanation here - and moreover, an explanation you apparently feel you don't need to provide evidence for. I think 'delusional' is indeed rather fitting here.

      LOL - precisely my point - that is the babbling nonsense coming from your side while they try to circumvent the problems of infinite regress which you seem clueless is something you HAVE to deal with.

      No, it is you demonstrating that you do not understand your opponents' position. You cannot just say "You believe X" and expect the other person to justify X. You have to show that the other person ACTUALLY DOES believe X. Which is where your silly arguments generally fall apart, it seems.

      Your objection that I don't know what I am talking about makes no sense

      It makes perfect sense. I am telling you you are getting muddled.

      or are you denying that that is the position of many scientists including Krauss"

      That we can "invoke total nothingness without even spacetime creating everything"?

      I've no idea. You're first going to have to clarify what that actually means. I mean, even grammatically it is obscure.

      You are hoplessly confused by popular phrases. Not knowing something is not a scientific position.

      HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAA!!!!

      "I don't know" is a perfectly valid scientific position, and the only honest answer when confronted with a mystery you cannot explain.

      Its simply no position at all.

      No it isn't. Stating that we don't know the answer to something is, clearly, a position.

      Just like you they claim it is unknown but then pontificate that although thry don't knoe they know it is not necessary to have a designer. Only gibberish claims to know anything about something entirely unknown.

      Yet again you are deeply confused as to how science actually works.

      If you have a mystery (for example the origin of life) then it is a mystery. Without evidence you do not know the explanation. So far, so obvious.

      A designer is one hypothetical answer (one of many), but without any actual evidence to support it, the designer hypothesis remains just that - a guess. It is an extraneous hypothetical which the principle of Occam's Razor tells us we should do without.

      Delete
    37. Elijah (3)

      Then what pray tell does proposed singularites like those in a black hole that have to do with THE singularity that is claimed to have resulted in our universe that was under discussion? Nothing. are you that dense in regard to cosmology to confuse THE singularity with any proposed singularity.

      They are singularities. That is the connection. Rather obviously. Seriously, do you fall down a lot?

      Asking why the singularity which caused the Big Bang did so while so many others do not is actually a good question. And it is rather punctured by the fact that we know virtually nothing about singularities, or at least, how the function. Our best theories of physics appear to break down entirely regarding them. They are quite the puzzle, I assure you.

      And this still does not justify touting guesses as scientific answers.

      Excellent! so may we now claim that since we have no test in the last 50 years or now that proves abiogenesis that the creation of life by purely naturalistic means is a totally unscientific position.

      You want us to test for methodological naturalism?

      A very silly suggestion. Science is built upon its assumption. And yes, it IS an assumption - but science simply cannot function without it. Every theory in every field of science is built upon it. That is not a failing of science - that is just how it works. If you do not assume methodological naturalism then you are no longer doing science.

      Or will you pull a hypocritical 180 and claim that that is different.

      It really is different. And the fact that you cannot see why is your own scientific ignorance, not any fault of science.

      You do not need evidence to justify rejecting a hypothesis. You need evidence to support it. It is rejected by default in the absence of evidence. Seriously, this isn't hard.

      I'm sorry but this is a drop down stupid argument. It is basically claiming if we have one reality it is no stretch to consider two realites regardless if we have any evidence for the second one. see the kind of nonsense you are willing to conceive while claiming theists are illogical for conceiving intelligence?

      I was merely pointing out the functional difference between the multiuniverse theory and the designer hypothesis.

      Positing more of a known entity is always more likely than positing an entirely unprecedented entity.

      and therefore no less than many a respected scientists position no? ;)

      Your attempts to equate your hypotheitcals with genuine scientific theories are cute, but starting to wear thin.

      If you have an explanation, you have a burden of proof. It is that simple.

      Everything out of nothing that Kruass claims and you say "may be whose to say" but the theist position is "magical" and unfounded. by what standards? Your bias and hypocrisy is showing.

      I am not totally up on what Krauss is or is not claiming. But if his theory is that the universe came from nothing then I expect he has some evidence for that. Why don't you try reading his books to find out what that evidence is?

      But the point that you are entirely missing is that logic DEMANDS an uncaused cause.

      I don't think that is true. We can have either a first cause or an infinite chain of causes. And I don't really see why one is more logical then the other.

      I'm not saying I'm committed to a belief of an infinte regress, though. I'm just saying I don't see a first cause as a self-evident conclusion.

      Delete
    38. Elijah (4)

      There is therefore nothing hypothetical about positing an entity with all abilities, infinite orgin (or timeless) creating all that there is of reality.

      Nonsense.

      You only got as far as insisting there must have been a first cause. For argument's sake, let's go along with that. All we have established is that there was a first link in this chain of causes - nothing more. We have not established that this first link needed to possess any abilities. It merely needed to appear uncaused and kickstart a chain of causes. And in that role, the Big Bang serves us perfectly well.

      Why would we assume that the Big Bang needs a cause? You have, after all, committed yourself to a position that there was a first cause. So why can't the Big Bang be it? It is, after all a known quantity. Why do we need to add hypothetical links to this chain of known causes?

      Krauss is not invoking an everthing from nothing because he feels like it. He is invoking it because unlike you he realizes it is an issue that MUST be dealt with or he cannot maintain his atheism.

      Has he actually stated this himself? Or is this you projecting your assumptions onto other people again?

      IF infinite regress is even applied it would be its own uncaused cause by the very definition of infinite regress. You do what all materialist do - fail to think.

      No, you fail to understand and then blame us for not having a logical case. The fault is in your understanding, not our case.

      The concept of an infinite regress is not itself a cause (uncaused or not). So your point here makes no sense at all.

      if you did you would realize the only thing tht separate an atheist from a theist is the issue of intelligence, every other characteristic ascribed to an uncased cause by logical neccesity is ascribe to God in theology.

      The only characteristic ascribed to an uncaused cause it that it appeared uncaused and that it kickstarts a chain of causes. Nothing more.

      And even if you define God as nothing more than this, then it still does not address the problem of God being a complete hypothetical which is, basically, your big problem here. There is no need to apply hypothetical links to a chain of causes.

      Delete
    39. bpragmatic

      Ritchie. often an individual, cornered into defending an, often time absurd position they are beholding to, will defend their position, even if it contradicts reason. This, I believe, is what Cornelius is referring to.

      Well that at least makes logic sense. Even if I do not think it is applicable here...

      Delete
    40. Ritchie: if we can infer a probable cause then we can be relatively sure that the event is caused.

      Jeff: This just begs other questions.

      Where did you get the notion of causality in the first place if events, per se, are not caused.

      What criteria indicates that a particular inferred cause of an event is probable? And what makes you think that criteria is valid? Is it intuitive? If not, what did you derive it from?

      Delete
    41. And, Ritchie, the reason why this is so frustrating is because those on your team are not all on the same page. And yet you guys suck up to one another like in you're in love. E.g., Moronton says the claim that biological origins is explained by naturalistic UCA has nothing to do with probability. And Scott says we NEVER increase the probability of ANY belief. So there's two folks right there on the side of naturalistic UCA who disagree with you just as much as I do on the issue of the relation of probability to the hypothesis. And yet each of you act as if your own view is obvious for one reason or another. And you're each dead wrong for one pretty obvious reason or another.

      Delete
    42. Jeff

      Where did you get the notion of causality in the first place if events, per se, are not caused.

      I never claimed events are not caused. You are trying so desperately to be clever that you are tying yourself in knots.

      What criteria indicates that a particular inferred cause of an event is probable?

      Repeatability is a big help. If we suspect Cause A of causing Event B, we can try to recreate it in a lab. If Cause A does indeed cause Event B in the lab, then it is a reasonable deduction that it caused it previously.

      Some events are not repeatable, however. In this we have to merely use induction. It is not as good as repeatability, but it is better than nothing.

      And what makes you think that criteria is valid?

      The organ in my head called my brain.

      And, Ritchie, the reason why this is so frustrating is because those on your team are not all on the same page.

      Neither are yours. Some take every word of the Bible literally, some do not. Some accept evolution to some degree, others do not. Some believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, some do not. What's your point?

      I guess the take-home lesson here is that everyone speaks only for themselves, really.

      So there's two folks right there on the side of naturalistic UCA who disagree with you just as much as I do on the issue of the relation of probability to the hypothesis.

      If you would like greater clarification from them on these points then I suggest you ask them, not me.

      Or if you are simply trying to undermine UCA as a theory by pointing out that those who accept it are not in unison on every point then my goodness you have some pretty big holes in your own boat to plug first!

      And you're each dead wrong for one pretty obvious reason or another.

      If so, then that is for you to show, not merely claim.

      Delete
    43. Ritchie: I never claimed events are not caused. You are trying so desperately to be clever that you are tying yourself in knots.

      Jeff: That's beside the point, Ritchie. If the belief that events are caused is not necessary to science, then it's perfectly relevant as to how scientists claim to have gotten the notion of causality so we can know whether they're idiots or not. You can demarcate science from non-science absolutely arbitrarily if you so choose. I'm trying to see if that's what you're doing.

      Ritchie: Repeatability is a big help. If we suspect Cause A of causing Event B, we can try to recreate it in a lab. If Cause A does indeed cause Event B in the lab, then it is a reasonable deduction that it caused it previously.

      Jeff: That's not deductive at all. That only follows if repeatability implies causality. But it doesn't. For the zillionth time, the only thing that follows from the truth of a single proposition is the falshood of its negation. Where do you get the second premise that "IF events are repeatable, they're caused?" Is that intuition? If not, how did you derive it? Moreover, how do you know anything is repeatable unless you know you're having actual memories? And if you believe the latter, do you believe memories are caused?

      I'm trying to figure out how you can demarcate science such that it's not MERELY applying reason to experience. But if it's the latter, than how do you rule out libertarain free-will (i.e., teleology) as a real causal mode?

      Ritchie: Neither are yours.

      Jeff: I agree. And I argue with THEM TOO! I've argued with BA77 recently. I never see you suck-ups doing that, no matter how much you disagree with each other.

      Delete
    44. elijah barfed:

      "Only gibberish claims to know anything about something entirely unknown."

      Okay Mr. gibberish, tell me what you "know" about your chosen, so-called 'designer-creator-God', and the alleged creation of the universe, and the alleged creation of the Earth, and the alleged creation of life on Earth, and the alleged special creation of 'man', allegedly in 'God's image', and exactly how you "know" it.

      And while you're at it, how about answering the questions below:

      Let's say that some people come up with a foolproof method to test for a 'designer-creator-God'. The test is done and the result is that there is just one true 'designer-creator' and that it is a blob of uncaused, eternal, uncaring slime that is the size of a trillion-trillion universes, and the testers who discover it name it 'Splork'.

      So, if Splork were found to be the one and only 'designer-creator', and Splork were absolutely nothing like depictions of the christian, so-called 'God' yhwh-jesus-holy-ghost-satan or any other so-called 'God' that people have ever thought up, would you quickly (or ever) accept that Splork is the one and only 'designer-creator'?

      Would you renounce christianity? Would you apologize to everyone you have ever tried to manipulate with christian fairy tales? Would you apologize to everyone you have ever insulted merely because they didn't/don't believe in christianity?

      If you have children, would you apologize to them for forcing christian fairy tales on them? Would you want all of the money back that you have given to christian churches/organizations/agendas?

      Would you throw away your bible? Would you feel stupid for ever swallowing and pushing christianity?

      Delete
    45. Jeff

      If the belief that events are caused is not necessary to science, then it's perfectly relevant as to how scientists claim to have gotten the notion of causality...

      Who said that such a belief is or is not necessary? You are far overreaching yourself.

      You can demarcate science from non-science absolutely arbitrarily if you so choose. I'm trying to see if that's what you're doing.

      Science is the application of the scientific method. Does that count as arbitrary?

      For the zillionth time, the only thing that follows from the truth of a single proposition is the falshood of its negation.

      That is true. But repeatability does indeed increase the degree to which we can bure sure of propositions.

      Say my shed disappeared and was replaced by a pile of somldering ash. I hypothesise that my shed burned down. However, my shed was made of wood and I do not know if wood burns (because I'm phenominally stupid). So I do an experiment - I try to recreate my shed as acurately as possible and set fire to it to see if it will burn. It does. Fascinating. Now, from my prespective, the likelihood that my original shed has burned down has now gone up because, to the best of my abilities, I know that such a thing is possible. It is not conclusive, to be sure, but the degree to which I can be sure that Cause A was the cause of Event B is directly proportional to my knowledge of whether Cause A is possible under the relevant circumstances.

      Where do you get the second premise that "IF events are repeatable, they're caused?"

      That is not what I said. Perhaps you read my posts too quickly, but you keep reading more into them than I am actually saying. I did not say that something which is repeatable has a cause. I said that by repeating the conditions of an event and testing certain variables, we can see which causes are possible, impossible and/or more common.

      I'm trying to figure out how you can demarcate science such that it's not MERELY applying reason to experience. But if it's the latter, than how do you rule out libertarain free-will (i.e., teleology) as a real causal mode?

      I did not rule out libertarian free-will. I just said that subscribing to it is not essential for performing science.

      I agree. And I argue with THEM TOO! I've argued with BA77 recently. I never see you suck-ups doing that, no matter how much you disagree with each other.

      I know you will claim I am being disingenuous, but I really do not very often see Thorton, Zach, etc., writing things which I think are factually incorrect. They might not explain things the way I would, and I am not saying we agree on every point. But you have to pick your battles on here. And the finer points of scientific philosophy seem pretty small fry when people are insisting Bronze Age mythology is valid science.

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

      Delete
    47. Ritchie: Science is the application of the scientific method. Does that count as arbitrary?

      Jeff: Yes it does count as arbitrary if the method doesn't have axioms that even get us to WHETHER events are caused.

      Ritchie: Say my shed disappeared and was replaced by a pile of somldering ash. I hypothesise that my shed burned down. However, my shed was made of wood and I do not know if wood burns (because I'm phenominally stupid). So I do an experiment - I try to recreate my shed as acurately as possible and set fire to it to see if it will burn. It does. Fascinating. Now, from my prespective, the likelihood that my original shed has burned down has now gone up because, to the best of my abilities, I know that such a thing is possible.

      Jeff: The probability calculation ASSUMES that repeatability is an indicator of causality. Without that assumption, the probability is still 1/2. So whence that assumption? Is it a human intuition? If so, does that count for anything with a consensus that constantly tells us that science trumps intuition frequently? If not, how is it derived? So far you're being absolutely arbitrary.

      Ritchie: It is not conclusive, to be sure, but the degree to which I can be sure that Cause A was the cause of Event B is directly proportional to my knowledge of whether Cause A is possible under the relevant circumstances.

      Jeff: Once you reject ALL intuition (except deductive axioms, we'll say) as constraints on what is possible, as the consensi have, it follows that nothing can be ruled out as impossible (except the axioms of deduction). You've made no advance by the experiment. It could all be an uncaused fluke. Frequency probability calculations REQUIRE that you're working with a KNOWN frequency. But that's precisely what you can never have once you, as the consensi, throw intuition out the window.

      Ritchie: I did not rule out libertarian free-will. I just said that subscribing to it is not essential for performing science.

      Jeff: Are you saying nothing that scientists do QUA scientists is intentional? Or are you saying that intentional action may not be free in any case? And if the latter, what do you know about causality that warrants your inference that there is such a thing as conventional language that is used properly? Have you deduced that from physics and chemistry? How so?

      Ritchie: And the finer points of scientific philosophy seem pretty small fry when people are insisting Bronze Age mythology is valid science.

      Jeff: So it's a trivial point whether the Copenhagenists are right or not, huh? Either you're brain-dead, or plenty of physicists are. Which just re-establishes your suck-up-ness. You suck-up to Einstein when it suits you and then dis him in the next sentence like he's an idiot. This is the insanity of feidism. It can't be done coherently.

      Delete
    48. Rich 1 easy rebuttal

      "I do not need to tell him - he tells us in his posts. And, crucially, whenever Cornelius has replied and told me I have his opinion wrong, then I accept that is true and listen to his clarification (whether or not I think it is factual or makes logical sense is another matter)."

      and then you are right back the next post misrepresenting. Your position is contradictory get over it. Call it whatever you like. You will be called out on it any time I please

      "You are welcome to try. But you have to point out contradictions that I ACTUALLY make"

      Mission accomplished. I have done it many times. I don't need your approval as to whether it has been done. I have caught you in contradictions in almost ever post.

      "This is where the concept of evidence comes in. If the majority believe something for which there is no evidence, then their belief alone counts for absolutely nothing."

      Garbage it is merely your minority assertion that the evidence for the design they see is non existent. Your claim that every one else that sees the evidence of design is delusional continues itself to be delusional.

      "It is not evidence simply because someone - or indeed the majority of people - believe it."

      Strawman fallacy. Step up your game rather than fabricating. I pointed out that the majority see the evidence not that the evidence is the majority.

      "I realise this idea might be quite scandalous to a religious mind, of course..."

      But creating strawman could hardly be scandalous to a materialist because they do it so often. Probably a moral issue.

      "A friend does not need faith in my existence if he knows I am real. He knows it. He has evidence of my existence"


      too clueless I sad nothing about faith in my existence. I said faith. A friend has faith in you any time he trusts you to do what you say you would. That is how the BIble references faith not the silliness you have in your mind.

      " Do not assume I am ignorant"

      I don't need to assume that which is clearly demonstrated.

      "You think cosmologists have identified a cause of the Big Bang? Really?


      You do know that the big bang is actually the expansion stage? lol Now who has no grasp of the material?

      "In any case, that does not undermine my point."

      No it destroys it because you raised it to answer my statement on final cause/explanation. Now you are trying to fudge your way out of it

      Delete
    49. Jeff -

      I'm curious. What exactly is YOUR opinion on how science works? You ask a lot of questions, but you don't make much in the way of claims yourself.

      What assumptions to you think science relies on? Can we detect whether events have causes? If so, how? What is your opinion on libertarian free-will, specifically in reference to science?

      And what does any of this have to do with evolution? I've quite lost track.

      Delete
    50. Easy rebuttal to Ritch 2

      "That is called deflection."

      No that is calling you out on your conveniently assumed premise that theists have a burden of proof greater than the athiest. If you ever had it - sorry - you gave it up when your side started pushing the blue everything out of nothing fairy.

      "You have evidence or you do not. And playing the "I have evidence but I'm not going to show you any until you show me XYZ" game merely serves to highlight that you do not."

      how dense does your density actually go? The evidence has been shown. Are you just toally lost and forgot where you are? ROFL Earth To Ritch. You are on an ID blog and think that because you disagree with all the evidence that this Id blog has presented that there is none whatsoever? THis merely serves to highlight your silliness and extreme conceit in thinking that your rebuttals to the evidence presented in volumes on this blog constitute the existence of no evidence whatsoever. too funny. What else is new? That just your argument which doesn't make the evudence go away.

      "In any case, you never need evidence for chance. It is the deferred hypothesis."

      LOL!HAHAAHAHA. I am actually laughing out loud at reading this.
      the great proclaimer of the scientific methodology is now begging that there is a deferred hypothesis established without a single test that allows him to invoke chance whenever he wishes to with ZERO evidence.


      CONGRATULATIONS Ritch !I don't think I have ever seen a greater demonstration of straight up hypocrisy and laughable logic.

      "But chance is always assumed, default explanation. Just fyi."

      Just FYI you The majority of the world laughs at you for good reason. You are the quintessential believer in the blue fairy of chance creating everything out oof nothing. In one paragraph you have forever proven Cornelius right that your position is every bit based on the very kind of faith you cl;aim to oppose


      "That we can "invoke total nothingness without even spacetime creating everything"?

      I've no idea. You're first going to have to clarify what that actually means. I mean, even grammatically it is obscure."

      I will help you out as much as I can in understandign basic English. Here let me see if breaking it down helps you be less muddled

      "That we can "invoke total nothingness without even spacetime" Nothingness without even spacetime means nothingness that includes no spacetime.

      "I don't know" is a perfectly valid scientific position, and the only honest answer when confronted with a mystery you cannot explain."

      Hehehe. So using that logic the next time you do an exam and write ""I don't know" please tell the teacher you answered all the questions. See? This is why I said and was right that you have beffudled yourself with that popular but wrong piece of logic. If it where true everytime somone asked a question and the othr person gave a blank look their no answer would be an answer. No silly when anyone or group says they do not have an answer it means they do not have an answer. You are embarassing yourself again.

      "
      No it isn't. Stating that we don't know the answer to something is, clearly, a position."

      Yes oh wise one when we have no position on a subject it means we have a position. The drivel continues.

      Delete
    51. Ritchie: I'm curious. What exactly is YOUR opinion on how science works?

      Jeff: I don't think science is demarcatable except as merely deductive and inductive reasoning applied to experience. We bring to bear all of the axioms of deduction and induction. We bring our mathematical intuitions. And so on. But unless you thing the existence of libertarian causality is counter-intuitive, it seems to be intuitive since EVERYONE talks as if teleological/libertarian causality is at play in the world. And that makes it fair game to USE in explanation, as we do in courts, etc.

      And since we don't have a naturalistic explanation for the origin and evolution of all life from a common ancestor, we can't use parsimony to rule out teleological causality yet.

      CH is not arguing for the cessation of research, Ritchie. He's only arguing against scientists making claims in the name of science that are LITERALLY unknowable at this time.

      Delete
    52. Easy rebuttal to ritch 3

      "
      They are singularities. That is the connection. Rather obviously. Seriously, do you fall down a lot?"

      No but since your logic falls down as much as it does you might want to check yourself out.

      You are totally clueless. We have never been able to observe or even comprehend what happens in a black hole but we know that they do not create new visible universes so in regard to talking about cosmology they add nothing to the discussion. You are just trying to hand wave your way out of your constant blunders.


      "Excellent! so may we now claim that since we have no test in the last 50 years or now that proves abiogenesis that the creation of life by purely naturalistic means is a totally unscientific position.

      You want us to test for methodological naturalism?"

      No. Do your glasses need adjusting or are you just relying on dishonesty for your expected hypocritical 180 ? I said abiogenesis. You proclaimed if a test was not available NOW to prove a position it was unscientific. No test has proven that any theory of abiogenesis proposed is viable and there is no test on the horizon. So if you were anything but a hypocrite you would need to proclaim that abiogensis is unscientific.

      P.S. See this is one of those places I prove your contradiction regardless of whether you admit to it or not.

      "It really is different."

      and so the prophet Elijah is proven right again. The materialist does the predicted 180 when his own criteria spins around and bites him in the rear.

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

      Delete
    54. Easy rebuttal to rich 4

      Elijah (4)
      "
      You only got as far as insisting there must have been a first cause. For argument's sake, let's go along with that. All we have established is that there was a first link in this chain of causes - nothing more. We have not established that this first link needed to possess any abilities."

      Really? and I fell down a lot? lol The uncaused entity need not possess any abilities? - then how would we be here complete with every capability and power we now see. Where did those come from? Osmosis? sorry totally silly comment

      " It merely needed to appear uncaused and kickstart a chain of causes."

      Why because it brought some chain of events with it that had no abilities? LOL this is sooooo silly. ANy proces of chain reactions must have been in the ability of the uncaused cause and controlled by the nature of the uncaused cause. every step in any chain reaction with all its emerging laws would come from the abilities of the property of the uncaused cause. Can you even think straight? I can answer having read you enough. You can't. Like every materialist here once you try and answer the issues of an uncaused cause you stumble into gibberish.


      " And in that role, the Big Bang serves us perfectly well."

      Again you show your vast ignorance. the big bang refers to the expansion phase. NO ONE not even atheistic cosmologist recognizes it as an uncaused cause but a process driven event. If you could think a wit you would realize that an uncaused cause is not driven by a process because that implies further cause. Sheesh. See how ignorant you are while claiming theists are?

      "So why can't the Big Bang be it? It is, after all a known quantity. "

      Again the known quantity is the expansion phase. You are totally befuddled.

      "Has he actually stated this himself?"

      He has . Go and educate yourself and come back

      "The concept of an infinite regress is not itself a cause (uncaused or not). So your point here makes no sense at all."

      No you make no sense because it is now clear you have no idea how infinite regress relates to the issue of the uncaused cause

      It is the problems that arise out of the concept of infinite regress that leads us to conclude that the universe MUST have an uncaused cause. A system of infinite regress would be essentially an uncaused cause because the very meaning of infinite is having no end which applied to the past would indicate that a infinite process has no first cause and is therefore uncaused. Please go and do some reading n the implications of infinity particularly in relationship to the past.

      When and if you do and come back you just might make better points.

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

      Delete
    56. Ritchie said:

      "It is not evidence simply because someone - or indeed the majority of people - believe it."

      elijah's strawman response:

      "Strawman fallacy. Step up your game rather than fabricating. I pointed out that the majority see the evidence not that the evidence is the majority."

      elijah, Ritchie did NOT say or imply that "the evidence is the majority".

      You're the one twisting everything around and erecting and attacking strawmen and fabricating things and playing asinine games. You accuse Ritchie of contradicting himself but it's you who obviously can't even grasp what Ritchie says. It's especially funny that you think you can educate him on the English language when you are so incredibly lousy at using it and writing it.

      You keep bringing up some alleged "majority" but what you obviously don't want to accept is that the "majority" of the people who are alive today or who have ever lived do/did NOT
      believe in your chosen, so-called designer-god, yhwh-jesus-holy-ghost-satan.

      Another thing that you don't want to accept is that when it comes to conducting science, it does NOT matter what an alleged religious "majority" or minority believes in. Scientific methodology is not a popularity contest.

      You also claim that "ton loads" of evidence for biblical creation (the actual meaning of the word 'design' in your assertions) has been presented on this blog, but yet another thing that you don't want to accept is that bashing evolution and evolutionary theory is not positive evidence for biblical creation or any other version of religious, supernatural design-creation.

      Evolutionary theory is supported by testable and tested hypotheses, positive evidence, and productive research and development. Religious fairy tales are supported by non-scientific wishful thinking, arrogance, fear, and delusions. Your tardiferous delusions are never going to be accepted or adopted by science. Get used to it.

      Delete
    57. kid I thought I should just let you know I read through everybody's posts but you and Thorton. I skim through your paragraphs (like I just did)and might see my name and know you are responding to me but you have both been so inconsequential because of your childish name calling, lack of an insight and inability to reason I skip reading your points most of the time because in a world with limited time and various responsibilities you just can't respond to everyone on the internet.

      I gather from my scan that you are attempting to help Ritch. I would too since he has had his proverbial head handed to him.

      Good for you

      Delete
    58. Jeff to Ritchie:

      "What criteria indicates that a particular inferred cause of an event is probable? And what makes you think that criteria is valid? Is it intuitive? If not, what did you derive it from?"

      Jeff, Ritchie, like all of us, are exposed to an endless and huge barrage of conjecture and speculation passed off as
      "fact", even coming from the the supposed "scientific" community. Amplified by the pop culture mechanisms.

      Cornelius had a wonderfull thread describing this phenomena some years back, that I just recently read. (Maybe he can post it's link for anybody interested if he remembers that. I could't exactly point to it right now.)

      Since our experiences and cognitive faculties are so limited in scope, relative to time and the realms of various possibilities, historically and otherwise speakiing, we will often choose explanations that will promote our perspective on "gratifications" whether or not valid from a legitimate scientific perspective(s).

      Delete
    59. 'it's possible that there is some sort of creative intelligence behind the universe',


      Hey Ritchie, that is all I am saying within the context of this discussion. Are you saying that you can agree?

      So are you saying

      Delete
    60. Elijah

      Your position is contradictory get over it. Call it whatever you like. You will be called out on it any time I please

      No, Cornelius' strawman version of the evolutionist's position is contradictory. I am pointing out that it is a strawman. And your 'caklling out' just makes you look like a fool.

      Mission accomplished. I have done it many times. I don't need your approval as to whether it has been done. I have caught you in contradictions in almost ever post.

      Delusional chest-thumping.

      Garbage it is merely your minority assertion that the evidence for the design they see is non existent.

      I am pointing out that the belief of 'the majority' itself is not evidence. If 'the majority' have indeed been convinced by ACTUAL evidence, then what IS this evidence? You have to present some.

      I pointed out that the majority see the evidence not that the evidence is the majority.

      Then your point is moot. It doesn't matter how many people see the evidence. What IS the evidence? You never actually say.

      too clueless I sad nothing about faith in my existence. I said faith. A friend has faith in you any time he trusts you to do what you say you would. That is how the BIble references faith not the silliness you have in your mind.

      I said that if we had evidence for God we wouldn't need faith in him. Clearly the context I meant faith was 'belief in His existence'. If you meant it in another context then that is your error, not mine.

      You do know that the big bang is actually the expansion stage?

      That is not what I asked. You claimed we had identified a cause of The Big Bang. I asked what that cause was. Please stop deflecting and answer the question.

      ME: In any case, that does not undermine my point.

      YOU: No it destroys it


      Another dodge. You really cannot address this point at all, can you? Whatever the first identifable cause is, it does us no good to add hypothetical links onto the chain of causes.

      No that is calling you out on your conveniently assumed premise that theists have a burden of proof greater than the athiest.

      LOL!

      Theists most emphatically DO have a greater burden of proof than atheists. They have an extra entity to provide evidence for - God.

      The evidence has been shown. Are you just toally lost and forgot where you are? ROFL Earth To Ritch. You are on an ID blog and think that because you disagree with all the evidence that this Id blog has presented that there is none whatsoever?

      Where exactly has this evidence been shown? This blog is run by, essentially, an ID propagandist which churns out fallacious posts. I have yet to see Cornelius present a single piece of evidence in support of ID - or, for that matter, even claim to. He usually merely tries to attack evolution. He is generally fairly cagey about stating the theories he actually supports (I mean, we all KNOW he's an ID advocate, but he is shy about admitting it), and to my knowledge has not written a single post explicitly in support of ID, let alone presenting evidence for it.

      LOL!HAHAAHAHA. I am actually laughing out loud at reading this.
      the great proclaimer of the scientific methodology is now begging that there is a deferred hypothesis established without a single test that allows him to invoke chance whenever he wishes to with ZERO evidence.


      Your derision counts for nothing. Chance IS the de facto scientific explanation. That is just a fact. It is how science actually works. And your ignorance of it is no rebuttal.

      In one paragraph you have forever proven Cornelius right that your position is every bit based on the very kind of faith you cl;aim to oppose

      It is not faith. It is science. Science simply can not function without methodological naturalism. That is a simple, delicious fact that both Cornelius and, apparently, you are totally ignorant of.

      Delete
    61. Elijah (2)

      Nothingness without even spacetime means nothingness that includes no spacetime.

      Goodness me, that was helpful!

      So using that logic the next time you do an exam and write ""I don't know" please tell the teacher you answered all the questions. See?

      You said "I don't know" was not a scientific POSITION. Which is palpably wrong. Your position can obviously be that you do not have the answer.

      Yes oh wise one when we have no position on a subject it means we have a position.

      Again you fudge embarrassingly. You are interchanging the words 'answer' and 'position' shamelessly.

      If you do not know the answer to a question, then your position is that you do not know it. That is pefectly logical and sound.

      We have never been able to observe or even comprehend what happens in a black hole...

      True.

      ...but we know that they do not create new visible universes...

      No, we have just never witnessed them doing so. But we cannot rule it out as a logical possibility.

      Ruling out possible qualities for an entity we know nothing about is exactly the fallacy you (erroneously) accused me of below. And you are demonstrably guilty of it here.

      so in regard to talking about cosmology they add nothing to the discussion.

      They do not. It is inferred that the universe was once a singularity. Knowledge that singularities do still exist in the universe is both informative and helpful. For one thing, it proves that singularities are not hypothetical entities (unlike God, of course).

      No. Do your glasses need adjusting or are you just relying on dishonesty for your expected hypocritical 180 ? I said abiogenesis. You proclaimed if a test was not available NOW to prove a position it was unscientific. No test has proven that any theory of abiogenesis proposed is viable and there is no test on the horizon. So if you were anything but a hypocrite you would need to proclaim that abiogensis is unscientific.

      Are you being just pretending to be this dense for your own amusement or does it simply come naturally?

      No-one has claimed that abiogenesis is a solved problem. We are still working on how life first arose. And, just fyi, we are making some very interesting discoveries along the way.

      It is, however, a testable theory. We can (and do) draw inductive hypothese from it to test. It is therfore, by nature, scientific.

      In direct contrast to 'Goddidit'. From which we can draw no inductive hypotheses to test. It is a barren catch-all explanation, and therefore not scientific.

      P.S. See this is one of those places I prove your contradiction regardless of whether you admit to it or not.

      More chest-thumping delusion.

      and so the prophet Elijah is proven right again. The materialist does the predicted 180 when his own criteria spins around and bites him in the rear.

      No, the 'prophet Elijah' simply demonstrates his scientific ignorance (yet again). If you do not know the functional difference between a scientific theory and a theological explanation then that does not make you a prophet. It makes you a fool.

      Delete
    62. Elijah (3)

      The uncaused entity need not possess any abilities? - then how would we be here complete with every capability and power we now see.

      What a ridiculous question. Cause A causes Event B. Nothing about that implies that Event B takes on any properties or abilities of A.

      What nonsense are you dribbling out now?

      ANy proces of chain reactions must have been in the ability of the uncaused cause and controlled by the nature of the uncaused cause. every step in any chain reaction with all its emerging laws would come from the abilities of the property of the uncaused cause.

      What a completely ridiculous notion. A falling rock can cause a landslide. That does not mean the landslide is within the ability of the rock to control.

      The first cause (if there was one) was merely that - the first in a line of causes. That does not at all imply this first cause had any further control over, awareness of, interest in, or ability to further influence, the proceeding consequences. For all we know this First Cause could have disappeared the moment it had kickstarted its chain of causes.

      the big bang refers to the expansion phase. NO ONE not even atheistic cosmologist recognizes it as an uncaused cause but a process driven event.

      It was an event. But why 'process-driven'? Do you just assume every event is process driven? Doesn't this imply an infinite regress of events?

      If you could think a wit you would realize that an uncaused cause is not driven by a process because that implies further cause.

      If you were half as clever as you think you are, you would realise that this is a fundamental issue in the concept of a first cause itself.

      Again the known quantity is the expansion phase. You are totally befuddled.

      And why can we not say this expansion phase had no cause?

      He has . Go and educate yourself and come back

      You are the one who claims to know it. Why don't you present an actual sourced quote?

      It is the problems that arise out of the concept of infinite regress that leads us to conclude that the universe MUST have an uncaused cause. A system of infinite regress would be essentially an uncaused cause because the very meaning of infinite is having no end which applied to the past would indicate that a infinite process has no first cause and is therefore uncaused.

      What a long tautology.

      Yes an infinte regress WOULD imply no first cause. It WOULD imply a chain of causes that stretched back into the past without end. Yes there are many significant logical issues with conceiving this.

      But that is not, by itself, reason to conclude an infintie regree is impossible. Many things which are true (and demonstrably so) are nevertheless very hard to comprehend. Frankly, the concept of a first cause has its share of logical problems too.

      Delete
    63. Jeff

      ...And that makes it fair game to USE in explanation, as we do in courts, etc.

      I see.

      At least I think I do. ;-)

      But just to makes things extra clear, let's walk this through. Just to see how science works under this proposed model.

      Let's say we are in an orchard and notice an apple fall to the ground. That is our observation.

      Where exactly do we go from here to investigate the cause or force that caused the event? How, as scientists, and ones which are open to ANY explanation, do we go about investigating the force which made the apple fall to the ground? Walk me through it.

      Delete
    64. bpragmatic

      'it's possible that there is some sort of creative intelligence behind the universe',


      Hey Ritchie, that is all I am saying within the context of this discussion. Are you saying that you can agree?


      Yes. We cannot rule out a creative intelligence absolutely. If this is all you are saying, then we do indeed agree.

      But science also cannot allow non-naturalistic explanations as part of its theories. If you are saying it should, then we do not agree.

      As an explanation "God did it" is possible. We can never prove otherwise. But it is not scientific.

      Delete
    65. "just makes you look like a fool."

      fools always think other people are fools. Its inpart what makes them fools. Whats your point? that you have some authority to make your proclamation stick? now whose a fool?

      "If 'the majority' have indeed been convinced by ACTUAL evidence, then what IS this evidence? You have to present some."

      and yet here you are on this ID blog every week arguing. Again do you have some authority to make your accusation stick? or are you just begging that all the evidence on this blog be discounted because you say so

      DING DING DING DING in the last option we have our winner. beg some more.

      "I said that if we had evidence for God we wouldn't need faith in him. Clearly the context I meant faith was 'belief in His existence'."

      No one cares about your context silly. You made a theological claim about faith. You were wrong. You don't get to define what faith means to the other side. Faith is putting your trust in who God is. It does not just refer to his existence. again your are clueless on theology and whenever you comment on it you demonstrate it in spades.

      "That is not what I asked. You claimed we had identified a cause of The Big Bang. I asked what that cause was."

      rubbish lying. You did more than that you conflated the big bang into an uncaused cause when NO One onsiders it as such. You goofed and are now trying to slide out of it.

      "Theists most emphatically DO have a greater burden of proof than atheists."

      WHo cares what you proclaim. Yours is a minority position and the majority can simply laugh at you. Your side now is pushing the blue fairy that created everything out of nothing so you have lost that argument forever. deal with it.


      "Your derision counts for nothing. Chance IS the de facto scientific explanation. That is just a fact."

      Facts are made of better things which you don't have and are just begging for.

      established by what scientific test?

      LOL!HAHAAHAHA. I am actually AGAIN laughing out loud at reading this.

      the great proponent of the scientific method is begging and begging over and over again that a premise that has not been proven scientifically should be accepted as science. ROFL

      I have no problem with you repeating it over and over again as each time your prove Cornelius that your position is every bit based on the very kind of faith you claim to oppose.

      Delete
    66. Easy rebuttal to rich 2


      "Goodness me, that was helpful!"

      Well I never promised I could make you less dense


      "If you do not know the answer to a question, then your position is that you do not know it. That is pefectly logical and sound."

      Lol. I might as well have some fun with this ignorance cause I have rebutted it soundly before

      Tom: What is your position on abortion?
      Jane: I don't know
      Tom: thank you for your position

      lol

      Teacher: please tell us the answer to 1 plus 1
      Student: I don't know
      Teacher: thank you for anwering the question.

      lol

      "Elijah -.but we know that they do not create new VISIBLE universes...

      Ritch:No, we have just never WITNESSED them doing so. But we cannot rule it out as a logical possibility."

      ummm try actually reading what you write or you really demonstrate tom foolery at its finest. I've Capitalized the parts that show you are just babbling to babble.

      "It is, however, a testable theory."

      No oh dense one. You are the one that stated that if a thing cannot be tested NOW it is unscientific. In this you showed your massive hypocrisy. You have FAILED spectacularly in demonstrating abiogenesis but still proclaim it as scientific despite no test now or in the past proving it.

      "And, just fyi, we are making some very interesting discoveries along the way."

      Yes and the main one FYI is that you have no viable model for abiogenesis. Since that is the issue I referred to your point crashes and burns

      but then you proclaim that chance without any evidence is an established fact and is defacto science which demonstrates your spectacular scientific ignorance and lack of logic. So no one need be surprised.

      Delete
    67. Easy and this time extremely easy rebuttal to rich 3

      "
      What a ridiculous question. Cause A causes Event B. Nothing about that implies that Event B takes on any properties or abilities of A."

      You got to be kidding. Seriously how old are you? because I try not to debate with kids

      Where does B come from if not from A since A references the the sum total of all that exists to cause/initiate B.

      Dude come back when you learn to think, you are clearly out of your depth. You do not even begin to understand the issues. This IS like debating with a kid.

      "
      What a completely ridiculous notion. A falling rock can cause a landslide. That does not mean the landslide is within the ability of the rock to control."

      Its your grasp of the issue that is ridiculously weak. in order for the rock to fall there must be a property similar to gravity or a force to propel it. There must be the property of mass or the rock falling will have little to no effect in order for there to be a landslide. The forces must have properties of direction. The land must have the property of height, properties of density that allow for the earth to slide and on an on

      In this scenario the uncaused cause would have to be a rock that is uncaused plus a hill that is uncaused and all the requisite forces and laws governing what is possible that are uncaused. In your babbling foolishness you have the landslide as a B without considering all the things that have to be in place with specified properties for it to even be able to create a landslide.

      These properties and abilites are what determines what will happen in every step of any chain reaction. Your blithering ignorant argument is that a chain reaction is not directed and controlled by the original state of what is included and causes the chain reaction to begin with - the uncaused cause.

      DUDE.....YOU ARE TOTALLY AND ABSOLUTELY CLUELESS and everything in that reply of yours is destroyed by your fundamental cluelessness.

      Delete
    68. Elijah (1)

      fools always think other people are fools. Its inpart what makes them fools. Whats your point?

      My point, which I have now made about 4 times, is that Cornelius is building a strawman. You can beat it all you like, but it is still a strawman.

      and yet here you are on this ID blog every week arguing. Again do you have some authority to make your accusation stick?

      More deflection. I ask for some evidence of God and you do nothing but deflect. Just admit that you don't have any.

      or are you just begging that all the evidence on this blog be discounted because you say so

      I have never known this blog to present a single piece of evidence in support of either God or ID. Not once. It spends a Hell of a lot of time trying to bash evolution (stress 'trying to') but evidence against one hypothesis is not evidence for another. ID needs its own evidence.

      If you think this blog HAS provided any evidence for either God or ID, then provide a link to what you believe to be the best and strongest piece of evidence.

      No one cares about your context silly. You made a theological claim about faith. You were wrong.

      LOL!!

      Your arrogance is truly a thing to behold.

      YOU misinterpreted what *I* said, and yet somehow *I* am the one who was wrong?!

      LOL!

      Really, how old are you? Serious question.

      Faith is putting your trust in who God is. It does not just refer to his existence.

      Faith, like most words, can have several meanings depending on context. It is not my fault you chose a different one to the one I meant. That does not make ME wrong.

      ME: "You claimed we had identified a cause of The Big Bang. I asked what that cause was."

      YOU: "rubbish lying."


      I refer you to your post dated June 1, 8:19PM, eighth paragraph:

      "ELIJAH: Pick up a rudimentary book on cosmology and you will note that big bang is preceded by yet another explanation which means it is NOT the final explanation."

      There it is. Right from the horse's mouth. That pretty much sounds like a claim that we have identified a cause for the Big Bang to me. So guess I wasn't lying after all. Who knew?

      I'd ask you again what this cause actually is, but we both know you don't know the answer.

      You did more than that you conflated the big bang into an uncaused cause when NO One onsiders it as such.

      We don't know if it is an uncaused cause. It is simply the earliest cause that we know of. But you are the one insisting a first cause is necessary. So why not identify the earliest known cause as such? Adding an entirely hypothetical cause onto the end of the chain of known causes is totally unnecessary and extraneous.

      WHo cares what you proclaim.

      Oh dear, throwing the toys out of the pram? You must HATE the fact that I'm right so much. You must be seething. I wish I was there to see your face. Any chance of a photo?

      I assume you no longer want to continue insisting that theists don't have a greater burden of proof than atheists? I'll take that as an admission of error on this one then. Don't worry, I won't make you actually say the words.

      Your side now is pushing the blue fairy that created everything out of nothing so you have lost that argument forever. deal with it.

      LOL!

      This is priceless. You STILL don't understand that the Magic Blue Fairy is a parody of the God hypothesis? Even though I've explained it to you explicitly?

      Yes, the Magic Blue Fairy scenario IS unlikely. Yes it IS unscientific. And for exactly the same reasons that the God hypothesis is unlikely and unscientific!

      Facts are made of better things which you don't have and are just begging for.

      Whoops, there go more toys. Schoolyard jibes are not helping you. Chance is the de facto scientific explanation against which hypotheses are tested. This is a plain and simple fact.

      Now are you going to swallow your humongous pride and accept this, or would you like me to walk you carefully through why this is so?

      Delete
  2. Cornelius Hunter: The world must have arisen by itself—spontaneously. And no, natural selection does not change that.

    Um, no. The world didn't arise by natural selection, but by accretion due to gravity.

    Cornelius Hunter: Here’s a test. When I give you a word, you tell me the first thing that comes to mind. Here’s the word: Evolution. Answer: Natural selection, right?

    Evolution means unfolding. Depending on context, that might mean almost any directed change with direction over time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zach,
      Um, no. The world didn't arise by natural selection, but by accretion due to gravity.


      Durn,beat me to it

      Delete
    2. "Um, no. The world didn't arise by natural selection, but by accretion due to gravity.

      Durn,beat me to it"

      Goodie that means I get to debunk both of you.

      The word "world" is not exclusive to planet. You may consult a good dictionary to become more informed and Cornelius doesn't say that the world arose by natural selection but that natural selection does not change that it did not.

      In a backward way many atheists do try to imply that evolution and natural selection validates atheism itself when in fact Natural selection and evolution does no such thing.

      Is there no materialist here that does not trip all over themselves? I thought you guys were supposed to be smarter

      Delete
    3. Elijah,
      The word "world" is not exclusive to planet. You may consult a good dictionary to become more informed


      "World,
      1.
      the earth or globe, considered as a planet.

      3.
      the earth or a part of it, with its inhabitants, affairs, etc., during a particular period: the ancient world."

      Perhaps ch should be less ambiguous, life seems more accurate, it natural selection proposed for non livings things? How would that work?

      and Cornelius doesn't say that the world arose by natural selection but that natural selection does not change that it did not.
      Actually he said
      ch
      The world must have arisen by itself—spontaneously. And no, natural selection does not change that.


      "Spontaneous,
      1.
      coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: "

      So what you are saying,if I understand you, is that the world arose by a non goal directed means, and even though natural selection is not proposed as a force, the fact of natural selection does not mean it is a force even though it was not proposed as a force,so don't propose it ever.

      Hmmm. I couldn't agree more, I retract the " durn",




      Delete
    4. I can play too,
      Elijah,
      I thought you guys were supposed to be smarter


      That is based on the unproven assumption you are smart enough to know.

      Delete
    5. Elijah,
      "World,
      1.
      the earth or globe, considered as a planet.

      ."

      Good now read some more

      : the system of created things : universe

      Its amazing when you read the entire entry for a word what knowledge can spring forth

      "So what you are saying,if I understand you, is that the world arose by a non goal directed means, and even though natural selection is not proposed as a force, the fact of natural selection does not mean it is a force even though it was not proposed as a force,so don't propose it ever."

      No surprise that nowhere do I ever say any such thing but I mean its you Vel. You have no intellectually integrity although I must confess that read just about like your normal (ir) rational process. I could hardly expect you to respond without lying. Its what you always do ;)

      "I can play too,"

      yes but what a pity you don't have the objective evidence of me missing the pertinent alternative meaning of a word to make it stick.

      Delete
    6. Elijah,
      Good now read some more

      : the system of created things : universe

      Its amazing when you read the entire entry for a word what knowledge can spring forth


      Does that definition help you? Has natural selection been proposed for the universe? And since the the first meaning is planet your snarky reply " become more informed" is evidence that perhaps your estimation of your cerebral superiority is unfounded. Like I said, ambiguous,intentionally or not.

      No surprise that nowhere do I ever say any such thing but I mean its you Vel. You have no intellectually integrity although I must confess that read just about like your normal (ir) rational process. I could hardly expect you to respond without lying. Its what you always do ;)

      This is more interesting. Nowhere did I say it was a fact that my understanding was your meaning , I asked if what I understood you to say was correct. A normal reaction might be to rephrase or expand to clarify.

      Your's was to call me a habitual liar, since it wasn't a lie by any normal definition of a lie. I am left to speculate. Is it just misdirection, the view that to disagree is a personal attack,some sort of quid pro quo,

      It is tiresome,but I can find ways to accommodate it.

      yes but what a pity you don't have the objective evidence of me missing the pertinent alternative meaning of a word to make it stick.

      Alternative is the key word. Pertinent is your opinion. Objective evidence? I had no idea you knew the meaning of the word

      Delete
    7. Vel I have repeatedly caught you pretending to ask questions and then immediately answering them as it suits you as an intellectually dishonest ploy. It is without question. I have no reason to disregard intellectually dishonesty because the the intellectually dishonest will not honestly admit it to it

      Thats would be illogical.

      "Does that definition help you?"

      Helps point out your silliness. Yes

      " Has natural selection been proposed for the universe?"

      Where does cornelius state that it has been?. Does saying natural selection does not change something necessarily imply that anyone directly says it does. this has been answered before. There are people, many on this board, that do appeal to natural selection in part for their atheistic world view. Some even claim it proves their atheistic position right and that atheistic world view is then applied to the entire universe.

      You have as usual no point.

      Delete
  3. Cornelius is being silly. Dragging in the origin of the universe and expecting biologists to discuss that shows that he does not know which field is which. Try physicists (cosmologists in particular).

    Furthermore the characterization of Masatoshi Nei's new book sounds utterly misguided. In the blurb at Amazon it says

    The theory asserts, perhaps somewhat controversially, that the driving force behind evolution is mutation, with natural selection being of only secondary importance.

    But Cornelius says

    The term “mutation-driven” means that mutations not only are supposed to provide the raw materials for evolutionary change, but that they also are supposed to cause evolutionary change without the help of the venerable natural selection.

    I think there is a big difference between "of secondary importance" and "without the help of". I suggest Cornelius tune up his reading skills and find some physicists to go bother.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe Felsenstein is proof that Darwinian evolution is a religion of cretins and liars.

      Delete
    2. Joe:

      Furthermore the characterization of Masatoshi Nei's new book sounds utterly misguided.

      Well, NeoDarwinism, RM+NS, was dogmatically maintained to be a fact. This in spite of substantial evidential problems. And the RM part means those mutations were random with respect to fitness. Remember what Julian Huxley said:

      Mutation merely provides the raw material of evolution; it is a random affair, and takes place in all directions. Genes are giant molecules, and their mutations are the result of slight alterations in their structure. Some of these alterations are truly chance rearrangements, as uncaused or at least as unpredictable as the jumping of an electron from one orbit to another inside an atom; others are the result of the impact of some external agency, like X-rays, or ultra-violet radiations, or mustard gas. But in all cases they are random in relation to evolution. Their effects are not related to the needs of the organisms, or to the conditions in which it is placed. They occur without reference to their possible consequences or biological uses.


      And now those evidential problems have grown to the point that evolutionists are changing the story. This isn’t just a third decimal point adjustment.

      But of course the “fact” claim hasn’t changed. The theory might undergo radical surgery, it might have all kinds of problems, but it wlll always remain a fact.

      So what is the fact? It is not the particular theory, held at any one time, of how evolution occurs, but that it is strictly, 100%, naturalistic. Evolution per se. It must be a spontaneous process. That is what cannot be forfeited.

      Delete
    3. "Joe Felsenstein is proof that Darwinian evolution is a religion of cretins and liars."

      Unfortunately having debated the logic of about three materialists here their blog comments pretty much confirm the lying part of it.

      Oh and we can add lizzy to it who claimed Darwinists never held a certain point of view who when showed they did continues to lie that she ever was implying they didn't.

      Delete
    4. "Furthermore the characterization of Masatoshi Nei's new book sounds utterly misguided. In the blurb at Amazon it says

      The theory asserts, perhaps somewhat controversially, that the driving force behind evolution is mutation, with natural selection being of only secondary importance. "

      LOL.. Did I just read a characterization of a book being wrong by appealing to a "blurb" on Amazon. What a hilarious rebuttal.

      Delete
    5. Hmm, so an evolutionary biologist writes a book and in it he allegedly* places different levels of importance on evolutionary mechanisms than some other evolutionary biologists do and that somehow destroys all evolutionary theory and that evolution ever occurred/occurs, therefor jesus. Got it.

      *I said allegedly because no one here has read the book, so no one here knows what he says in his book.

      It's also unknown at this point whether his book will have no, little, or a profound effect on evolutionary theory, and one way or another it will still be evolutionary theory, not god-did-it.

      Delete
    6. jf. your life span is puny. your ability to perceive the fullness of realities is totally insignificant. Your physical presence is manifestly irrelevant. Your intellect is something you have no comprenhesive description of explaining. Why do you even attempt? Why do you continue to attempt to exclude any kind of explanatory philosophy, simply because it contradicts your own philosophy? Perhaps human history is to be taken more seriously that you think it should be. Perhaps you denigrate human historical accounts because these accounts antithetical towards your preferred philosophy.

      Delete
    7. "bpragmaticJune 1, 2013 at 8:41 PM

      jf. your life span is puny. your ability to perceive the fullness of realities is totally insignificant. Your physical presence is manifestly irrelevant. Your intellect is something you have no comprenhesive description of explaining. Why do you even attempt? Why do you continue to attempt to exclude any kind of explanatory philosophy, simply because it contradicts your own philosophy? Perhaps human history is to be taken more seriously that you think it should be. Perhaps you denigrate human historical accounts because these accounts antithetical towards your preferred philosophy."



      jf, i am totally willing to discuss with you in further detail, anything you want to regarding this post. clarification is not a bad thing for anybody trying to determine "origins" on up to our current experience. and identifying speculations and conjecture is not (a bad thing, what ever that is) either, in my humble opinion. But i can fully understand your desire to go back to your comfort zone and continuemanhy to promulgate your conjectural existence at the expense of who consider your conjecture to be bullshit.

      Delete
    8. CH: So what is the fact? It is not the particular theory, held at any one time, of how evolution occurs, but that it is strictly, 100%, naturalistic. Evolution per se. It must be a spontaneous process. That is what cannot be forfeited.

      Jeff: That's absurd enough. But the most absurd thing is that "naturalistic" inquiry allows for uncaused events, but not libertarianly-caused events. The arbitrariness is complete.

      And this is what proves that the whole demarcation criteria is merely atheism. Beyond that, I've heard it all. The question the law of non-contradiction and everything else.

      Delete
    9. It's very clear that in this post Cornelius misconstrued Masatoshi Nei by saying that Nei had abandoned natural selection. I called Cornelius on this, and he has now replied, failing utterly to admit that he misconstrued Nei. Just as he wants us to go off and talk about the origin of the universe, Cornelius wants to avoid noticing that he was wrong.

      I've actually known Nei for 40 years; I was one of a few invited speakers flown in for Nei's 2012 80th birthday symposium. He has been taking a similar position for a long time, so I am pretty sure the Amazon blurb is closer to Nei's position than Cornelius's mischaracterization of it.

      And to all the other folks who are similarly avoiding this issue, and who are calling me a cretin and/or a liar, I riposte thus: have a nice day!

      Delete
    10. "It's very clear that in this post Cornelius misconstrued Masatoshi Nei by saying that Nei had abandoned natural selection."

      Its very clear you have a beffudled mind as nowhere in the post does Cornelius claim anyone has abandoned natural selection.

      The book will be out in due time at which time the issue can be settled. Until then veiled appeals to authority based on alleged friendships are of course fallacious.

      Delete
    11. Look who's talking about appeals to authority.

      elijah, you're everything that you bitch about, and so are the rest of the IDiot-creationists. Your enemy is you.

      Delete
    12. So appealing to my personal experience, in having known Nei for years and knowing what he has said on this issue, is a "veiled appeal to authority"?

      Wow, talk about misconstruing ...

      Delete
    13. Joe you can't even begin to talk about misconstruing. Where did Cornelius claim anyone was abandoning natural selection. As I read it what he said was it isn't the force that it was once claimed to be yet you characterized that with complete abandonment.

      and what else can we call it but an appeal to authority. Do you quote anything Nei has said? Do you claim to have heard from him on the subject of what is in the book?

      No you quote a blurb and say I know him so trust me. You may be entirely right where he is concerned but at this point yes it relies on you claiming to be an authority on him.

      You either don't know what the word "misconstrue" means or you do not know what an appeal to authority is

      Delete
    14. Btw Joe I think theres is pretty good evidence that it is you that have misconstrued C. observe

      "The term “mutation-driven” means that mutations not only are supposed to provide the raw materials for evolutionary change, but that they also are supposed to cause evolutionary change without the help of the venerable natural selection."

      You have taken this in a strictly exclusive way but that is NOT the way I read it at all. Rather I read it as being focused on the raw material mutation sense he is focusing on as mutations are now capable of driving change without natural selection. Not that it always does but that when it does it can do so with no help from natural selection. it would be loosely analogous to saying

      "I build structures of my house with the help of no one else. "

      which does not imply that that is the case across the board. I think this fits in with his reply.

      "And the RM part means those mutations were random with respect to fitness"

      This absolutely true. It is how darwinist described it for decades but now even the blurb you referenced indicates that in some evolutionary changes the mutation can do the join without reliance on NS.

      In fact as I understand Nei at the molecular level he sees little evidence for natural selection to determine directions in evolution, he sees NS as only preserving steps in an evolution directed by mutation.

      So despite your claims C is pretty much on target.










      Delete
    15. Your interpretation of Nei's views (leaving aside your insults and namecalling) is better than Cornelius's. Nei also has other ways in which the mutation biases can affect the outcome.

      But when I interpreted Cornelius's post as trying to assert that Nei was dropping natural selection from his theory, note Cornelius's reply to me. It tried to divert the discussion elsewhere, and did not even try to argue that I had misinterpreted the post.

      So I don't think that Cornelius agrees with your generous interpretation of his post.

      (And of course Cornelius also wants us to zoom off to discussing the origin of the universe, and built this diversion into his original post. This is just a version of a frequent creationist tactic -- when their arguments that natural selection does not work are shown to be wrong, they immediately want to change the topic to the Origin Of Life. Cornelius has gone them one better and is trying to get the discussion of Nei's theory to be about the origin of the universe.)

      Delete
  4. "That the species arose according to random events and natural law—chance and necessity."

    And where did time come from? And where did natural laws come from? and where did gravity come from? And why is there "force"?

    Oh such a mysterious and complicated accretion we live in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who says time, gravity and natural laws 'came from' anywhere? Who says they aren't just brute facts?

      Delete
    2. "Who says time, gravity and natural laws 'came from' anywhere? Who says they aren't just brute facts?"

      You mean like God?

      Careful there Ritchie. You are about to fall into the precipice Scott fell into and is still hopelessly struggling to get out of.

      You know where The materialists whines that theism must be rejected because it has no explanatory power and then invokes the laws of the universe as a brute fact with no more explanation

      Delete
    3. "You mean like God?"

      Which one(s) of the thousands that people have thought up, and which version/interpretation of the fairy tales that are associated with those so-called gods are brute facts?

      Delete
    4. Elijah

      You mean like God?

      Why would I mean that?

      Careful there Ritchie. You are about to fall into the precipice Scott fell into and is still hopelessly struggling to get out of.

      You know where The materialists whines that theism must be rejected because it has no explanatory power and then invokes the laws of the universe as a brute fact with no more explanation


      But we know the laws of nature exist. Their existence is not in question.

      Unlike God. Who has has no explanatory power because his is immeasurable, untestable and totally unevidenced. A complete hypothetical. And thus, no more use as a scientific explanation than voodoo, fairies or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

      Delete
    5. "But we know the laws of nature exist. Their existence is not in question.....Unlike God. Who has has no explanatory powe"

      you know nothing about the laws of the universe but that you can describe their results. You have no explanatory power for them. Don't join Scott in gooing out on that ledge of fabrication and lies. It broke for him and it fell into the precipice of illogic he is still in another post trying to recover from

      " And thus, no more use as a scientific explanation than voodoo, fairies or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.'

      You mean like everything coming out of nothing voodo? Boo! Don't be frightened ritch you can always continue fooling yourself that its a great "Scientific explanation" to claim that -

      "Poof" there was a universe
      "poof" then there was life

      Its what all atheist warm themselves at night with like a hot cup of chocolate.

      Delete
    6. Elijah

      you know nothing about the laws of the universe but that you can describe their results. You have no explanatory power for them. Don't join Scott in gooing out on that ledge of fabrication and lies. It broke for him and it fell into the precipice of illogic he is still in another post trying to recover from

      Do not threaten me.

      We know (as well as we ever can) that the laws of physics exist.

      God, by contrast, is an entrely unevidenced, hypotheitcal entity.

      And as such, God is an entirely useless scientific explanation.

      These are plain, simple facts, no matter how you try to threaten me into believing otherwise.

      You mean like everything coming out of nothing voodo? Boo! Don't be frightened ritch you can always continue fooling yourself that its a great "Scientific explanation" to claim that -

      "Poof" there was a universe
      "poof" then there was life

      Its what all atheist warm themselves at night with like a hot cup of chocolate.


      I do not pretend that the origin of life, or of the universe, is a solved mystery. They are indeed puzzles for which we do not yet have the answers. I freely admit this. And so will every other scientist worth their salt.

      And that still does not justify inventing entirely hypothetical explanations for them such as "It was the Magic Blue Fairy" and expecting these to be treated as respectable scientific theories.

      They are not. Deal with it.

      Delete
    7. "These are plain, simple facts, no matter how you try to threaten me into believing otherwise."

      Ritch get over yourself. I don't care enough to threaten you into believing anything. Some may but I post more for lurkers not you. You are delusional. No threat has been leveled. You can and did follow Scott and you ended up in the same illogical place.

      "We know (as well as we ever can) that the laws of physics exist."

      and as stated and you cannot rebut you have no explanation for them. They are merely descriptive. They describe things happening with no reason or explanation for why they do. So your claim that they offer superior explanatory power continues to be nonsense.

      Those are plain simple facts you cannot handle. Your other gibberish claims of hypothetical and inventions that are not inventions have been answered in my other posts higher up on this page where you make the same circular claims in oder to get to the conclusion you want.

      Good luck with the Magic blue nothing fairy that creates everything

      Delete
    8. "I do not pretend that the origin of life, or of the universe, is a solved mystery. They are indeed puzzles for which we do not yet have the answers. I freely admit this. And so will every other scientist worth their salt."

      Good so you admit to having no scientific fact that contradicts ID or theism since many idist and theists also accept evolution (even though I am not among them).

      You also have no tests that can be run to show that life is the result of natural processes. Given your claim that a lack of a test NOW renders a position as unscientific then we can conclude that a naturalistic approach is unscientific.

      we then look at the universe having a logical even mathematical order with systems that work together to achieve logical purposes and we can scientifically conclude that the universe is filled with logic - DNA and the human brain being only some of the best examples.

      unless you are daft and have no concept of what the word hypothetical or invented means then accepting that logic is in the universe as a natural feature of it is neither hypothetical nor invented.

      th premise behind your argument has been TOTALLY dismantled since saying the universe possesses logic as it nature and the universe is intelligent has no significant difference..

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

      Delete
    10. Elijah

      and as stated and you cannot rebut you have no explanation for them. They are merely descriptive. They describe things happening with no reason or explanation for why they do. So your claim that they offer superior explanatory power continues to be nonsense.

      They are indeed descriptive. That is precisely why they have 'superior explanatory power'.

      What is the problem here? What about them needs explaning, exactly?

      Good so you admit to having no scientific fact that contradicts ID or theism since many idist and theists also accept evolution (even though I am not among them).

      True. I have no positive evidence that ID/Creationism is false.

      However, until it actually comes up with any supporting evidence, it is just a hypothesis, no more worthy than "The Magic Blue Fairy did it with her wand".

      And until it posits some actual demonstrable mechanisms or testable hypotheses then it is not even a scientific hypothesis.

      You also have no tests that can be run to show that life is the result of natural processes.

      Seriously, do you actually understand the concept of methodological naturalism?

      unless you are daft and have no concept of what the word hypothetical or invented means then accepting that logic is in the universe as a natural feature of it is neither hypothetical nor invented.

      I have not denied the existence of order in the universe. You are putting words in my mouth again. What I said was your explanation for that order was hypothetical.

      th premise behind your argument has been TOTALLY dismantled since saying the universe possesses logic as it nature and the universe is intelligent has no significant difference

      What?

      Saying the universe has order is synonymous with saying it has intelligence? Are you for real?

      Your God hypothesis does not even infer intelligence as a quality of the universe - it infers it as a quality of the being who created the universe. Who is, again, a hypothetical.

      Delete
    11. "They are indeed descriptive. That is precisely why they have 'superior explanatory power'."

      ROFl. this is why Jeff says you guys couldn't think your way out of a wet paper bag.

      IF I say two elements are attracted to each other by an attractive Force what have I explained? I've done nothing but describe it. To have explanatory power is to say how something works or why it works.

      We know what happens in the double slit experiment and we know a law governs it but it actually explains nothing. Claiming a law is explanatory is total nonsense.

      "What about them needs explaning, exactly?"

      generally no question is too stupid but there are exception and you have found yourself in one.

      "However, until it actually comes up with any supporting evidence, it is just a hypothesis, no more worthy than "The Magic Blue Fairy did it with her wand"."

      Yes because you are totally ignorant. I can just copy and post my reply elsewhere since you think repetition makes your point.

      Ritch like most materialists you can't see past your ignorance of why people adhere to intelligent design or theism. It might be a good thing because that ignorance is what keeps you and yours in the vast minority.

      Goddidit aint even close . thats just your caricature. People see Logical order, they see functional logical order, they see mathematical logical order in the entire universe.

      In your blithering ignorance you proclaim that concluding logic is related to intelligence is a "hypothetical" and an invention.

      Its idiotic as even a child knows logic has a natural connection to intelligence and your incessant cries that connecting the two equates to an invention is nothing more than the equivalence of the little girl putting her hands over her ears and yelling la la la so she doesn't have to hear what she doesn't want to hear - its not even close grown up discourse and is as clear and articulate as mud.

      Oh and good luck with the Blue everything from nothing Fairy. She's more incredible than a virgin birth I tell ya.

      "Saying the universe has order is synonymous with saying it has intelligence?

      logical order. try as much as you can not to be a nit wit. Now go ahead and parse the necessary difference between logic and intelligence.

      "Your God hypothesis does not even infer intelligence as a quality of the universe - it infers it as a quality of the being who created the universe. "

      I told you you make yourself into a blithering fool whenever you try and pontificate on theology. You obviously have not an iota of capability on the subject. The Bible in particular is filled with references to intelligence IN the universe and here you are in totally ignorant fashion telling me that the God hypothesis does not "infer intelligence as a quality of the universe".

      Grow up and learn what it is you oppose before pretending that your caricatures makes some point.

      Delete
    12. Elijah -

      ROFl. this is why Jeff says you guys couldn't think your way out of a wet paper bag.

      Oh, well, if JEFF says it, it must be true then!

      IF I say two elements are attracted to each other by an attractive Force what have I explained?

      You have explained the relationship between those two objects.

      Really, this is not difficult.

      Consider the two statements:

      1. Object A is attracted to object B
      2. Object A is attracted to object B because God wants it that way and causes it to be so.

      The caveat added onto 2 has added absolutely nothing in explanatory power. God is an unknown (and unknowable?) entity here, and his mechanisms are unverifiable. So the "...because God wants it..." is completely extraneous.

      I can just copy and post my reply elsewhere since you think repetition makes your point.

      "It's just obvious" is no better an explanation no matter how many times you repeat it.

      Oh and good luck with the Blue everything from nothing Fairy. She's more incredible than a virgin birth I tell ya.

      LOL!!

      The Magiuc Blue Fairy is directly analagous to God. "God did it" and "The Magic Blue Fairy did it" are equivalent in every functional way. And the fact that this is lost on you is hilarious.

      Now go ahead and parse the necessary difference between logic and intelligence.

      There are plenty of differences. Intelligence is a quality attributed to living beings. It refers to their capacity to plan, communicate and think.

      Logic is a mode of reasoning.

      The Bible in particular is filled with references to intelligence IN the universe and here you are in totally ignorant fashion telling me that the God hypothesis does not "infer intelligence as a quality of the universe".

      The Bible is not an authority on anything. It is a book of Bronze Age mythology. "The Bible says so" cuts precisely zero ice in scientific circles. Sorry to shock you.

      Delete
    13. "You have explained the relationship between those two objects.

      Really, this is not difficult.

      Consider the two statements:

      1. Object A is attracted to object B
      2. Object A is attracted to object B because God wants it that way and causes it to be so."


      More stupidity. we need do nothing but modify your post for balance

      1. Object A is attracted to object B because the laws of the universe dictate that they are
      2. Object A is attracted to object B because God wants it that way and causes it to be so."

      Point proven. They both are equal in explanatory power. They both state that something is just because it is.


      "The caveat added onto 2 has added absolutely nothing in explanatory power. "


      neither does one. You are just lying to lie. you left out the full comparison of the two in number one in dishonesty is all.


      "The Magiuc Blue Fairy is directly analagous to God. "God did it" and "The Magic Blue Fairy did it" are equivalent in every functional way. And the fact that this is lost on you is hilarious."

      The fact that you think everything coming out of nothing is less of a blue fairy could have me in stitches. Its an appeal to the ultimate miracle. it beats every miracle in the Bible combined and yet in your ignorance I just read you claim that if Krauss advocates it then there must be evidence for it. LOL. I have read Krauss and you obviously haven't. Does the chruch of the blue every thing out of nothing blue fairy meet on Saturdays or SUndays? What will Pastor Kruass be preaching on this week?

      "There are plenty of differences. Intelligence is a quality attributed to living beings. It refers to their capacity to plan, communicate and think."

      and they plan, communicate and think without logic right? ROFL

      "The Bible is not an authority on anything."

      You are totally clueless. It is an authority source for biblical theology. If you disput that you have no sense. I referenced the Bible for biblical theology when you made a claim regarding theology (your false claims that the God hypothesis does not claim intelligence in the universe itself).

      Delete
    14. elijah said:

      "To have explanatory power is to say how something works or why it works."

      Well then, explain exactly how and why your chosen, so-called 'God' works, and be sure to provide detailed, scientifically tested/testable evidence that supports your claims.

      And while you're at it, explain exactly how and why your chosen, so-called 'God' originated, and don't forget to provide detailed, scientifically tested/testable evidence that supports your claims. Saying it originated from nothing, or that it is uncaused, or that it 'just is', or that the bible says so, won't work.

      Delete
    15. kid I thought I should just let you know I read through everybody's posts but you and Thorton. I skim through your paragraphs and might see my name and know you are responding to me but you have both been so inconsequential because of your childish name calling, lack of an insight and inability to reason I skip reading your points most of the time because in a world with limited time and various responsibilities you just can't respond to everyone on the internet.

      I gather from my scan that you are attempting to help Ritch. I would too since he has had his proverbial head handed to him.

      Good for you

      Delete
    16. jeff said:

      "Where did you get the notion of causality in the first place if events, per se, are not caused."

      Where do you get the notion (actually 'belief') of causality by 'God' if, as you thumpers claim, 'God' was not caused?

      If 'God' has always existed, then there was no "event" pertaining to the origin of 'God', right? So how do you explain an uneventful, uncaused 'God' that allegedly causes events?

      I'm sure that it will be entertaining to watch you try to spin your way out of this.

      Delete
    17. elijah plugged his ears and said:

      Lalalalalalalalalalalalala

      Delete
    18. Elijah -

      More stupidity. we need do nothing but modify your post for balance

      1. Object A is attracted to object B because the laws of the universe dictate that they are
      2. Object A is attracted to object B because God wants it that way and causes it to be so."


      The two sentences are not analogous. Sentence 2 still contains a hypotheitcal entity. Sentence 1 does not.

      This is what we call parsimony. Sentence 1 is more parsimonious, and therefore to be preferred.

      The fact that you think everything coming out of nothing is less of a blue fairy could have me in stitches.

      Yet again, you completely fail to grasp the point.

      "God did it", as an explanation, is exactly equivalent to "The Magic Blue Fairy did it". An EXACT equivalent. There is no more evidence for God than there is for the Blue Fairy. And both explanations account for exactly the same evidence - in exactly the same way.

      So please continue to mock the concept of the Blue Fairy. You are thereby mocking the concept of God, whether you realise it or not.

      I just read you claim that if Krauss advocates it then there must be evidence for it. LOL.

      I suggested you read his book and let him present his evidence himself.

      I have read Krauss and you obviously haven't.

      Nope. I haven't. So what?

      and they plan, communicate and think without logic right? ROFL

      My point is that logic and intelligence are seperable concepts.

      You are totally clueless. It is an authority source for biblical theology.

      Ah, yes, on that you are correct. It is an authority source for that.

      But that is all. We learn nothing about the outside world from the Bible itself. "X is true - it says so in the Bible" is an utterly vaccuous claim. It can tell us about the beliefs and culture of the people who wrote it (at a pinch we can tentatively glean information about the people who populated them too), but the Bible has no special insight into how the world works. To believe otherwise is religious dogma and nothing more.

      Delete
    19. Ritchie said:

      "The Bible is not an authority on anything."

      elijah responded:

      "You are totally clueless. It is an authority source for biblical theology. If you disput that you have no sense."

      So, the bible is the authority source for the bible. Could anything be more circular?

      Hey elijah, have you encountered any talking serpents or a man living inside a fish lately? Just wondering.

      Delete
    20. Elijah: Don't join Scott in gooing out on that ledge of fabrication and lies. It broke for him and it fell into the precipice of illogic he is still in another post trying to recover from.

      Which is yet another empty criticism without pointing out exactly where I lied or what logic in particular "breaks down".

      Delete
  5. awstar June 1, 2013 at 7:22 AM

    [...]

    And where did time come from? And where did natural laws come from? and where did gravity come from? And why is there "force"?


    Physics has no explanation so, obviously, relativity and quantum theory are a bust as well.

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

      Delete
    2. Awstar,
      It's the origins of the universe that cosmologists dream up that don't even conform to what we observe that are busts


      For instance?

      Delete
    3. Relativity and quantum theory aren't a bust. They are useful theories because they can be observed, and measured, and tested against. It's the origins of the universe that cosmologists dream up that don't even conform to what we observe that are busts. Homogeneity and (meant to say) isotropic? Really?

      Delete
    4. Cosmological red shifting is evidence of the earth being near the center of the universe. But most cosmologists can't accept that because it conforms too closely to the Biblical account. So they have to come up with a universe that has no center or boundaries to get their solution to Einstein's GR equation to work with their own philosophical beliefs. In time, as more and more scientific evidence comes in this view will be a bust.

      Delete
    5. Cosmological red shifting is evidence of the earth being near the center of the universe. But most cosmologists can't accept that because it conforms too closely to the Biblical account. So they have to come up with a universe that has no center or boundaries to get their solution to Einstein's GR equation to work with their own philosophical beliefs

      If the universe is not homogenous and isotopic , then the earth could not even be considered the center of the solar system or our galaxy. It sounds like perhaps you might be projecting yourself onto cosmologists. As for boundaries what does the Bible predict?

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

      Delete
    7. awstar June 1, 2013 at 9:52 AM

      Cosmological red shifting is evidence of the earth being near the center of the universe.


      My understanding is that cosmological red-shifting is evidence that distant objects in space are moving away from us not towards us. Since the speed of light is constant the effect of an object moving away from us is to 'stretch out' the wavelengths of light, in other words shifting them towards the longer or red end of the spectrum.

      If we observe this phenomenon wherever we look in the sky, it could support a geocentric view of the Universe or it could support the model of a Universe that is expanding in all directions.

      But most cosmologists can't accept that because it conforms too closely to the Biblical account. So they have to come up with a universe that has no center or boundaries to get their solution to Einstein's GR equation to work with their own philosophical beliefs.

      So, you're saying there's a conspiracy of cosmologists to distance themselves from the Bibical account of creation? (I wonder if the light from them is red-shifted as they run away from the Bible?). I presume we can add that to the conspiracy of biologists who promote evolution solely as an alternative to any religious account. Should we also assume similar conspiracies in other disciplines like geology or paleontology? In fact, is the whole enterprise of science just one vast web of conspiracies specifically designed to promote atheism? It's possible, I suppose, although I prefer the view that conspiracy theories are mostly the last resort of cranks.

      In time, as more and more scientific evidence comes in this view will be a bust.

      Maybe it will. But that's a feature of science not a bug.

      Delete
    8. Ian said: "So, you're saying there's a conspiracy of cosmologists to distance themselves from the Bibical account of creation? (I wonder if the light from them is red-shifted as they run away from the Bible?). I presume we can add that to the conspiracy of biologists who promote evolution solely as an alternative to any religious account. Should we also assume similar conspiracies in other disciplines like geology or paleontology? In fact, is the whole enterprise of science just one vast web of conspiracies specifically designed to promote atheism? It's possible, I suppose, although I prefer the view that conspiracy theories are mostly the last resort of cranks."

      I agree with your view that conspiracy theories are mostly the last resort of cranks -- such as the conspiracy theorists who say the ID movement is just an attempt at trying to get Creationism back into school science classes.

      But if the conspiracy theory is Bible-based, then I see it as more than a theory, it is a prophecy. Colossians 2:8; Romans 1:21-22; 1 Corinthians 3:18-19; 2 Timothy 3:13;

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

      Delete
    10. awstar: Cosmological red shifting is evidence of the earth being near the center of the universe.

      It doesn't matter where you are, you would observe the red shift. Inhabitants of the Andromeda Galaxy experience the same red shift. This is similar to how everything appears to revolve around Europa, from Europa.

      Delete
    11. awstar said:

      "I agree with your view that conspiracy theories are mostly the last resort of cranks -- such as the conspiracy theorists who say the ID movement is just an attempt at trying to get Creationism back into school science classes."

      The conspiracy by IDiot-creationists to get creationism into public school science classes, public policy, and everything else is abundantly evidenced by their own words.

      For a start, look up the wedge document.

      Delete
  6. Do you think the world arose spontaneously?

    I've no idea. It depends on what you mean by "spontaneously" but if there's no Creator what's the alternative?

    No one would agree with that, not even an evolutionist. But that is, in fact, what evolutionists believe. Indeed they say it is a fact. A fact as much as gravity or the round Earth.

    I can't speak for all evolutionists any more than you can but my impression is that many of them believe, as I do, that if there was no Creator then the origins of the Universe must have been naturalistic, for want of a better word. How, exactly, no one knows as yet.

    There must be no design, no final causes, no teleology. The world must have arisen by itself—spontaneously. And no, natural selection does not change that. There is no magic ratchet or feedback loop to make the hypothesized evolutionary process not a spontaneous process.

    I think you need to work on that passage.

    No, natural selection has nothing to do with the origins of the Universe. It was never proposed as such.

    If you want to dabble in cosmology I suppose you could speculate about a population of replicating universes in which ours exists because it is better fitted to some sort of meta-environment. Maybe it could be the basis of the next Star Trek movie.

    And in any case natural selection is finally meeting its long-awaited demise, thus confirming even more so what it is to be an evolutionist.

    No, natural selection is still good. It still happens. It's just that the theory has grown way beyond Darwin's original conception in the last 150-odd years.

    [...]

    The concept of natural selection always had problems and in recent years they have only grown stronger. So strong that evolutionists, one by one, are slowly admitting that selection could not be the important, primary force it was held to be for so long.

    In The Blind Watchmaker (1986), Richard Dawkins wrote:

    Even the most ardent neutralist is happy to agree that natural selection is responsible for all adaptation. All he is saying is that most evolutionary change is not adaptation. He may well be right, although one school of geneticists would not agree. [My emphasis]

    So at least as far back as 1986 no less than arch-adaptationist Richard Dawkins was prepared to concede that most evolution was not adaptation. But for what was, natural selection was the main engine.

    You might be crying foul if you remember all the times you were told that neoDarwinism—evolution by random mutation and natural selection—was a fact.

    [...]


    But be careful. Evolutionists never really meant that neoDarwinism was a fact. I know that is what they said, and quite forcefully.


    I know you have this habit of conflating the description with that which is being described but do you have any examples of where evolutionists claimed the theory of evolution - as distinct from the observed process - is a fact?

    But they said that only because neoDarwinism was the current version of evolutionary theory. What they really meant was that evolution, broadly construed, is a fact. NeoDarwinism, like all particular hypotheses of evolution, was always forfeitable.

    Hypotheses of evolution can be thrown under the bus at any time.


    Of course, - and I shouldn't have to keep saying this - it's a feature of science not a bug

    What cannot be questioned is evolution broadly construed, or as Ernst Mayr used to put it, evolution per se.

    Of course you can question evolution. I'm pretty sure nobody has said you can't. But questioning is not the same as undermining or overturning.

    And that is what it is to be an evolutionist.

    And a scientist.

    It means you have to try and think for yourself, work out your own answers, not rely on a collection of stories written a couple of thousand years ago by God knows who to give you all the answers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian said: "It means you have to try and think for yourself, work out your own answers, not rely on a collection of stories written a couple of thousand years ago by God knows who to give you all the answers."

      The Bible gives us a framework upon which our answers can hang. It's only when the answers agree with this framework that truth can progress. Otherwise we're thrashing around in dead-ends like evolution and big-bang theories.

      Delete
  7. I know that is what they said, and quite forcefully. But they said that only because neoDarwinism was the current version of evolutionary theory. What they really meant was that evolution, broadly construed, is a fact. NeoDarwinism, like all particular hypotheses of evolution, was always forfeitable.

    So true Dr Hunter. Evolutionsts like to rewrite history and paint themselves as less ignorant and more open-minded than they were, but ONLY when such actions do not hurt their myth.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Elijah2012, I was reading through your posts and I appreciate your clear thinking. This is my favorite quote from you so far.

    "Only gibberish claims to know anything about something entirely unknown."

    The first time I read your replies, this totally went over my head. Oh, how true that statement is. The universe began to exist, we don't know how, but we know God dint do it.
    Thank you for that. So simple and clear!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No-one is claiming to know that God did not do it. That is a ridiculous strawman peddled by nonsense-merchants like Elijah.

      The actual problem is that 'Goddidit' is entirely hypothetical and not even testable in principle.

      Thus it may pass for philosophy, but it certainly is not science.

      How is that not simple and clear?

      Delete
    2. "Only gibberish claims to know anything about something entirely unknown."

      So what can one know about an Uncaused Cause?

      Delete
    3. Ritch like most materialists you can't see past your ignorance of why people adhere to intelligent design or theism. It might be a good thing because that ignorance is what keeps you and yours in the vast minority.

      Goddidit aint even close . thats just your caricature. People see Logical order, they see functional logical order, they see mathematical logical order in the entire universe.

      In your blithering ignorance you proclaim that concluding logic is related to intelligence is a "hypothetical" and an invention.

      Its idiotic as even a child knows logic has a natural connection to intelligence and your incesstnt cries that connecting the two equates to an invention is nothing more than the equivalence of the little girl putting her hands over her ears and yelling la la la so she doesn't have to hear what she doesn't want to hear - its not even close grown up discourse and is as clear and articulate as mud.

      Delete
    4. Ritchie, You are claiming God didn't do it if you are an atheist. An absolute statement implying you have absolute knowledge about information before the universe began to exist. If you are not an atheist then you must be an agnostic. And I would have to agree with you from your perspective, you cannot know. But I am saying we can know because there is information in the universe and we know information comes from intelligence.

      Vel, we can know He is intelligent.

      Delete
    5. ""Only gibberish claims to know anything about something entirely unknown."

      So what can one know about an Uncaused Cause?"

      and where does theism claim the uncaused cause is "entirely unknown? LOL conflating your position with ID and theism again. Do you ever progress?

      Delete
    6. V: So what can one know about an Uncaused Cause?

      J: One posits the relevant properties to causally ACCOUNT for something we experience. It's no different than any other hypothetico-deductive explanation. In this case, it's to explain that finality of explanation of our experience that renders inductive relative plausibility criteria LOGICALLY POSSIBLE. Then, we can indeed use that SAME causal entity to explain other things TENTATIVELY, with the caveat that a good natural explanation will always trump via that SAME inductive relative plausibility criteria. Because you don't posit final causality where natural explanation works and is well corroborated. That's being NON-PARSIMONIOUS!!!

      But we don't HAVE a natural explanation for critters. And in the meanwhile, the very function=telos is a perfectly valid analogical inference. It works for humanly-designed designoids for the exact SAME analogical reason. That doesn't make it true. But it does make it REASONABLE!

      DUDE--this ain't hard!

      Delete
    7. V, in case you weren't paying attention to Zachriel in our discussion of quantum wierdness, he insisted OVER and OVER that the best inference is that there are no positive-volume'd particles moving around causing our conscious experience. Based on that consensus view, what IS a critter, for crying out loud, but a kind of mental state?

      Delete
    8. Elijah

      Its idiotic as even a child knows logic has a natural connection to intelligence

      That is not good enough. You argument seems to hinge directly on "It's just obvious! Obvious that there's order in the world! Obvious that order equals intelligence!"

      That won't do. These things are not obvious. You have to show them - you need evidence. And I don't think you have any idea how to go about getting any.

      Delete
    9. Marcus

      You are claiming God didn't do it if you are an atheist. An absolute statement implying you have absolute knowledge about information before the universe began to exist.

      Absolutely wrong.

      I am an atheist simply because I do not believe in any particular God or gods. That does not mean I know FOR AN ABSOLUTE FACT that these beings do not exist: I merely don't believe in any.

      I don't believe in dragons either, but I cannot prove absolutely that they do not exist.

      So no, I am not making any claims of absolute knowledge.

      See how much sense other peoples' opinions can make when you don't project stupid arguments onto them?

      But I am saying we can know because there is information in the universe and WE KNOW INFORMATION COMES FROM INTELLIGENCE.

      It CAN come from intelligence. But that is not the only source.

      Specifically with reguards to the genetic code, we have witnessed in the lab natural selction acting on random mutation to produce an increase in information.

      So the platitude that "information = intelligence" is not always true.

      Delete
    10. Ritchie, evidence is just another way of saying that some conscious experience holds an evidentiary RELATION to some hypothesis. But if you have to evidence for everything, you have to have evidence for the existence of the evidentiary relations, which is circular. You're the one who is UTTERLY confused.

      Delete
    11. Ritchie: Specifically with reguards to the genetic code, we have witnessed in the lab natural selction acting on random mutation to produce an increase in information.

      So the platitude that "information = intelligence" is not always true.

      Jeff: No one has shown that the bulk of mutational change is non-directed. Some may very well be. But in the same way that a program produces INTENDED results even though the program itself intends nothing, adaptive mutations can, in some instances, be JUST like programmed results.

      Delete
    12. Jeff -

      I realise you like to just tinker around with philosophy because you think it makes you look clever, but it's pretty transparent.

      Follow your own line of reasoning and we can never know anything. We have no reason to accept any evidence of anything, ever. And science grinds to a halt.

      I imagine that you are fine with evidence when it comes to germ theory, or gravity, but when it comes down to a theory you don't WANT to believe in, then it's time to question the foundations of science itself.

      That is totally selective and disingeuous.

      No one has shown that the bulk of mutational change is non-directed.

      We don't need to. A single exception breaks a rule. And a single example of information increasing NOT due to intelligent agency is enough to break the rule of "information, therefore intelligence".

      Delete
    13. Ritchie: Follow your own line of reasoning and we can never know anything.

      Jeff: Prove it great pontificator.

      Ritchie: "No one has shown that the bulk of mutational change is non-directed."

      We don't need to. A single exception breaks a rule. And a single example of information increasing NOT due to intelligent agency is enough to break the rule of "information, therefore intelligence".

      Jeff: No ID'ist is arguing that there is a rule either way. They're saying there is no naturalistic explanation of UCA. And in the meanwhile, lots of gene-processing looks analogous to other designed processing.

      Delete
    14. Marcus,
      Vel, we can know He is intelligent



      I believe you think you know it, how is the question?

      Delete
    15. How do you know anything has the properties you use, per hypothetico-deduction, to explain events, V? Because the explanation works, and does so less ad-hoc'ly than any other explanation. That's all inferential "knowledge" is. It's our most warranted inference at the time with the data we have. It's never absolute knowledge. But we call it knowledge all day long, every day of the week. So that's beside the point. We call it knowledge because we use it to ADJUDICATE in decision-making, just as we do non-inferential beliefs.

      Delete
    16. "That won't do. These things are not obvious. You have to show them - you need evidence."

      You mean like when you just barfed earlier that chance needs no evidence? Thats its the defacto self evident hypothesis?

      after that piece of crap logic you get to tell no one what will not do.

      leave it to a materialist to proclaim when he is up against the ropes that there is no evidence of logical order in the universe. Shucks to save face he will deny the results of thousands of scientific tests that determine there is logical order in the universe just to save his theology.

      Delete
    17. "when it comes down to a theory you don't WANT to believe in, then it's time to question the foundations of science itself.

      That is totally selective and disingeuous."

      THe irony meter just broke having gone off the scale. You are full of crap telling anyone they are disingenous and selective. You just claimed that no evidence whatsoever is needed to invoke chance. When pressed to the wall you completely abandoned the scientific method to embrace chance as a defacto standard of reality. It might have been missed by some in our long back and forth but rest assured I will make sure it is not missed for long.

      Delete
    18. "And I would have to agree with you from your perspective, you cannot know. But I am saying we can know because there is information in the universe and we know information comes from intelligence."

      hey Marcus this is almost correct. The main problem with it is that information just by itself can mean anything, a squigly line is information and an English letter is only informative to someone who speaks the language. What we see in the universe is more that information. We see logic. in fact we derive our own logic from the logical structure of the universe.

      the benefit ofr emphasizing the logical order of the universe is that it highlights the blithering ignorance of materialists when they try and proclaim that logic must exist outside of intelligence. the die hards will of course claim it but the uninvested person will immediately intuitively recognize it as illogical.

      Delete
    19. Elijah,
      and where does theism claim the uncaused cause is "entirely unknown?


      Where I claim that it did? One can claim anything one wishes, what is the evidence that backs up that claim?

      LOL conflating your position with ID and theism again. Do you ever progress?

      How so,Einstein?

      Delete
    20. Jeff,
      DUDE--this ain't hard


      All those philosophers wasting all that effort. Use your method and please specifically what can be known of an Uncaused Cause.

      Delete
    21. Jeff,
      V, in case you weren't paying attention to Zachriel in our discussion of quantum wierdness, he insisted OVER and OVER that the best inference is that there are no positive-volume'd particles moving around causing our conscious experience. Based on that consensus view, what IS a critter, for crying out loud, but a kind of mental state?


      Whose mental state?Whose consensus ? Critters are disembodied mental states,per Zach? It would be interesting to see the logic behind that conclusion

      Delete
    22. "Where I claim that it did?"

      Within the premise of your question. Now dance and do another pirouette

      Delete
    23. V: Use your method and please specifically what can be known of an Uncaused Cause.

      J: There's no method to positing a hypothesis. It need only imply what is being explained to be an explanation. Methodology has to do with criteria for hypothesis REJECTION. Do you not realize that virtually all theories are false in the sense that they are anomaly-ridden? The only rejection criteria is explanatory breadth, etc. But naturalistic UCA isn't explained AT ALL. Thus, it has not explanatory breadth AT ALL.

      V: Whose mental state?Whose consensus ? Critters are disembodied mental states,per Zach? It would be interesting to see the logic behind that conclusion.

      J: There is none. And yet the moronic consensi drink it up like water.

      Delete
    24. Ritchie: Absolutely wrong.
      I am an atheist simply because I do not believe in any particular God or gods. That does not mean I know FOR AN ABSOLUTE FACT that these beings do not exist: I merely don't believe in any.

      Ok so you are open to believing in God? If so, what kind of proof would you need?

      Delete
    25. Elijha2012: hey Marcus this is almost correct. The main problem with it is that information just by itself can mean anything, a squigly line is information and an English letter is only informative to someone who speaks the language. What we see in the universe is more that information. We see logic. in fact we derive our own logic from the logical structure of the universe.

      Thank you for that. I really appreciate your posts.

      Delete
    26. Jeff

      Prove it great pontificator.

      This boils down to an argument which, to my knowledge, began with Hume.

      Whenever we examine events that have taken place in the past, we rely on inductive reasoning.

      Science heavily depends on inductive reasoning. We have to assume that laws that govern the outcomes of our experiments hold true in the real world. Otherwise there is absolutely no point in performing them. Every piece of data, every piece of evidence, is useless if we cannot use inductive reasoning to relate our experiments to real life.

      No, data, no facts, no point in performing experiments; no science. No knowledge at all, really.

      No ID'ist is arguing that there is a rule either way.

      This was the rule that Marcus was using above to justify a seeing intelligent design in the world around us.

      They're saying there is no naturalistic explanation of UCA.

      Why not? What is missing?

      Delete
    27. Elijah

      You just claimed that no evidence whatsoever is needed to invoke chance. When pressed to the wall you completely abandoned the scientific method to embrace chance as a defacto standard of reality.

      Chance IS the de facto explanation. If you think you have identified the cause of an event, you test your hypothesis against it being chance. You have to show that your cause is statistically more likely than random chance.

      That is exactly how science works. Deal with it.

      Delete
    28. Ritchie: Science heavily depends on inductive reasoning.

      Jeff: I'm the one that's been arguing that incessantly. That the only SCIENTIFIC relative plausibility criteria is INDUCTIVE.

      Ritchie: This was the rule that Marcus was using above to justify a seeing intelligent design in the world around us.

      Jeff: Radiation causes a mutation. Every now and then, such a mutation might confer some slight advantage. I doubt Marcus is arguing that's impossible.

      Ritchie: They're saying there is no naturalistic explanation of UCA.

      Why not? What is missing?

      Jeff: Start with whatever single-celled critter in the Precambrian you wish. Now, deduce the Cambrian fauna therefrom in the relevant time-frame using any physical, chemical or biological laws you wish.

      Delete
    29. Marcus

      Ok so you are open to believing in God?

      I am open to the possibility, yes. In exactly the same way I am open to the possibility of dragons, ghosts and fairies - I do not believe in these things presently, but show me some good evidence for them and I will change my mind.

      If so, what kind of proof would you need?

      Well, here are a few examples of the sort of thing I would accept:

      EXCELLENT EVIDENCE (Convert on the spot)

      - Information found in a holy book that was way ahead of the knowledge of the culture in which the book was written. This would suggest the book that was written (or 'inspired') by a mind whose knowledge far outstripped the people of the time. Prophecies are admissable here too, but these must be extremely specific, non-trivial, independently verifiable, and cannot be a lone successful prediction in a long list of failed ones.

      - If people of a religious order could repeatably and consistently perform miracles on command (most probably brought about through prayer).

      - Communication. I would willingly pray to any deity that spoke directly back to me. If my questions were met immediately by a voice giving me the answers as clearly as I hear the voices of other human beings.

      GOOD EVIDENCE (Impressive evidence that would convince me on balance)

      - A totally consistent and flawless holy book. No errors, no contradictions, no scientific inaccuracies. Explicable by naturalistic processes, yet it would be impressive nonetheless.

      - A religion with no internal factions or divisions. A religion whose tenets and beliefs were so clear and well-evidenced that none of its followers disagreed on what they 'actually mean' and which bits were the most important.

      - A religion whose followers consistently win holy wars, are significantly less likely to be the victims of disasters or other natural tragedies, or otherwise possess a statistical advantage with regard to random events.

      BAD EVIDENCE (Often touted as evidence but does nothing to convince me)

      - People's conversion stories. People turn their lives around all the time, and for all sorts of reasons. I am not convinced at all by those who happened to have used religion to get themselves on the right track.

      - Popularity. A religion is no more likely to be true simply because it is popular. If there is actual evidence that has convinced all these people then I want to see it for myself before I make up my own mind. Otherwise it is merely peer pressure.

      - Subjective experiences. Basically people saying "I can feel God in my heart" or "I see evidence of Him in everything". Objectively this is not at all distinguishable from a person suffering a delusion.

      - Pseudo miracles. Most religious communities are awash with stories about a friend of a friend of a friend who was ill/dying/having bad luck until an unexplained event happened. This is poor evidence, objectively. They are generally suseptible to the placebo effect, exaggeration and selective memories. Seeing Jesus in a coffee stain, faith healing and speaking in tongues also counts as bad evidence.

      If you can think of anything else which might pass as evidence then I will consider that too.

      Delete
    30. Jeff

      I'm the one that's been arguing that incessantly. That the only SCIENTIFIC relative plausibility criteria is INDUCTIVE.

      Then on this, it seems, we agree.

      Radiation causes a mutation. Every now and then, such a mutation might confer some slight advantage. I doubt Marcus is arguing that's impossible.

      His argument got as far as "Information, therefore intelligence". He he justifies this is, I think, up to him.

      Start with whatever single-celled critter in the Precambrian you wish.

      Okay. Like sponges and annelids? Or something more specific?

      Now, deduce the Cambrian fauna therefrom in the relevant time-frame using any physical, chemical or biological laws you wish.

      Sorry, you're losing me. What do you want me to tell you about the Precambrian fauna?

      Delete
    31. Jeff: Radiation causes a mutation. Every now and then, such a mutation might confer some slight advantage. I doubt Marcus is arguing that's impossible.


      That's right, I am not arguing there is no variation within a species. I have no problem with mutations causing changes in the organism. I think the vast majority of mutations remove data from the organism instead of add data. So, I think mutation has a role but it's probably extremely limited. I think we can know this as fact because the error correcting mechanisms built into the replication process. It seems self evident that mutation is an outlier event that is to be prevented rather than encouraged. I think I have to clarify something, please correct me if I am wrong. If the cell gets a signal from outside that it is pre-determined to respond to, and it responds by changing the structure of the cell, then is that a mutation or cell differentiation? If there is a difference, then I think the cell was all ready determined to act on that input and it responds. The same goes for natural selection. The organisms with less ability to adapt to an environment are more likely to go extinct when something changes in the environment. We rely on this fact everyday, well at least some of us. For example, I clean my counter tops with a bleach/water solution. I am convinced there is not a bacteria that can evolve a resistance to bleach on my counter, so I will be safe cutting my veggies directly on the counter top. Is it a fact that the majority of organisms have gone extinct? If so, that would indicate natural selection reduces a species instead of helping to increase the species. The logic is, we start with many and reduce to less than many.

      Ok, I'm ready to be told how little I know...:)

      Delete
    32. Marcus

      That's right, I am not arguing there is no variation within a species. I have no problem with mutations causing changes in the organism.

      Good to clarify.

      I think the vast majority of mutations remove data from the organism instead of add data.

      Removing data is not quite the right way of thinking about it. There are four types of mutation: insertion, deletion, substitution and frame-shift. Substitution is actually the most common type of mutation.

      Though perhaps you meant that most mutations are disadvantageous to an organism's survival? Most mutations are, in fact, neutral. However, the disadvantageous ones are indeed more common than the beneficial ones.

      So, I think mutation has a role but it's probably extremely limited.

      What are its limits? Limited by what?

      If you start with a sentence "The cat sat on the mat" and either inserted, deleted or substituted (we'll ignore frame-shifting here) just one letter at a time, each change representing a single genetic mutation, it is entirely conceivable that, given a large stretch of time in which do do so, you could eventually arrive at the entire text of Hamlet.

      It seems self evident that mutation is an outlier event that is to be prevented rather than encouraged.

      Excussive mutation, certainly. Genes do try to replicate themselves as accurately as possible. But accidents will happen.

      If the cell gets a signal from outside that it is pre-determined to respond to, and it responds by changing the structure of the cell, then is that a mutation or cell differentiation?

      I'm not toally sure if cell differentiation is the right term, but it isn't mutation. A mutation is a change to the DNA sequence of a gene.

      The organisms with less ability to adapt to an environment are more likely to go extinct when something changes in the environment.

      True. That is why animals with highly specialised lifestyles are more at risk during crisis events.

      Is it a fact that the majority of organisms have gone extinct?

      By the context, I assume you meant to put 'species' rather than 'organisms', but the answer to both is yes.

      If so, that would indicate natural selection reduces a species instead of helping to increase the species. The logic is, we start with many and reduce to less than many.

      Not so.

      On Monday I have 10 mice. Total mice I have owned: 10.

      On Tuesday 4 die, and 5 babies are born. I now have 11. Total mice I have owned: 15

      On Wednesday 4 more die and 5 more and born. I now have 12. Total mice I have owned: 20

      On Thursday 4 more die and 5 more are born. I now have 13. Total mice I have owned 25.

      On Friday 4 more die and 5 more are born. I now have 14. Total mice I have owned: 30.

      On Saturday 4 more die and 5 more are born. I now have 15. Total mice I have owned: 35.

      On Sunday 4 more die and 5 more are born. I now have 16. Total mice I have owned: 40.

      So on the Sunday I have 16 living mice. But throughout the week I have owned 40. So the majority of the mice I have owned are dead. Yet the death rate has never exceeded the birth rate. Indeed, my population of mice could endure the death rate exceeding the birth rate - as long as it did not continue long enough that they all die out.

      So it is with animal species (and organisms, for that matter). The number of species alive over a short time may go up for down, depending on the ratio of new species becoming establish v going extinct.
      But the total that has 'ever existed' will always only be increasing. It will always be greater than the number 'alive today' and the difference will always just get bigger and bigger.

      Does that make things clearer?

      Delete
    33. Thanks for that Ritchie. It clears it up.

      Delete
    34. v
      "Where I claim that it did?"

      Within the premise of your question. Now dance and do another pirouette


      let see,

      "Only gibberish claims to know anything about something entirely unknown."

      So what can one know about an Uncaused Cause?"

      Your claim is it is gibberish to claim to know anything about something entirely unknown.

      Is this a conditional claim? A subjective claim? I am asking whether it applies to the answer of the problem of infinite regress. My premise is your premise, I just provided the example.

      Here's a hint, WLC

      Delete
    35. Ritchie
      "Genes do try to replicate themselves as accurately as possible."

      Maybe that's somewhat old fashion view a la "selfish gene".

      Cell is an organized system where the whole DNA is duplicated with fantastic accuracy ~1 mistake in 10^10 nucleotides. There are several layers of error correction to ensure that. Some of error correction measures operate by clever use of geometrical alignments of molecules implying mechanical i.e.machine like control. Something like a tiny levers blocking bond formation by mechanically interfering with chem-reaction sites.

      Can't you tell I'm reading about DNA replication now? (rather forcing myself to read)


      Delete
  9. Ritchie: Repeatability is a big help. If we suspect Cause A of causing Event B, we can try to recreate it in a lab. If Cause A does indeed cause Event B in the lab, then it is a reasonable deduction that it caused it previously.

    Jeff: That's not deductive at all.

    It's called hypothetico-deduction. The hypothesis is that A causes B through some defined mechanism. The prediction is that if we create situation A, the mechanism will result in the observation of B. This doesn't prove causality, but direct experimentation is often strong support.

    Typically, we would want to approach the hypothesis from a number of directions. With the burnt shed, we might try to ignite different materials in different situations to gain a broader understanding of combustion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You could ask your 5 year old son, with the matches in his hand, what happened to the shed? He would look at you sheepishly, uh, fire-dunit!?

      Delete
    2. Sure. That is certainly a possible hypothesis. It requires understanding matches and fire, of course.

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

      Delete
    4. Z: Typically, we would want to approach the hypothesis from a number of directions. With the burnt shed, we might try to ignite different materials in different situations to gain a broader understanding of combustion.

      J: But if events AREN'T caused, the same EXACT events could occur in the experiment. That's what you're overlooking. There's no way to FALSIFY your view. And this means that such naive falsification can never get off the ground once you reject the validity of at least SOME human intuition. You can't even get to FREQUENCY probability. You have to just intuitively BELIEVE that events are caused. And that's exactly what seems to be the case since even very young unsophisticated children "WHY" their parents to death. Deduction IS causal reasoning.

      Delete
    5. Z, where did you get the notion of causality to plug into a proposition in a deductive argument if it had to be derived from other beliefs? What were those other beliefs? The method is impossible. We're asking "why" as small children. We never once proved THAT events were caused. We naturally believe it. Only cry-babies want to throw out the epistemological baby with the epistemological bath water just to rid reality of teleology. But at that point, they're not only cry-babies, they're morons too. Because you can't get anywhere without realizing that intentionality is intelligible only in terms of libertarian/teleological causality. And you can't explain much of anything once you deny the reality of intentionality.

      Delete
  10. CH: There is no magic ratchet or feedback loop to make the hypothesized evolutionary process not a spontaneous process.

    um, yes there is. That's the Whole Point. Natural selection is feedback.

    CH:And in any case natural selection is finally meeting its long-awaited demise, thus confirming even more so what it is to be an evolutionist.

    um, no. I'm not sure who you are writing for, or if you actually believe this twaddle, Cornelius, but you really should know better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Um, no, EL. CH is not denying that natural selection can explain things. What it can't do is explain naturalistic UCA or any particular tree thereof. When CH talks about evolution, he MEANS naturalistic UCA. Every time a baby is born evolution happens. That's UTTERLY irrelevant to whether naturalistic UCA, teleological UCA, naturalistic SA, teleological SA, etc, is true. You're UTTERLY confused.

      Delete
    2. jeff, you ignorant, pontificating IDiot-creationist,

      cornelius said:

      "in any case natural selection is finally meeting its long-awaited demise"

      In that statement, and many others he has made, corny is asserting that natural selection does not exist and should be considered dead. He is absolutely, arrogantly, and ignorantly claiming that natural selection and every other aspect of evolutionary theory cannot explain ANY thing.

      It is enormously clear that cornelius believes that anything other than absolute biblical inerrancy is completely wrong and unacceptable.

      You, and cornelius, really don't have a clue.




      Delete
    3. nope, that's not what he's saying. ask him yourself

      Delete
    4. Liddle,
      "um, yes there is. That's the Whole Point. Natural selection is feedback."

      Let us explore your trivial observation that is nothing more, in the required sense, than conjecture.

      At what "levels" does "natural selection" apply in the senses you wish to proclaim? Are there any semi- informed individuals that do not know that there are a huge amount of contrary reactions, and dead end configurations, at many levels (in regards to the unique pathways leading to what you so confidently assert has led to ....... (you name it) because of "natural selection"? I propose that, by and large, the multitudes of speculations regarding "natural selection" in any comprehensive sense, are nothing more that "wishful thinking" intended to prop up someones desired explanations, and NOT in any REAL scientific sense, demonstrable or even, realistically, substantiated by any means other that trite philosophy. So where do you go from here?

      Your reliance on speculations to assert you positions, historically, as significantly demonstrated hypothesis' are just a ridiculous array of mainly ignorant proclomations and pontifications that are, usually, perhaps, a glorified version of something a Thornton might say. Or for that matter, Vel, TWT, Zachriel, Scott, etc.

      From my perspective, you are a strange demonstration of someone in denial of your ignorance.

      Delete
    5. bp: At what "levels" does "natural selection" apply in the senses you wish to proclaim?

      EL: at the level of the organism and higher. Organisms and populations that reproduce/persist will be those with the genetic sequences that tend to promote reproduction/persistence. This is simple logic.


      bp:Are there any semi- informed individuals that do not know that there are a huge amount of contrary reactions, and dead end configurations, at many levels (in regards to the unique pathways leading to what you so confidently assert has led to ....... (you name it) because of "natural selection"?

      I cannot parse this question. But if you mean that there are gene-gene and gene-environment interactions, yes indeed there are. When these result in a more reproductively fertile organism, the relevant genes will become more prevalent in the population.

      Those that do not, will tend to become less prevalent.

      This is not speculation; it has been directly observed. I do not seem to be the ignorant one here.

      Delete
    6. JeffJune 2, 2013 at 5:57 PM

      nope, that's not what he's saying. ask him yourself

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

      No one is stopping cornelius from responding to whatever is said here.

      Delete
    7. bpragmatic,
      Your reliance on speculations to assert you positions, historically, as significantly demonstrated hypothesis' are just a ridiculous array of mainly ignorant proclomations and pontifications that are, usually, perhaps, a glorified version of something a Thornton might say. Or for that matter, Vel, TWT, Zachriel, Scott, etc.


      Pot, kettle,black

      Delete
    8. Cornelius' strategy is to *deny* that any progress has or can be made on the subject, rather than present genuine criticism specifically designed to choose between multiple explanatory theories. This is because progress on the subject conflicts with his theological commitments.

      Specifically, to the degree that we explain anything about the biological adaptations of organisms, those explanations explain those adaptations, not "a designer". And, to any degree that we explain the designer, those aspects are no longer supernatural, but merely unseen events or entires. So, the goal is to deny that we can make progress on origin of those adaptations.

      Delete
  11. Natural Selection as a primary driver for evolution just wouldn't work, when you think about it.

    Sanford explained it well. Signal to Noise ratio. In practically every case, Natural Selection is not going to select for such a weak signal as whatever is produced in the phenotype via a couple amino acid changes or whatever minor genetic mutation.. when that weak signal is in selection competition with so much routine noise affecting the organism's fitness: predation, resources, injury, disease, mate availability, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, etc.

    This is why evolutionists are always showing you changing colors of butterflies, etc. as an example of natural selection in action. It's because this is one of the rare examples of a minor genetic change having a drastic effect on the phenotype fitness, that is, a significant effect on its relationship with predators.

    But these are rare exceptions. Almost all 'signals' from a single genetic mutation are not going to have a effect like that where Natural Selection can take notice over all the other fitness noise. Just think about it.

    What this means is that practically all mutation is, in fact, completely random. If mutations accumulate, it is due solely to genetic drift, and evolutionists can't claim Natural Selection as the non-random component.

    Even if evolutionists can come up with a handful of exceptions to this rule, those mutations are still undoubtedly going to be the small minority of otherwise much too weak signals to be noticed by natural selection.

    I think this is a pretty straightforward and major logistical problem with Evolution. I'm not surprised evolutionists don't want to talk about it, at least I've not come across hardly any discussion about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Natural selection doesn't have to "notice" anything. It is a simple bias in the sampling of the allele pool by each generation in favour of alleles that tend to be associated with greater reproductive success.

      It's been directly observed in both lab and field.

      Repeatedly dismissing it as "speculation" in the teeth of actual empirical evidence is foolish.

      And Sanford should know better.



      Delete
    2. Natural selection doesn't explain UCA. That's the relevant point that CH and Sanford are arguing. Sanford was using research BY UCA'ists, for crying out loud.

      Delete
    3. Absolutely right; natural selection could (and does) operate on any lineage.

      What natural selection does is account for adaptation to different environments, and thus contributes to diversity despite common ancestry.

      But as we also now know, simple drift also contributes to that diversification process.

      Delete
    4. EL - It is a simple bias in the sampling of the allele pool by each generation in favour of alleles that tend to be associated with greater reproductive success.

      Exactly what I described. Natural Selection selects signals which affect fitness. You've corrected nothing, despite a weak and pedantic attempt to make it appear as if you did.


      EL: It's been directly observed in both lab and field.

      Could you possibly equivocate any more? Should readers take this type of response seriously?

      Of course it has "been observed". I already freely admitted there are certain rare examples where it works. Also any mutation causing gross deformity for instance will obviously be selected out of the population.

      The question is, how often is it observed, and how feasible is it as a driver of evolution? Elizabeth, I know you can't take this argument head on. It's simple. The vast, vast majority of changes in allele frequency, even if beneficial, are not going to produce a fitness signal strong enough to be selected for.

      Let's see you deal with that problem instead of equivocating.

      EL: And Sanford should know better.

      He does know better. That's why you're incapable of honestly dealing with the argument.

      What you're left with is the unavoidable conclusion that change in allele frequency is primarily due to genetic drift.

      Thus evolution is primarily random.

      Thus evolution doesn't work, which any rational person understood from the beginning.

      Delete
    5. lifepsy, you (and all the other IDiot-creationitwits) really should try to correctly and honestly understand evolutionary theory and evidence so that you don't make such gigantic fools of yourselves.

      Delete
    6. lifepsy

      The vast, vast majority of changes in allele frequency, even if beneficial, are not going to produce a fitness signal strong enough to be selected for.


      But some will, and that (along with neutral drift) is all evolution needs.

      Let's see you deal with that problem instead of equivocating.

      Let's see you demonstrate there's an actual problem instead of just blindly asserting.

      Delete
  12. lifespy:Exactly what I described. Natural Selection selects signals which affect fitness. You've corrected nothing, despite a weak and pedantic attempt to make it appear as if you did.

    EL: well you've over-elaborated and thus missed the point. Natural selection is just a metaphor. There is no Selector nor a Signal. It's just the name we give to a bias in the sampling. To say the signal is "too weak" to "select" makes no sense. If there is bias, there is bias. And there often is.

    And it's not "rare". Look at the Grants' work on the Galapagos finches. They found it in every generation.

    As for Sanford - I've read his book. It is full of mistakes. He doesn't understand the sources he cites. He even mis-draws their figures.

    And if he was correct, there would be no living mice.

    And there are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EL: well you've over-elaborated and thus missed the point. Natural selection is just a metaphor. There is no Selector nor a Signal. It's just the name we give to a bias in the sampling.

      Sorry, there's no such physical thing as a "bias", Elizabeth. That's an abstract concept. You clearly do not understand natural selection.

      See? It's easy to avoid discussion by being pedantic and childish.

      Please grow up.

      Delete
    2. lifepsy said:

      "You clearly do not understand natural selection."

      So, there are no mirrors in your house, eh?

      "Please grow up."

      Says the ignorant, uneducated child who believes in an imaginary sky daddy and the associated, ridiculous, impossible fairy tales.

      Delete
  13. Jeff: There's no way to FALSIFY your view.

    If we show metal doesn't burn, then it's doubtful the metal shed burned.

    Jeff: where did you get the notion of causality to plug into a proposition in a deductive argument if it had to be derived from other beliefs?

    We learn cause and effect from consistent correlations. If you put your hand in the fire, many times, under varying circumstances, you eventually learn that the fire is burning your hand. Later in life, you can learn about combustion, how heat affects chemistry, nerve response, et cetera, and develop an overarching explanation of hand burning.

    Jeff: We never once proved THAT events were caused.

    Science doesn't prove. It's an interplay between induction and deduction, hypothetico-deduction combined with observation.

    lifepsy: Sanford explained it well. Signal to Noise ratio.

    Do you have the maths?

    Here's a couple of fun facts: Neutral mutations will fix in a population at the approximate rate of at which neutral mutations occur in the population. In large diploid populations, the probability of fixation of slightly beneficial mutations is twice the selection coefficient.

    Nor do you have to be superfast to have a significant advantage: You just have to outrun Dear Albert.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maths? Ok,

      You were 10 feet closer to the attacking predator than Dear Albert, therefore the predator caught up to you first anyways.

      ...or any number of common survival variables that throws your negligible speed increase out the window.

      Correct, since Natural Selection obviously will not work in most cases, population fixation would have to be random, that is, the rate of fixation is basically the rate of occurrence, meaning any other slightly beneficial, or slightly deleterious mutation has just as much selection advantage as any other.

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

      Delete
  14. For those of you who don't accept that there are transitional fossils:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130530132431.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry kid but that fossil doesn't even settle the issue of where turtles got their shells. Where specifically Turtles fit into the tree and how they got their shell is still highly controversial. As even some of the reporting admits the fossil does not settle the issues.

      http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/science/2013/05/30/how-did-turtle-get-its-shell-fossil-may-hold-answer/ivK0WqXcuWeQzazGOZyiBK/story.html

      But by all means make the usual blather that because non darwinists do not fall over themselves over an issue that is still debatable and proclaim it as proof positive as you do they are stupid or uninformed. Its after all your sides does these days.

      Anyone who didn't already accept your other claims of transitional fossils won't accept that as proof positive because it isn't.

      Delete
    2. So Elijah2012, is it your contention that all of those different age turtle fossils which certainly appear to show a transitional lineage are actually individually created "kinds"?

      Did Noah take two of the Eunotosaurus africanus on the Ark?

      Let's hear you explanation for the fossil evidence.

      Delete
    3. Even living turtles come in a variety of skeletel forms (see link below). But, the ancient fossil is interesting... however it is amazing how fast evolution are so sure that this was a transitional. It would be funny (and not surprising) that in the future a fossil turtle that is older showing a full carapice is found.

      Here's the Hawksbill Sea turtle.

      http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi/img_query?enlarge=0000+0000+0203+0578

      Delete
  15. Evolutionist believe in the origin of life without a creator with little more than Urey-Miller and other equally bad non-explanations.

    For example, the evolution of first life and its Ribosome without natural selection, mutation, and heritability is not a serious problem in the minds of evolutionists.

    Evolutionists seem to be doing just fine in their own minds regarding the Origin of Life without having any mechanism. So, what's the big deal if evolutionists continue on their merry way without having a known mechanism for their theory of biological evolution?

    Natural selection explanations temporarily gave them a bit more of an intellectual justification for evolution, but as in OoL, evolutionists can make do with no serious explanatory mechanisms if need be.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature

    Jeff,
    First of all, apart from natural causality, what other conceivable causal mode is there other than libertarian causation"


    Apparently legal causation. The courts recognize free will is constrained by human nature.

    Second, punishment, if it has anything to do with bona-fide desert, assumes the reality of libertarian causality AND the reality of non-relativistic normativity

    Again not legally, the system allows for relativistic punishment

    No libertarian causality, no desert

    No absolute free will unconstrained by human nature.

    As I've said before, when US courts deny the existence of libertarian causality,

    They don't deny it,but neither is it the definition of causality.

    ReplyDelete