Monday, June 17, 2013

Here is That New, Unique, Fluorescent Protein

More Lineage Specific Biology

Some proteins are fluorescent—shine a light on them and they glow. And as usual nature gives us all kinds of variations including different colors. These proteins are wonderful tools for molecular biologists who use them to tag and track molecular machines at work in the cell. Now another type of fluorescent protein has been discovered. Not only is it from a vertebrate (the Japanese eel), but its fluorescence mechanism is different (it uses bilirubin, the four-ring molecule that we shouldn’t have too much of). As one researcher put it, “It’s totally different. There’s not anything you can point to that’s the same.”

This new protein is another example of the incredible genius and creativity we find in biology, and it appears to be another example of the lineage-specific biology which runs counter to the expectations of common descent.

254 comments:

  1. Cornelius Hunter

    This new protein is another example of the incredible genius and creativity we find in biology, and it appears to be another example of the lineage-specific biology which runs counter to the expectations of common descent.


    Why is it counter to the expectations of common descent? Once a species branches it carries with it its ancestral heritage, but it's also free to keep evolving and develop its own unique traits.

    I know you get paid to chum the waters with this anti-science drivel, but don't you ever get embarrassed by posting things this dumb?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Random mutations do not create order. They destroy order. Why do you people insist on being so effing stupid?

      Delete
    2. Louis Savain

      Random mutations do not create order. They destroy order. Why do you people insist on being so effing stupid?


      Evolution isn't just random mutations.

      Evolution is random mutations filtered by selection with beneficial ones carried forward as heritable traits.

      Random mutations filtered by selection with beneficial ones carried forward as heritable traits can and do create both order and complexity.

      Why does Louis Savain insist on being so effing stupid?

      Delete
    3. There is only one problem with your flimsy little castle in the air. If there is no reproductive mechanism, there can be no selection. First you need to evolve reproduction. You can't do that in your stupid religious theory because evolution assumes reproduction already exists before it starts. Oops.

      You're not just stupid. You're stupid as sh!t.

      Delete
    4. Abiotic Self-Replication
      Meyer et al
      Acc Chem Res. 2012 Dec 18;45(12):2097-105

      "Abstract: The key to the origins of life is the replication of information. Linear polymers such as nucleic acids that both carry information and can be replicated are currently what we consider to be the basis of living systems. However, these two properties are not necessarily coupled. The ability to mutate in a discrete or quantized way, without frequent reversion, may be an additional requirement for Darwinian evolution, in which case the notion that Darwinian evolution defines life may be less of a tautology than previously thought. In this Account, we examine a variety of in vitro systems of increasing complexity, from simple chemical replicators up to complex systems based on in vitro transcription and translation. Comparing and contrasting these systems provides an interesting window onto the molecular origins of life. For nucleic acids, the story likely begins with simple chemical replication, perhaps of the form A + B → T, in which T serves as a template for the joining of A and B. Molecular variants capable of faster replication would come to dominate a population, and the development of cycles in which templates could foster one another's replication would have led to increasingly complex replicators and from thence to the initial genomes. The initial genomes may have been propagated by RNA replicases, ribozymes capable of joining oligonucleotides and eventually polymerizing mononucleotide substrates. As ribozymes were added to the genome to fill gaps in the chemistry necessary for replication, the backbone of a putative RNA world would have emerged. It is likely that such replicators would have been plagued by molecular parasites, which would have been passively replicated by the RNA world machinery without contributing to it. These molecular parasites would have been a major driver for the development of compartmentalization/cellularization, as more robust compartments could have outcompeted parasite-ridden compartments. The eventual outsourcing of metabolic functions (including the replication of nucleic acids) to more competent protein enzymes would complete the journey from an abiotic world to the molecular biology we see today."

      Why does Louis Savain insist on being so effing stupid?

      Delete
    5. Wow. The stupid little Darwinist pulls a mountain of worthless speculations and BS right out of his arse and calls it science.

      Delete
    6. LOL! The stupid little Creationist sticks his head right up his arse and ignores the scientific evidence he claims doesn't exits.

      Why does Louis Savain insist on being so effing stupid?

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

      Delete
    8. Louis Savain

      The only evidence I see is the inside of my own rectum


      Why does Louis Savain insist on being so effing stupid?

      Delete
    9. Thorton, besides evolution, can you give me an example where randomness creates complex specified information?

      As for evolution, the Darwinian mechanism of RM+NS is bullshit. It is funny that many, but not all biologists, let their atheistic worldview color their science. Imagine if atheist cosmologists were trying to convince us that the Big Bang is bogus because it shows creation! Atheist biologists do that all the time when they want us to believe that complex specified information can come from randomness.

      What a bunch of m0r0ns!

      Delete
    10. Some cosmologists try to brush off the Big Bang with the Multiverse idiocy but, in their case, the straight jacket is not far off.

      To wit, here are some sciency theories:

      1) The Universe was created when a monkey farted.

      2) We exist because the almighty TRANSISTOR poped!

      3) Have your hand with SS&SS, aka Stupid Science & Stupid Scientist..

      Atheist scientists are doing Science great harm since almost nobody believe what they say!

      Delete
    11. Pépé

      Thorton, besides evolution, can you give me an example where randomness creates complex specified information?


      1. Evolution isn't randomness. It's a filtered iterative feedback process with a random component, something quite different from your childish misunderstanding. The same process is used successfully in Genetic Algorithms to create complex objects every day.

      2. "Complex specified information" is a meaningless undefined and unquantifiable Creationist buzz-term used to gull laymen by trying to make ID sound "sciency". If you disagree, please compute the CSI of Mt. Rushmore for me.

      Any more dumb IDiot claims you wish to regurgitate?

      Delete
    12. Thorton: "...[CIS] is meaningless undefined and unquantifiable..."

      You have a very poor opinion of yourself because your ARE CIS! Explain to me why you are symmetric (I hope) with RM+NS?






      Delete
    13. Please stop typing IDiot!

      Or else I will address you as a Dar-Wino.

      Delete
    14. pepe asked:

      "Thorton, besides evolution, can you give me an example where randomness creates complex specified information?"

      In addition to Mt. Rushmore, will you please measure/calculate the 'CSI' in an animal, plant, virus, earthquake, planet, star, and galaxy of your choice, and show your work?

      Is there anything in or about this universe that isn't specified, complex, and designed/created by your chosen, so-called god?

      Is weather specified, complex, and designed/created by your chosen, so-called god?

      And will you please explain how to measure/calculate 'CSI' in your own words?

      Delete
    15. Thorton

      "Abiotic Self-Replication"

      Apart all the speculations in the abstract, has that paper any data?

      Delete
    16. Thorton: "...Genetic Algorithms to create complex objects every day."

      Yes, but these algorithms always have a goal, a fitness function. Darwinian evolution is defined as purposeless, undirected, goalless, naturalistic process. Try making a genetic algorithm without a fitness function! All you will achieve is wasting computer cycles.

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

      Delete
    18. PépéJ

      Thorton: "...Genetic Algorithms to create complex objects every day."

      Yes, but these algorithms always have a goal, a fitness function. Darwinian evolution is defined as purposeless, undirected, goalless, naturalistic process.


      Evolution doesn't have specific goals to create specific animals. It has the much broader goal "survive in your environment long enough to produce one more generation". That's why we see so many different and varied solutions to the problem.

      Where's your calculation of the CSI for Mt. Rushmore?

      Delete
    19. All this Acc.Chem Res.(dec 2013) was devoted to abiotic theory and surely exposed its fragility.
      The work quoted by thorton Meyer et al
      Acc Chem Res. 2012 Dec 18;45(12):2097-105 only points the problems: the number of may be and would in the abstract is a good clue about that.
      Meyers quotes the work of Kiedrowski, like 
      Sievers, D.; von Kiedrowski, G. Self-Replication of Complementary Nucleotide-Based
      Oligomers. Nature 1994, 369, 221–224
      when he found that only CCG has good association and auto-replication properties.
      We would have only a poor RNA and may be that the sequences encoded nothing.

      Delete
    20. Thorton: "...Evolution doesn't have specific goals..."

      That is false. Evolution does have specific goals, otherwise you and I would not be here to discuss it. Lookup Shapiro's Natural Genetic Engineering.

      Darwinism is a sham!

      For Mt. Rushmore CSI, you should do your own calculations, it's really fun. My calculations gave me 100% CSI for the presidents' carvings and 100% CSI for the surroundings where vegetable life exists and 0% for the rocks!

      Anyways, if you are happy with your hopeless worldview may God bless you.

      Delete
    21. So your sky daddy didn't create rocks? Where did rocks come from then?

      Delete
    22. Twt: "So your sky daddy didn't create rocks? Where did rocks come from then?"

      Kid, why don't you go play in your sandbox instead of asking nonsensical questions. Leave this blog to those having a full grown brain.

      Delete
    23. It's obvious that you believe that 'CSI' is created only by your chosen god and that 'CSI' is a necessary feature of created things.

      You said that there's 0% CSI in rocks. So, since, according to you, there's no 'CSI' in rocks, rocks must not have been created by your chosen god. Where did rocks come from then?

      While you're pondering that, don't forget that the Earth is mostly a big rock, and that there are rocks (minerals) in your body (besides the ones in your head). There are also rocks (minerals) in "vegetable life".

      Delete
    24. Thorton,

      "Random mutations filtered by selection with beneficial ones carried forward as heritable traits can and do create both order and complexity."

      The only problem with this, my friend, is it does not explain the origin of the order and complexity being passed on. To say beneficial traits being carried forward can and do create order and complexity fails to recognize there is already order and complexity in the process of heritable traits. Your argument is basically order and complexity create order and complexity.

      To say order and complexity is passed on through heritable traits is only to state the obvious. The true nature of the question is where did that order and complexity which is being inherited, originate?

      Well. we're off to game 5. I said if Chicago won game 4 it would go 7. I think it will and if it does I think Chicago will take it. They seem to have more speed than the Bruins and that can be tough to defend against. If Boston wins game 5 in Chicago I could be proven wrong. But to do that they will have to apply a vicious forecheck to prevent Chicago from applying the speed. They'll also need to control the front of the net much better than they did last game.

      What do you think about the Flyers dumping Briere? He's getting long in the tooth, but I think they way over paid for Streit and Briere is simply the first consequence of that. I wouldn't mind seeing him in Toronto.
      He could help them with his veteran presence.

      San Jose was smart in retaining Couture. I like his play. He's similar to Messier.

      Take care my friend.

      Delete
    25. whole truth,

      "There are also rocks (minerals) in "vegetable life"."

      Minerals are NOT rocks. Rocks are composed of minerals, but the minerals themselves are not rocks. So no, there are not rocks in my vegetables.

      Delete
    26. Thorton,

      "Where's your calculation of the CSI for Mt. Rushmore?"

      You ask this question often. To have an answer you would need to speak to Gutzon Borglum, the creator. Unfortunately, he is dead, so no one will ever know for sure. They could speculate, but nothing more. Hope that answers that for you.

      No need to thank me. Take care.

      Delete
    27. Nic

      Thorton: "Where's your calculation of the CSI for Mt. Rushmore?"

      You ask this question often. To have an answer you would need to speak to Gutzon Borglum, the creator.


      So to get a value for 'CSI' you have to

      1. Know ahead of time that something was designed
      2. Identify the designer
      3. Locate the designer and ask him directly.

      Thanks for clearing that up. Now could you do me a big favor and explain that to the IDiots on the web? The ones who keep claiming ID is just about the design not the designer, and that you can calculate the CSI of an object entirely from examining the object itself? Because that's all I hear form the IDiots 24-7.

      Thanks in advance.

      Delete
    28. Nic

      The only problem with this, my friend, is it does not explain the origin of the order and complexity being passed on.


      Yes Nic it does. All you need to kick off the process are imperfect self-replicators that compete for resources. From that tiny bit of 'order and complexity' everything else occurs by additions to the baseline.

      Where the first imperfect self replicators came from is the study of abiogenesis. But once the process is started it's all evolution producing increased complexity for the duration.

      Game 4 was so different from the other 3 it's hard to know how to analyze it. Both teams decided to play fire wagon hockey, run-n-gun. Great for the spectators but had the coaches getting ulcers. I'm guessing we go back to a defense first clampdown for the next game at least, if not the rest of the series.

      We'll probably see more and more teams doing buy-outs of the older players. The new CBA the owners forced through really upended the salary cap structure. The era of the 10+ year/stupid money contracts are over. Look for 3-5 year deals max being the norm.

      Don't know if you caught it but on Yahoo last week there was a brief story about the parents of a Jr. B player suing their son's league. They claim he was the victim of a hooligan style attack and beating, was jumped by thugs, etc. Then I saw a video of the incident. Their son was playing forward, dumped the puck on goal which the goaler covered. The little angel then proceeded to deliberately give the keeper a full snow shower flush in the face. Exactly what you'd expect happened next - the D man beat the snot out of their kid. What was funny were the comments posted to the video. They ran about 99-1 "the little POS deserved every bit of the beating he got". I had a good laugh at that one.

      Going out to dinner with wife's folks tomorrow night. Gonna have to sneak peaks at the score on the iPhone.

      Delete
    29. Thorton,

      "Thanks for clearing that up."

      You're quite welcome, my friend. Never been a fan of the argument that the design is independent of the designer. To me ID most certainly is about the designer. How can it be otherwise?

      That being said, it's not always possible to contact the designer directly with questions you may have vis a vis the design. However, that inability to directly contact the designer or even be certain of the identity of the designer, is not a valid argument against the reality of intelligent design.

      Delete
    30. Thorton,

      "Yes Nic it does. All you need to kick off the process are imperfect self-replicators that compete for resources."

      I must admit, it sounds simple enough, and to some I'm sure it's a convincing argument. Slight problem though. Replication is not a simple un-complex function. Just getting started in replication demands a fairly sizable amount of order and complexity. That being the case, you're still stuck with the task of explaining the origin of these simple replicators and their not so simple replication process.

      "Game 4 was so different from the other 3 it's hard to know how to analyze it."

      Exactly how I saw it. Game 4 was like the games we played when we were kids, last goal wins. It didn't seem to matter who scored, you always felt the other team was going to come back. I'm sure if they were to play out overtime periods that game would still be on.

      "Look for 3-5 year deals max being the norm."

      I think that's as it should be. I never could understand these really massive long-term contracts. There is just too many variables in pro sports for that policy to prove feasible.

      Yeah, I saw the video of the incident to which you refer. I agree, the kid should get a whack or two for spraying the goalie, but I feel the defencemen went a little too far. Once the guy was down and not fighting back, let it go, you've made your point. Maybe that's just me mellowing with age. At the same point in my life, I probably would have kept pounding too.

      "Going out to dinner with wife's folks tomorrow night. Gonna have to sneak peaks at the score on the iPhone."

      I hate doing that. I try to PVR the games and watch them later. That way I get to skip the commercials. I do sometimes follow the score on my iphone with games that are not televised in my area. I live in the West so I'm assumed to be an Oilers fan or Flames fan, so that's what they televise. I get the Leafs on CBC for the most part. I may see them once in a while on TSN or Sportsnet if they happen to be playing the Oilers or the Flames.

      Have a great night out and don't be too rude while following the game on your iphone. Remember, it's always important to keep the in-laws happy. Have a really decadent dessert. Take care.

      Delete
    31. Nic

      I must admit, it sounds simple enough, and to some I'm sure it's a convincing argument. Slight problem though. Replication is not a simple un-complex function. Just getting started in replication demands a fairly sizable amount of order and complexity.


      Not really. Many autocatalytic chemical molecules are known, they just take external source of energy to run the reactions. Scientists in 2009 managed to put together a pretty simple self-sustaining RNA replicator, a prebiotic reaction possibly similar to the first steps that kicked off life.

      RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

      That being the case, you're still stuck with the task of explaining the origin of these simple replicators and their not so simple replication process.

      I agree abiogenesis is still an unsolved problem. That's why there are tens of thousands of researchers working the issue as we type. Still, one we get those imperfect self-replicators then it's naturalistic evolutionary processes all the way.

      Sharks signed Torres to a 3 year deal while the whining diving Canuckleheads are rumored to be pursuing John Tortorella. The world turned upside down!

      Delete
    32. Thorton,

      "Scientists in 2009 managed to put together a pretty simple self-sustaining RNA replicator, a prebiotic reaction possibly similar to the first steps that kicked off life."

      Read your comment again. See anything?


      "Still, one we get those imperfect self-replicators then it's naturalistic evolutionary processes all the way."

      Ah, my friend, but that is exactly where the rubber hits the road, getting those replicators. Now, if those replicators are produced in the lab is that going to be evidence for abiogenesis?

      The reports I'm hearing here is that Tortorella going to the Canucks is a done deal. And from some reports it appears a few players a not that thrilled. He's going to find coaching in a Canadian market is totally different than what he's been used too. A lot of the media guys here are much sharper about the game than he may expect. He won't be able to brush them off as ignorant of the finer points, as he had done with some of the American reporters. There will also be a lot less tolerance for his rants in Vancouver. Those Lotus Land dwellers are the definition of politically correct. It should be an interesting tenure if it comes about.

      Delete
    33. "Ah, my friend, but that is exactly where the rubber hits the road, getting those replicators."


      My thoughts are is that even with these kind of man made "self repicators" there is far too much to explain, scientifically, based on what is known about living organisms at this time to even suggest any kind of legitimate correlation. There is no "scientific" verification that demonstrates that once there is a self replicator, therefore, we have what we observe now in living organisms. I think you give this kind of conjecture way more credit than can be supported by any kind of scientific procedures.

      To me, this kind of "experiment" that is referred to, is support, to a large degree, of the requirement of "illegitimate" intelligent interference in determining requirements, providing the setting and materials, and guiding the processes to achieve an intelligently derived predetermined outcome. The processes are "clever" and I am not sure that, even in principle, the results can be any kind of indication of what is required to achieve what is observed today in nature.

      Nic, I know you mean well though. But be careful not concede what you really can't.

      Delete
    34. bpragmatic,

      "Nic, I know you mean well though. But be careful not concede what you really can't."

      Trust me, I'm not conceding anything. Producing 'replicators' in a lab does less than zero to support the idea they could arise on their own. It reinforces the argument that there is a need of intelligence to start the process. It always amazes me that evolutionists can never catch on to the contradiction. That they actually don't see that the fact they must provide intelligent input into these experiments in and of itself proves them wrong. However, there is no delusion as strong as self-delusion.

      Delete
    35. Nic

      That they actually don't see that the fact they must provide intelligent input into these experiments in and of itself proves them wrong.


      Hey Nic, humans designed Van de Graff generators which produce electrical discharges. Is that evidence that lightning needs an Intelligent Designer?

      I can't get over Creationists who fail at such simple logic. They actually think if humans design an experiment to recreate in the lab something found in nature that means the thing in nature must be designed too.

      Really Nic, that sort of 'logic' ought to be down right embarrassing for you.

      Hawks win a tight one, back to Boston for 6!

      Delete
    36. Thorton,

      "Is that evidence that lightning needs an Intelligent Designer?"

      Nice try, but no cigar. Comparing a Van der Graff generator to lightning and drawing a parallel to attempts to kick start evolution in the lab is, to say the least, silly.

      As for lightning being designed, I guess that would depend on your outlook. Weather is the result of the creative process, so I guess it would be up to you to decide whether or not lightning was designed.

      It was a good game. Both goalies played well. There were times when Boston was all over the Hawks but just could not score. It will be interesting to see how game 6 goes if both Bergeron and Toews are out.

      Delete
    37. Nic

      Nice try, but no cigar. Comparing a Van der Graff generator to lightning and drawing a parallel to attempts to kick start evolution in the lab is, to say the least, silly.


      Why is it silly? In both cases the researches were just modeling and investigating observed natural phenomena. Why is one good science and the other bad science?

      I didn't see any of the game, just could check the score every now and again. Did Toews get a concussion? Does that count as an "upper body injury"?

      Delete
    38. Thorton,

      "Why is one good science and the other bad science?"

      Because one is being used to explain the ultimate origin of life. Van der Graff's generator is, as you say, simply modeling a phenomenon in order to study it. It was not trying to demonstrate the origin of lightning.

      "Did Toews get a concussion?"

      Probably. He got hammered really hard cutting in front of the Boston net in the 2nd period. Not sure, but I think it was McQuade, who is a fair sized dude to run into when you're going in opposite directions. He hit his head quite hard on the ice. It would count as an 'upper body injury' in my books.

      Delete
    39. Nic

      Because one is being used to explain the ultimate origin of life.


      So there's nothing actually wrong with the science, it's just the theological implications you don't like. Got it.

      Van der Graff's generator is, as you say, simply modeling a phenomenon in order to study it. It was not trying to demonstrate the origin of lightning.

      Wrong. It was examining the exact same effect that causes lightning - a discharge of current between positively and negatively charged objects. For lightning it happens that the objects are the top and bottom of clouds.

      Saw the film of the Toews hit, NHL has already announced no suspension. There's zero logic or consistency in any of Shanahan's rulings.

      Delete
    40. Thorton,

      "For lightning it happens that the objects are the top and bottom of clouds."

      That's true of sheet lightning, but not fork lightning which actually travels in both directions from what I understand. There is also ball lightning which is something altogether unusual to see.

      There is something wrong with the science when you practice controlled, intelligent input to achieve a particular event and then try to apply your results to prove the same results could come about through a series of random, uncontrolled events.

      I agree about Shanahan's rulings. They often make no sense at all. Often it seems it's the person making the hit or receiving the hit, that is the major determining factor. Torres makes that hit, he's gone. Torres takes that hit, nothing. No logic at all.

      Game six tonight. Should be a great one. Talk to you after. Take care, my friend.

      Delete
    41. Nic

      There is something wrong with the science when you practice controlled, intelligent input to achieve a particular event and then try to apply your results to prove the same results could come about through a series of random, uncontrolled events.


      LOL! Nic buddy, every science experiment every done involves humans providing controlled, intelligent input. That's how science works. Try to remove as many variables from the equation as possible so you can concentrate on discovering the unknowns.

      And for the record, science is not in the business of proving life arose through unguided natural events. Science is merely investigating if it is possible, and if possible what would be the most likely pathways.

      I know that rubs against your religious beliefs but that doesn't make the science bad or wrong, not even a little bit.

      Game six tonight. Should be a great one. Talk to you after. Take care, my friend.

      Thanks, and you too Nic. Pop open a cold one, put your feet up and let's enjoy the show!

      Delete
    42. Thorton,

      "Nic buddy, every science experiment every done involves humans providing controlled, intelligent input."

      Thorton buddy, I'm completely aware of that. It's just that with some forms of experimentation it proves fatal to the results. his is one of those cases.


      "And for the record, science is not in the business of proving life arose through unguided natural events. Science is merely investigating if it is possible, and if possible what would be the most likely pathways."

      Good, now can I be assured I will hear no more claims that evolution is a proven fact?

      "I know that rubs against your religious beliefs but that doesn't make the science bad or wrong, not even a little bit."

      Science does not rub against my religious beliefs, not even a little bit. What rubs against my intellect is poor science, foisted off as fact.

      "put your feet up and let's enjoy the show!"

      Hope you don't mind, but Amen to that!

      Delete
    43. Nic

      It's just that with some forms of experimentation it proves fatal to the results. his is one of those cases.


      Here's the actual paper I referenced Nic.

      Self-sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme

      Go ahead and point out specifically where the 'fatal' error is in this paper. Amazing that it was published in Science, one of the top technical journals on the planet, was read by hundreds of thousands of professional scientists yet you're the only one who spotted the fatal flaw. ;)

      Good, now can I be assured I will hear no more claims that evolution is a proven fact?

      Very bad, you still don't understand the difference between abiogenesis (which I was referring to) and evolution.

      Science does not rub against my religious beliefs, not even a little bit. What rubs against my intellect is poor science, foisted off as fact.

      You must be holding out on me because I haven't seen you raise a single technical argument against any of the scientific findings that have been presented here. Lots of personal incredulity to be sure, but that's not the same thing. Have you ever met Mr. Dunning and Mr. Kruger? :)

      Hope you don't mind, but Amen to that!

      Good one so far! Can't believe Shaw is still playing after taking that shot to the face. Did you catch the camera showing Bobby Orr in the stands?

      Delete
    44. Thorton,

      Thorton asked: "Go ahead and point out specifically where the 'fatal' error is in this paper."

      "These cross-replicating RNA enzymes were optimized so that they can undergo self-sustained exponential amplification at a constant temperature and in the absence of proteins or other biological materials."

      There you go. But of course you won't accept that example, of which there are many in the paper, because you assume evolution to be true. The very fact they 'optimized' the enzymes proves fatal for the credibility of the experiment.

      Of course it would pass the muster under peer review as such actions are acceptable to evolutionary science. But being acceptable in evolutionary science does not take away from the fact that intelligence based manipulation was necessary to accomplish the experiment. That is what I mean when I say I'm amazed evolutionists either can't pick up on or ignore this problem.

      "Good one so far!'

      That will become an instant classic. That was one of the best games I've seen in a long time. Players from both sides left everything out there. I got tired just watching it, ha,ha. I'm sure it made a lot of Leaf fans happy to see Boston suffer a fate or so similar to the one they inflicted on Toronto. Personally, I would have preferred Boston to win, as I could then console myself with the fact they lost out to the eventual Cup champs. Oh well.

      Did they report it on NBC that Bergeron was playing with broken ribs, strained muscles and suffered a separated shoulder during the game? That makes me wince just thinking about it. As for Shaw, heck, we just breed them tough North of the border. Took a slap shot in the forehead once, (no jokes please), and was really glad I was wearing a helmet. As it was I was dizzy for a while.

      Yeah, I caught the shot of Orr. There was one the other night in Chicago with Hull and Makita. I was a big fan of Makita when I was a kid. Man, could he skate.

      What did you think of Kane as the Conn Smythe winner. Personally I thought it was ridiculous. Were these guys even at any of the games. I can think of a dozen guys I would have voted for over Kane. But as is often the case with hockey writers, they look at the score sheet and don't bother looking at the ice. I'm of the opinion writers should not be allowed to vote on any of the trophies. It should be coaches for some, players, past and present, for others.

      Tortorella officially announced as Canucks new coach. Leafs acquire Bernier from the Kings, and trade talk involving Phaneuf. What do you think?

      Well buddy, now that hockey season is over what are we going to talk about in our friendly little appendixes? We won't have to wait long to get back to hockey, training camps open in 13 weeks.

      Take care my friend. Hope you were able to enjoy a few cool ones last night without them winding up in your lap.

      Delete
    45. Nic

      Thorton: "Go ahead and point out specifically where the 'fatal' error is in this paper."

      "These cross-replicating RNA enzymes were optimized so that they can undergo self-sustained exponential amplification at a constant temperature and in the absence of proteins or other biological materials."

      There you go.


      No Nic. The whole point of the experiment was to see if there were conditions that were conducive to self-replication, so of course they were optimized. How in the world could optimizing the conditions to test the hypothesis be considered a fatal error??

      Of course it would pass the muster under peer review as such actions are acceptable to evolutionary science.

      Sheesh. Setting up protocols to test the variables you want is acceptable to ALL scientific fields. EVERY. LAST. ONE. That's how science is done.

      But being acceptable in evolutionary science does not take away from the fact that intelligence based manipulation was necessary to accomplish the experiment.

      Good gravy! Go ahead and name any experiment in the history of science that didn't involve intelligent input to accomplish the experiment.

      It has become quite obvious you have no concept of how scientific experimentation is done, not even a tiny sniff. I don't know where the conversation goes from here.

      That will become an instant classic.

      Yeah, it was an awesome game, awesome series. We can discuss it more for sure but I've gotta run now. Catch up soon.

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

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cornelius Hunter: This new protein is another example of the incredible genius and creativity we find in biology, and it appears to be another example of the lineage-specific biology which runs counter to the expectations of common descent.

    UnaG belongs to the fatty-acid-binding protein family.

    ReplyDelete
  4. semi-related:

    David Gallo: Underwater astonishments - video
    http://www.ted.com/talks/david_gallo_shows_underwater_astonishments.html

    David Gallo shows jaw-dropping footage of amazing sea creatures, including a color-shifting cuttlefish, a perfectly camouflaged octopus, and a Times Square's worth of neon light displays from fish who live in the blackest depths of the ocean.

    Edith Widder: Glowing life in an underwater world - video
    http://www.ted.com/talks/edith_widder_glowing_life_in_an_underwater_world.html

    Description: Some 80 to 90 percent of undersea creatures make light -- and we know very little about how or why. Bioluminescence expert Edith Widder explores this glowing, sparkling, luminous world, sharing glorious images and insight into the unseen depths (and brights) of the ocean.

    Comb Jellies (Extremely ancient life form)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7WT81ukHZE

    Cellular Communication through Light
    Excerpt: Information transfer is a life principle. On a cellular level we generally assume that molecules are carriers of information, yet there is evidence for non-molecular information transfer due to endogenous coherent light. This light is ultra-weak, is emitted by many organisms, including humans and is conventionally described as biophoton emission.
    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005086

    Biomimicry: (Inspired By Nature) Researchers develop metamaterials able to control spread of light - May 10, 2013
    Excerpt: The new metamaterials developed by the team are based on spin optics where photon helicity degeneracy is prevented due to the geometric gradient that exists on their surface. They are also anisotropic—they don't behave the same way when measured from different directions. Also, unlike current technology, they are polarization-dependent. Together these features cause light waves to propagate in ways not typically seen in current communications equipment. In addition, because of their polarization dependence, design engineers can create new devices that allow for a novel way to control communication devices—by the selection of the polarization of light at the outset. The researchers also report the new materials don't show inversion symmetry on their surface.,,,
    The new materials were inspired by metallic nanoantennae found in nature, the team reports.
    http://phys.org/news/2013-05-metamaterials.html


    An Electric Face: A Rendering Worth a Thousand Falsifications - September 2011
    Excerpt: The video suggests that bioelectric signals presage the morphological development of the face. It also, in an instant, gives a peak at the phenomenal processes at work in biology. As the lead researcher said, “It’s a jaw dropper.”
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/09/electric-face-rendering-worth-thousand.html

    Researchers discover a new way fish camouflage themselves in the ocean - June 3, 2013
    Excerpt: Fish can hide in the open ocean by manipulating how light reflects off their skin, according to researchers at The University of Texas at Austin. The discovery could someday lead to the development of new camouflage materials for use in the ocean, and it overturns 40 years of conventional wisdom about fish camouflage.
    The researchers found that lookdown fish camouflage themselves through a complex manipulation of polarized light after it strikes the fishes' skin. In laboratory studies, they showed that this kind of camouflage outperforms by up to 80 percent the "mirror" strategy that was previously thought to be state-of-the-art in fish camouflage.
    http://phys.org/news/2013-06-fish-camouflage-ocean.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok, so Edith Widder: in one of the TED videos says "Evolution selected bio-luminescent blue because it travels the longest distance through sea water in order to optimize communication. Most animals can only make blue light and most can only see blue light." This statement is at 6:41

      Would any of the more learned people, commenting on this blog care to tell me what kind of statement that is? Is it a scientific statement? Only those with wisdom need answer.

      Delete
    2. A link to the video might get you a pertinent response.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, your right Twt. http://www.ted.com/talks/edith_widder_glowing_life_in_an_underwater_world.html

      Delete
    4. Marcus

      Would any of the more learned people, commenting on this blog care to tell me what kind of statement that is? Is it a scientific statement?


      Yes, it's a scientific statement. Blue light has the shortest wavelength and can travel farther in seawater before being absorbed. It's just physics.

      Delete
    5. this lacks logic, even for evolution thought; if you have some emission of light promoted by unknown mechanism of mutation/selection, also needs a development of the receptor for the specific wavelength.
      If you believe in miracles, this is great!
      Genesis or Gilgamesh or any other creationist book fills better the gaps than abiotic hypothesis.

      Delete
    6. Márcio Lazzarotto

      this lacks logic, even for evolution thought


      Actually it's easily explained by evolutionary theory. Vision capabilities first evolved on the surface where white light was plentiful. As animals began colonizing deeper depths, the available light at depth becomes much less - first red light goes, then orange, then yellow, finally blue. Deep sea animals with the ability to produce and process blue light could see farther, be seen farther by potential mates, and had an evolutionary advantage.

      Delete
    7. Thorton, I marvel at God's understanding. He understands how light travels through all mediums and selected which organism would be suited to exist in each environment. He makes multitudes of animals using the same technology. Each with the ability to adapt when the environment changes. He organizes them such that they depend on each other at many different levels and he gives us the ability to understand some of it.

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

      Delete
    9. Marcus,
      He makes multitudes of animals using the same technology. Each with the ability to adapt when the environment changes. He organizes them such that they depend on each other at many different levels and he gives us the ability to understand some of it.


      The question is how He chooses to accomplish those goals.

      Delete
    10. Marcus June 18, 2013 at 8:09 AM

      Thorton, I marvel at God's understanding. He understands how light travels through all mediums and selected which organism would be suited to exist in each environment. He makes multitudes of animals using the same technology. Each with the ability to adapt when the environment changes. He organizes them such that they depend on each other at many different levels and he gives us the ability to understand some of it.


      Do you also marvel at the rabies virus? Was it engineered by God to pass between species and to be almost invariably fatal in humans?

      Do you also marvel at the parasitic organisms that burrow into hosts and eat them from the inside out?

      Do you marvel at the efficiency of the human reproductive system in which, according to some estimates, around 50% of ocncepta abort spontaneously?

      I could go on but I'm sure you get the idea. If an all-powerful God is responsible for the good bits then He must also be responsible for the bad bits. Are they also marvelous?

      Delete
    11. Ian:"Do you also marvel at the rabies virus? Was it engineered by God to pass between species and to be almost invariably fatal in humans?"

      Ian, I have not read about the rabies virus. I bet if you look at from an engineering perspective, you would find exquisite detail and precision as it executes the program it stores. The results are terrible for humans and very sad. Perhaps scientists and doctors can find a cure.

      Ian: "Do you marvel at the efficiency of the human reproductive system in which, according to some estimates, around 50% of ocncepta abort spontaneously?"

      Yes, I marvel at the system and the results of the system.
      The spontaneous failure rate is a surprise.

      I accept the bad bits. I don't know how to integrate them into my theology beyond accepting we live in a fallen world where bad things happen to good people. Sometimes we can do things to mitigate the bad and other times we can't. I'm not trying to be superficial here but I am trying to be precise and considerate. Do you think those items you mentioned are bad? If so, are you using a Judeo-Christian ethical standard to determine those items are bad? Can suffering be characterized as bad and good in your view?


      Delete
    12. Thorton,

      "Actually it's easily explained by evolutionary theory. Vision capabilities first evolved on the surface where white light was plentiful. As animals began colonizing deeper depths, the available light at depth becomes much less - first red light goes, then orange, then yellow, finally blue. Deep sea animals with the ability to produce and process blue light could see farther, be seen farther by potential mates, and had an evolutionary advantage."

      Now that's a nice little story, but nothing more. Evolutionary thought always seems to think if it can make up a story about how something could have happened, that qualifies as sufficient evidence that it did happen. Simply not the case.

      How would you know where sight first developed? It could have developed in the depths and the process you described could have run the other way. But that's jumping ahead when you consider you must first demonstrate how sight came to be in the first place. I know evolution has a nice little story for that scenario, but it's even funnier than the one you just shared.

      Delete
  5. I find it interesting that cornelius and other creationists make such a big deal of certain traits/features in living things in their attempt to deny evolution and destroy evolutionary theory, such as:

    In this case cornelius is obviously claiming that the fluorescent protein in that eel shows that the eel is uniquely designed/created, but if 'evolutionists' were to claim that a certain trait/feature of that eel shows evolution, speciation, relatedness, and/or common descent, cornelius and other creationists would scream 'But it's still an eel and one difference or similarity doesn't prove anything!'

    To creationists, when it's seemingly convenient, even the tiniest difference or similarity proves that god-did-it but when 'evolutionists' find one or multiple differences or similarities and use those differences or similarities to explain evolution/speciation/relatedness/common descent, they're always wrong wrong wrong and way out of line.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TWT: "To creationists, when it's seemingly convenient, even the tiniest difference or similarity proves that god-did-it but when 'evolutionists' find one or multiple differences or similarities and use those differences or similarities to explain evolution/speciation/relatedness/common descent, they're always wrong wrong wrong and way out of line."

      TWT, I will not speak for other creationists, but for me, the devil is in the details. When we start to look closer at life, more and more times a million- details need explaining. When you look at the theory as a whole, it's uninspired and totally unworthy of the time invested in it. It's a man made religion and thus totally inept when compared to God's infinite WISDOM! Come on brau, give it a rest.

      Delete
    2. Says the creationist who believes in and promotes one of the thousands of "man made religion(s)".

      So, for you, "the devil is in the details" and "details need explaining", eh?

      I keep asking you creobots to produce and explain evidence for "the details" of your religious fairy tales but you always avoid doing so. Why is that?

      For a start, explain "the details" about cain's wife. Name, height, weight, race, age, date of birth, parents' names, grandparents' names, place of birth/origin, hair and eye color, occupation, religious affiliation, hobbies, food likes and dislikes, health condition at yearly intervals, IQ, education, clothes wearer or nudist, date of death, location of burial, etc.

      Tell you what, I'll settle for detailed evidence and a sane explanation of where she came from.

      Delete
    3. Why is that so hard to figure out? There is only one credible explanation. Eve is said to be the mother of all the living. So Cain's wife had to have been his sister. As you well know, there is no prohibition of marrying one's close relatives until God gave Moses the Law. Even Abraham married his half sister and he made sure his son married one of their relatives to preserve the faith, so it seems to have been an accepted practice in those days. There would have been no problem genetically with this as mutations would have been almost non-existent in the beginning. By Moses' time, this would have begun to pose a slight risk because of mutations building up in the genome.

      We are not given her name, but we know she was Cain's sister. It doesn't fit with evolutionary theory, but somehow I doubt God is too concerned about that.

      Delete
    4. Obviously you don't know what detailed evidence and and a sane explanation are.

      And I find this very interesting:

      "There would have been no problem genetically with this as mutations would have been almost non-existent in the beginning. By Moses' time, this would have begun to pose a slight risk because of mutations building up in the genome."

      So, mutations do occur in humans, eh? How about other organisms? Are mutations random (in regard to fitness) or are they designed/created/guided by your chosen sky daddy? Are all mutations harmful?

      Oh, and a lot of christians don't agree with you about cain's wife being his sister.

      Delete
    5. Twt:"For a start, explain "the details" about cain's wife. Name, height, weight, race, age, date of birth, parents' names, grandparents' names, place of birth/origin, hair and eye color, occupation, religious affiliation, hobbies, food likes and dislikes, health condition at yearly intervals, IQ, education, clothes wearer or nudist, date of death, location of burial, etc."

      The way I see it, an author is only going to convey details he wants you know. Your questions about Cains wife are certainly rational. When details don't contribute to the information, they are left out. Just like the scientist leaving out information that doesn't help convey the 'correct' version of your religion, evolution. The difference is, the Creator inspired this information, making Himself known to anyone who cares to look. Why don't you ask the question the Bible was written to explain, who is Jesus? Why am I here? What is expected of me? What does it mean to be human? Where did we come from? Where am I going when I die? Dude, would I pick up a book written by the high priest Krauss, a universe from nothing, and say HEY HE DOESN'T Talk about what happened in the Revolutionary War! HE'S an IDIOT! Of course not. I argue based on his stupid assertions. The universe came out of nothing.
      So, the Bible asserts you have a creator who see's everything you do and has a plan for your life. Why are you running from Him again?

      Delete
    6. Twt, here is a perfect example from today's reading. NLT Psalm 11:4 The Lord is in his holy Temple; the Lord still rules from heaven. He watches everyone closely, examining every person on earth.

      You see, from this we can know a few details about God. For me, I understand the basics but others with more wisdom see deeper aspects of the meaning of those words.

      Delete
    7. Marcus,
      the Lord still rules from heaven. He watches everyone closely, examining every person on earth.


      Sounds like The NSA

      Delete
    8. velikovskys June 18, 2013 at 11:58 AM

      Marcus,
      the Lord still rules from heaven. He watches everyone closely, examining every person on earth.

      Sounds like The NSA


      ... without the oversight.

      Delete
    9. "The way I see it, an author is only going to convey details he wants you know. Your questions about Cains wife are certainly rational"

      Why would you encourage the nit? What part of demanding to know Cain's wife weight and height is a rational question? I appreciate you are being kind but theres no reason to lie to the young lad. Asking for all of that is a function of an irrational mind

      "Why is that so hard to figure out? There is only one credible explanation. Eve is said to be the mother of all the living. So Cain's wife had to have been his sister."

      No she need not have been. she could have been supplied By God in the same way Eve is said to have been to Adam and having been cloned from Cain as eve was from adam still be genetically descended from Eve.

      Secondly the expression mother of all living at the time was most likely looking forward since Cain and abel were not yet born. so regardless of who the wives were hundreds of years later she would still be the mother of all living through her sons if even not through their wives.

      Bottom line though The kid is a troll that should be ignored not fed. The issue is small and insignificant filled with several possible answers and no matter how you answer it he has no intention of listening to your explanations no matter how they are laid out.

      He will merely criticize you for your "fairy tales" while he himself will continue to bow down and give worship to the Blue Fairy of everything coming out of nothing by chance.

      As I told the kid before I could no longer bother reading his posts anymore - His fairy tales are oh so more impressive than the Bible's.

      Virgin births, Cain's wife, parting seas even resurrections from the dead are no match for everything ultimately popping out of nothing.
      With a virgin birth you start out with a human to clone, resurrections you have dead bodies, parting seas you have wind and seas already existing.

      but with the blue fairy of everything out of nothing you have well.... nothing and you get everything.

      No greater fairy tale will ever be told than the one he believes in.

      Delete
    10. "Sounds like The NSA"

      Relax Vel and Sped

      Though the NSA monitors Internet they will not prosecute you for your many cases of intellectual dishonesty. Let not your hearts be troubled ;)

      Delete
    11. "Sounds like The NSA"

      Yeah, or a peeping Tom.

      Hey marcus, does 'God' watch everyone poop?

      Delete
    12. Elijah,
      Though the NSA monitors Internet they will not prosecute you for your many cases of intellectual dishonesty. Let not your hearts be troubled ;)


      Hope they are as lenient with you, compadre.

      Delete
    13. They have no need Vel and we both know it

      Delete
    14. Really? Perhaps you can give your precise definition of intellectual dishonesty so I can see if I know it.;)

      Delete
    15. Vel:"Sounds like The NSA"
      That gave me a laugh. Thank you.

      Delete
    16. Elijah:"I appreciate you are being kind but theres no reason to lie to the young lad."

      Thank you Elijah, I did not think I was lying to the little guy. I had many questions like that before I became a Christian too. I think the Holy Spirit is working on the little guys heart.

      Delete
    17. Elijah:"No greater fairy tale will ever be told than the one he believes in."

      As Emile Cammaerts noted, (quote mine but accurate)
      "The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything."

      Delete
    18. "I think the Holy Spirit is working on the little guys heart."

      Kudos Marcus...you get the A grade for optimism but I am going to bet that among your questions was not the height and weight of Cain's wife

      Delete
    19. "Really? Perhaps you can give your precise definition of intellectual dishonesty so I can see if I know it.;)"

      NO need to look again. Its been pointed out specifically before and you didn't know then nor want to now.

      Delete
    20. Elijah,
      You are right, I never thought about Cain's wife that way. I did wonder how God could make us though. I was only limited because I was creating god in my own image, that is, projecting my infinitesimal base of knowledge onto Him thereby limiting His power. I see evolution in this same manner. Humankind has certainly gained tremendous knowledge, but compared to the knowledge contained within the Universe, we have a long way to go. (understatement of the year) :)

      Delete
    21. elijah said:

      "...but I am going to bet that among your questions was not the height and weight of Cain's wife"

      But why don't you ask that, and a lot more? After all, you not only ask for, but demand answers from evolutionary scientists. You godbots expect evolutionary scientists to find and prove every nitpicking detail about everything that has ever occurred on Earth and throughout the universe RIGHT NOW, otherwise scientists don't have a credible evolutionary theory and your imaginary sky daddy is a sure thing.

      So let's see the amount of detail about your chosen religious fairy tales that you demand from science.

      Delete
    22. Scott
      Furthermore, if they are significantly more advanced, they would be more advanced morally than we are as well.


      Morality advances with technology? Care to provide the reasoning?

      Delete
    23. Elijah,
      NO need to look again. Its been pointed out specifically before and you didn't know then nor want to now.


      It would be helpful to have your abstract definition. Maybe by the reverse, is there anyone who disagrees with you intellectually honest?

      Delete
    24. Marcus,
      The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything


      Actual quote
      "When men chose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing. They then become capable of believing in anything.”

      Quite a bit different.

      Delete
    25. Vel:
      Actual quote
      "When men chose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing. They then become capable of believing in anything.”
      "Quite a bit different."

      According to my Google search that is the GK Chesterson version. I heard this quote the first time from an evangelical lecturer Ravi Zacharias. Perhaps you may have listened to one of his lectures? This one's my favorite. http://vimeo.com/10400700

      He's a gifted teacher.

      Delete
    26. marcus,
      According to my Google search that is the GK Chesterson version


      Apologies, yours is the correct phrasing. Cammaert was paraphrasing Chesterson.

      There seems to be no actual source for the Chesterson version of the quote . Again sorry for the incorrect correction.

      Delete
    27. velikovskys: Morality advances with technology? Care to provide the reasoning?

      Advances in technology occur when our knowledge of how the physical world works grows. So does moral knowledge. Both fall under our best, current explanation for the universal growth of knowledge.

      Moral knowledge is information that tends to remain when embodied in a medium. This includes books and human brains. This too falls under our unified definition of knowledge.

      We make progress in technology when we criticize ideas about how the world works. We also make progress in moral knowledge through criticism about how the world works, which includes ideas about how our actions effect conscious beings.

      The idea that I would be tortured eternally for not believing that God exists is itself an idea about how actions, or lack there of, effect myself and others. It's a claim about how the world supposedly works.

      Delete
    28. Scott,
      So does moral knowledge. Both fall under our best, current explanation for the universal growth of knowledge


      That would seem to imply that there is an absolute moral code. That immorality is based on imperfect knowledge. I am not sure that is the case.

      The idea that I would be tortured eternally for not believing that God exists is itself an idea about how actions, or lack there of, effect myself and others. It's a claim about how the world supposedly works.

      I still don't see the link to technology, tools. Pre ww2 Germans were the highest technologists of their time, and as a society one the most immoral.

      Delete
    29. No worries Vel.

      Have you seen this video of the medium sized solar flare? I wonder where the material is coming from that seems to appear above the arc and move toward the surface of the sun? Stunning! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMSdOZxNHWk

      Delete
    30. velikovskys: That would seem to imply that there is an absolute moral code. That immorality is based on imperfect knowledge. I am not sure that is the case.

      It's absolute, but in the sense that reality is specific state of affairs at this very moment. Our knowledge is an incomplete representation of that reality that contains errors. However, reality isn't static as human beings are not static. So it's not absolute in the sense that it never changes.

      To elaborate, we cannot predict the effect of the growth of knowledge. It's a different kind of unknowability. As such, it's unclear how we could have an absolute morality in the sense that it never changes.

      velikovskys: I still don't see the link to technology, tools. Pre ww2 Germans were the highest technologists of their time, and as a society one the most immoral.

      Germany's society was hijacked by a Fascist leader. This is analogous to an alien stealing technology to reach earth.

      Fascism is yet another form of authoritative form or rule, which is includes antiliberalism and mythological aspects. Hitler thought he was chosen by a higher power. He used violence, rather than rational criticism to bring about his authoritative rule.

      Furthermore, we have an explanatory theory about how knowledge universally grows, which is unified to include moral knowledge. Moral knowledge grows through conjecture and criticism, just like all other knowledge. So, I'm not using induction to predict that aliens would be morally more advanced that us, but an explanatory theory that all knowledge, including moral knowledge grows in the same way.

      Epistemology is itself a theory of what knowledge is, how it grows, etc. As such, it too would fall under the universal growth of knowledge. It too has and will continue to improve via conjecture and criticism. Part of that progress includes discarding the pre-enlightenment conception that knowledge in specific spheres comes to us from authoritative sources.

      Does this mean we will not make mistakes? No, but we will eventually correct them unless we decide to stop looking for ways to find and discard errors. The key point is that we make progress by discarding errors. This is how we explain the relatively recent and exponential growth of human knowledge.

      Sci-fi shows portray aliens in a highly simplistic way because they merely depict them as confused about how knowledge grows as many people are today, but with vastly improved technology.

      This is similar to the highly simplistic view of God being just like us, but infinitely greater.

      Delete
    31. Scott:" It's absolute, but in the sense that reality is specific state of affairs at this very moment. Our knowledge is an incomplete representation of that reality that contains errors. However, reality isn't static as human beings are not static. So it's not absolute in the sense that it never changes."

      I see, so morality is based upon our knowledge and subject to change, individually as each person gains or forgets knowledge. Is that correct?

      Delete
    32. See this video on optimism, which includes the implications of aliens that are more technologically advanced.

      Delete
    33. Marcus: I see, so morality is based upon our knowledge and subject to change, individually as each person gains or forgets knowledge. Is that correct?

      Moral knowledge is based on explanations about how the world works. They are based on fallible representations of the current state of reality.

      Knowledge, including moral knowledge, is information that tends to remain when embodied in a medium like books, brains, computers, etc. It is independent of any one person. So, while some people know less that others, this does not mean that knowledge is relative, as you're suggesting.

      Delete
  6. Marcus June 18, 2013 at 7:34 AM

    [...]

    So, the Bible asserts you have a creator who see's everything you do and has a plan for your life. Why are you running from Him again?


    Suppose I am an alien just arrived on Earth knowing nothing about this planet's religions. How would you persuade me:

    a) that your faith has any basis in reality

    and

    b) that your faith is preferable to all the others on the planet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Suppose I am an alien just arrived on Earth knowing nothing about this planet's religions. How would you persuade me:"

      One could have so much fun with that as phrased ;) but let me take the personal identification out of it and respond based on an alien but not you

      A) if presumed advanced I most likely would not need to and if you claim otherwise I would merely point out that you are merely putting your own premise into the alien's mind.

      B) I would present the evidence of fulfilled prophecy, the certainty of an uncaused cause supernatural entity and the vast evidence of design. You would then have to convince him/her that darwinism buries that evidence and convince him by evidence you do not even possess that abiogenesis took place not once just in our world but in his too. Good luck.

      Delete
    2. Um, in (B) you're not merely putting your own premise in the Alien's head?

      And I'm supposedly hypocritical?

      Delete
    3. Scott: "Um, in (B) you're not merely putting your own premise in the Alien's head?

      And I'm supposedly hypocritical?"

      If we search the scriptures, on page one, First sentence...Genesis chapter 1 verse 1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Written thousands of years ago. This should cover all known and unknown dimensions.
      Fast forward many years, to when the book of John was written. John chapter 1 verse 3: ALL things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

      Scott, is there such a thing as truth?

      Delete
    4. "Um, in (B) you're not merely putting your own premise in the Alien's head?

      And I'm supposedly hypocritical?"

      Its A - get your letters right or there is no hope. and no I am not hypocritical because I never proposed the scenario YOU did. Frankly I would not have proposed it because either side using a scenario like that would be implying that the alien would need convincing and not come with its own ideas since it would still share the same universe

      In short its just a circular premise built into the scenario

      Delete
    5. In (A), you said claiming the alien needed to be convinced of your premise would be "merely putting [his] own premise in the Alien's head"

      if presumed advanced I most likely would not need to and if you claim otherwise I would merely point out that you are merely putting your own premise into the alien's mind.

      ... but turned around and put your own premise in the alien's head in (B), when you claim it would need to be convinced of evolutionary theory.

      You would then have to convince him/her that darwinism buries that evidence and convince him by evidence you do not even possess that abiogenesis took place not once just in our world but in his too.

      Why can't I simply "point out that you are merely putting your own premise" that it would need to be convinced of evolutionary theory "into the alien's mind."?

      How is this not hypocritical?




      Delete
    6. Elijah: A) if presumed advanced I most likely would not need to and if you claim otherwise I would merely point out that you are merely putting your own premise into the alien's mind.

      I think you misunderstood Ian. He said an alien that is more advanced than we are - not an alien with a pre-enlightenment, authoritative conception of the growth of knowledge.

      Any alien civilization that can reach visit us from a distant galaxy would be more advanced that we are. This would include being even further advanced than we currently are regarding an explanation for the growth of knowledge. IOW, they would have made even more progress on the subject that we have.

      Furthermore, if they are significantly more advanced, they would be more advanced morally than we are as well.

      The exception to this would be they did not genuinely create the knowledge behind the technology themselves, but stumbled upon it, stole it, etc.

      This sort of progress is reflected in the growth of human knowledge. These aliens would have made the leap to universal explainers, just as humans have. As such, they would fall under the category of people, just as we do.

      Popper's explanation was improved upon by Misses, Bartley, etc., which was improved upon by Deutsch, etc. And we will continue to improve upon it in the future. So will a more advanced alien civilization.

      As such, this alien would reject (B) because it will conflict with an even improved version of our current, best explanation for the growth of knowledge.

      To suggest otherwise is to deny that we have or can make progress in the field of epistemology. Of course, that is essentially what ID proponents are doing as their objections hinge on assuming no significant progress has been made.

      Delete
    7. Scott: "To suggest otherwise is to deny that we have or can make progress in the field of epistemology. Of course, that is essentially what ID proponents are doing as their objections hinge on assuming no significant progress has been made."

      Is this a statement of TRUTH? Will it EVER be not true?

      Delete
    8. Elijah2012 June 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM

      [...]

      A) if presumed advanced I most likely would not need to and if you claim otherwise I would merely point out that you are merely putting your own premise into the alien's mind.


      What premise?

      All I proposed was that we assume, just for the sake of argument, that the alien knew nothing about Earth religions. He, she or it might be atheist, agnostic or a believer in some faith from the home-world. It doesn't matter. The question is how would you make the best case for your faith, bearing in mind that members of the world's nineteen other major religions will be doing the same.

      B) I would present the evidence of fulfilled prophecy, the certainty of an uncaused cause supernatural entity and the vast evidence of design. You would then have to convince him/her that darwinism buries that evidence and convince him by evidence you do not even possess that abiogenesis took place not once just in our world but in his too. Good luck.

      You misunderstand.

      If I met such an alien, I would not try to convert it to "Darwinism", "evolutionism" or any other kind of "ism".

      If it was interested, I would try to explain the current state of scientific understanding about life on Earth and its origins.

      I would explain that we have a pretty good working theory about how life has changed and diversified over time, but that it's still a work-in-progress being modified as new data is gathered.

      I would also say that we assume that, in the absence of any evidence of extraterrestrial intervention in the early Earth, life must have emerged from inanimate matter by some natural process. There is ongoing research into the possibility but, so far, we haven't made much headway on how.

      I would point it to the evidence and explanations and let it make up its own mind.

      Delete
    9. Ian

      Aliens would tell us: "We created you, silly to watch you. You are our main planet for War channel."

      :)

      Delete
    10. Scott you are like a mental one trick pony. Same thing over and over and over again. No progress in your thinking just the same

      "To suggest otherwise is to deny that we have or can make progress in the field of epistemology."

      You practically copy and paste in every post. Its like a dog with a favorite bone thats skips meat for his love of the bone.

      You latched on to a philosophy and it now defines your entire thinking like a zombie.

      No all aliens might bot be advanced into us. This is a science fiction myth. Second the Alien may well b so advanced that he needs no convincing. He is already convinced which is my point. As usual your whole blathering on makes no point

      and please learn to read. You are lying Ian said nothing about advanced in his original question.

      Delete
    11. "What premise?"

      the premise he would need persuasion. is it this hard fo r atheists to think?


      "All I proposed was that we assume, just for the sake of argument, that the alien knew nothing about Earth religions"

      and why should we presume that? Again your premise cicularly wrapped into your question is that religion being all man made would be oblivious to an alien.

      If we assume the opposite then the Alien will come with a sense of who God is and religion or even a particular religion would be known to him because the same God is known to him having created the same universe. If his race has free will then he too could tell you of religions people made up but he too may know the one true one

      You can argue against it but it makes pretty clear the biased premise built in the question. If you can't see that you are hopeless.

      "I would point it to the evidence and explanations and let it make up its own mind."

      then may I suggest that you stop being so obviously and blatantly intellectually dishonest. You may claim you would not try to convert the alien but the question you asked of theists was

      "How would you persuade me:

      a) that your faith has any basis in reality"

      If your claim is that "persuade" is some vast difference than "convert" then all can see (though not necessarily admit) that you are just playing semantic games

      Delete
    12. "I would also say that we assume that, in the absence of any evidence of extraterrestrial intervention in the early Earth, life must have emerged from inanimate matter by some natural process"

      and the alien never having heard of such a "must" would ask you why and you would stutter and bumble your way through the huge holes in abiogenesis that you always do.

      The whole alien thing by the way is just utterly silly. when we encounter one it will be legitimate until then its just creates a caricature you can pour your own bias and faulty assumptions into.

      Delete
    13. "Why can't I simply "point out that you are merely putting your own premise" that it would need to be convinced of evolutionary theory "into the alien's mind."?

      How is this not hypocritical?"

      because I am pointing out an alternative to the proposition to illuminate that the question is biased. I did not propose the scenario. Sheesh do you ever think things through? ever?. showing the alternate to a biased hypocritical premise can never and will never be hypocritical no how much you beg for it. Its a rebut to bias. If I rebut a biased premise with an alternative that demonstrates the bias then like always - you have no point.



      Delete
    14. Elijah, John 12:32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”

      This verse shows salvation is for people on earth not aliens from elsewhere in the universe. I suspect they would not need to be evangelized anyway.

      Delete
    15. Scott: "To suggest otherwise is to deny that we have or can make progress in the field of epistemology. Of course, that is essentially what ID proponents are doing as their objections hinge on assuming no significant progress has been made."

      Marcus: Is this a statement of TRUTH? Will it EVER be not true?

      Do we know that some foods are more heathy for human beings than poison? Is this not objective progress? This is contrast with a positive claim that any one food is the most healthy among all others.

      Furthermore, some people have acquired mutations that prevent them from digesting dairy, etc. So, any such progress is objective in relation to people, who are not static. As such, there will be times in which the status of milk, or other kinds of foods, varies based on changes in human beings.

      In the same sense, Critical Rationalism is not about fixing on a position. Rather, it's an attitude regarding how ideas should be adopted, criticized and relinquished. CR is itself just one such idea. I'm not claiming it is exhaustive or does not contain errors. Rather, it is genuine progress in the field of epistemology.

      So, you're trying to compare apples with oranges.

      Delete
    16. "This verse shows salvation is for people on earth not aliens from elsewhere in the universe. I suspect they would not need to be evangelized anyway."

      perhaps but as long as they would have free will theres no reason to think they wouldn't.

      Delete
    17. Scott: To suggest otherwise is to deny that we have or can make progress in the field of epistemology.

      Elijah: You practically copy and paste in every post. Its like a dog with a favorite bone thats skips meat for his love of the bone.

      Which is yet another empty criticism.

      It's relevant because ID proponents here keep making statements that ignore or deny that we've made progress regarding the growth of human knowledge. For example, the entry on Wikipedia...

      A monarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty is actually or nominally embodied in a single individual (the monarch)

      [...]

      Monarchy was the most common form of government into the 19th century, but it is no longer prevalent, at least at the national level. Where it exists, it now often takes the form of constitutional monarchy, in which the monarch retains a unique legal and ceremonial role, but exercises limited or no political power pursuant to a constitution or tradition which allocates governing authority elsewhere.

      While you might not realize it, this represents progress in the field of epistemology. Yet many people retain God as a heavenly ruler, which is also a form of monarchy.

      Contrary to what Jeff suggested, we do conjecture the existence of previously unknown things as explanations for phenomena. Atoms are just one example. No one had perviously seen atom, let alone see it do anything. Nor will we without the use of equipment, which we think give us accurate results based on other ideas about how the world works, etc.

      These are both examples of progress that have been ignored or denied. Arguments this are parochial, because they are narrow in scope.

      Elijah: No all aliens might bot be advanced into us. This is a science fiction myth.

      The alien had just arrived on earth. How did it get here if it wasn't more advanced than we are? We can't travel to other solar systems. This alien just did.

      Again, the exception to this would be that's is culture did not genuinely create the knowledge behind the technology itself. This would include the alien being transported by a technology that some other alien species created, etc.

      So, you're ignoring aspects of the scenario and my response, which I already addressed. Including these aspects is a key part of how we make progress via criticism.

      Delete
    18. Scott: Contrary to what Jeff suggested, we do conjecture the existence of previously unknown things as explanations for phenomena.

      Jeff: Where have I said otherwise? Foundational beliefs like "events are caused," etc don't tell me what kinds of THINGS there are, or what kind of PROPERTIES they have, or what specfic events have occurred or will occur.

      Delete
    19. "These are both examples of progress that have been ignored or denied."

      Just the same jibber jabber. You are just so deep in your silliness you don't even realize how foolish your argument is. Such a silly silly argument

      Human beings no longer use monarchies so it rules out God as being an ultimate authority or else progress is being ignored. I mean really

      Your arguments are just so foolish theres no need to even respond further to them.

      Delete
    20. Says a jibber-jabbering god zombie whose beliefs are totally silly.

      Delete
    21. Jeff wrote in another thread: And yes, if you come up with a naturalistic explanation for UCA that extrapolates known natural causes of biological variation from the precambrian to the present , you have trumped the design inference by PARSIMONY.

      This suggests that parsimony is, at a minimum, diminished when an explanation is previously unknown when comparing it to a known explanation, even if it explains more phenomena.

      But this simply does not reflect how science works.

      Delete
    22. Elijah2012: Human beings no longer use monarchies so it rules out God as being an ultimate authority or else progress is being ignored. I mean really

      Apparently, that went completely over your head. I'd take the time to explain it to you, but it's become clear that your bound and determined to remain ignorant.

      Delete
    23. No it went below my feet

      That is always your bail out . You say something stupid and then claim its deep and brilliant and the other person just can''t see it.

      Monarchies have no place whatsoever and make absolutely zero point in a discussion about ID. Even as an analogy its horrible. No one denies democracies are superior than monarchies due to the frailty of human being. Just the usual jibber jabber

      Delete
    24. "Says a jibber-jabbering god zombie whose beliefs are totally silly."

      All hail the blue fairy everything out nothing God you worship. Say it three times and click your heels and a quantum tunnel may take you to Kansas. Say hi to your archbishop Krauss for me when you get there ;)

      Delete
    25. Elijah: Monarchies have no place whatsoever...

      Yet they were prevalent in the 19th century, which is precisely my point. Is this not progress? If not, what is it?

      Elijah: ... and make absolutely zero point in a discussion about ID.

      I've already explained how they are relevant. The designer in ID would be a source of knowledge in the same sense that kings where thought to be an authoritative source for the knowledge of how a kingdom should be ruled.

      The term "Laws of nature" have their origin in decrees of law handed out by kings and a common argument made by theists is "how could there be any laws if there were no law giver?", etc.

      Of course, if an authoritative source of knowledge really has nothing to do with ID, then the biosphere could have been just an experiment by a tinkering, fallible designer. As such, aspects of the biosphere could have been accidental, unintentional, based on compromise, etc.

      You'd have no problem with this, right?

      Delete
    26. Scott: Jeff wrote in another thread: And yes, if you come up with a naturalistic explanation for UCA that extrapolates known natural causes of biological variation from the precambrian to the present , you have trumped the design inference by PARSIMONY.

      This suggests that parsimony is, at a minimum, diminished when an explanation is previously unknown when comparing it to a known explanation, even if it explains more phenomena.

      But this simply does not reflect how science works.

      Jeff: Scott, I've never heard one biologist explain "progress" the way you do. They talk of "overwhelming evidence" for naturalistic UCA, etc. If they publicly avowed what you claim--that no ideas are knowably more or less plausible than any other--do you honestly think they'd be using phrases like "best explanation" or "overwhelming evidence?" Those phrases have no meaning per your approach. Per your approach, no theory gives me a CLUE how to BEST adjudicate ANYTHING.

      Delete
    27. Indeed, Scott, by your view, corroboration has no meaning. What is "corroboration" if no view/theory/idea/belief is knowably more or less plausible/warranted than any other? Your view destroys distinctions people make every single day.

      Delete
    28. Scott: This suggests that parsimony is, at a minimum, diminished when an explanation is previously unknown when comparing it to a known explanation, even if it explains more phenomena.

      Jeff: Scott, if no explanation is "known," then, by definition, there's no explanation TO explain phenomena. What you just said is sheer non-sense, logically.

      Delete
    29. Scott, the sense in which theism renders even UCA easier to conceive of as logically possible is this:

      When we explain naturalistically, we either can or can't extrapolate the explanation far into the future of some initial conditions, or we can't. In the case of evolutionary theory, we CAN'T! Thus, libertarian intervention HELPS explain the specificity of trajectories where theory (applied to initial conditions) fails to imply the trajectories.

      But no one has articulated a specific hypothetico-deductive explanation of either case. In fact, both would be so mind-bogglingly ad-hoc, they would be basically worthless.

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

      Delete
    31. Another more robust way to render inductive theories logically possible theistically is to posit what the Eastern Orthodox etal call creatio continua. By that view, the final, libertarian cause of the universe merely instantiated the initial conditions of the universe. All other "naturally-caused" events are divinely-caused, but NATURALLY caused. This way, we can always render a view logically possible, while atheistically, you never know if any view is logically possible, just as you admit. But most people prefer to believe that there's stuff "out there" with causal properties of their own.

      But as for psychological "regularities" (like instinct, association/habit, etc), no one has explained those for humans, even. We can only say that any "regularity" indicates natural causality. Otherwise, we have no warrant to make predictions from their apparent past occurrence.

      Delete
    32. The above is why people talk of a teleological designer being the default explanation until we can come up with hypothetico-deductive explanations that don't posit libertarian (of which teleological causality consists, in part) causality. But such natural explanation must explain, not merely correlate mathematically or conceptually (by some scheme). Otherwise, you haven't ruled out teleology and, therefore, libertarian causality.

      I think, though, that the traditional creatio continua view posits continual divine maintaining of existence, not merely NATURAL effects. I'm using it to mean the merely the latter.

      Regardless, no one has explained how anything but benevolent/competent theism can render any relative plausibility criteria logically possible. Scott, your view denies the very existence of a relative plausibility criteria. And that's why it doesn't render progress conceivable/intelligible. It doesn't, for example, give me any reason to believe that any apparent memories are actual memories.

      Delete
    33. "You'd have no problem with this, right?"

      sure I do. The main one being that you have just jabbered some more making not a solitary point

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

    ReplyDelete
  8. elijah preached:

    "I would present the evidence of fulfilled prophecy, the certainty of an uncaused cause supernatural entity and the vast evidence of design."

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    deep breath

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    DEEP BREATH

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    DEEEEP BREATH FROM OXYGEN TANK

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    I think I broke a rib. Oh well, I can just donate it to 'God' so that 'he' can use it to create a rib-woman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and the kid wondered how I figured out he was one ;)

      Delete
    2. Ian:"Suppose I am an alien just arrived on Earth knowing nothing about this planet's religions. How would you persuade me:"


      I bet if there were aliens and they desired to communicate with us, they would either be sent by God or fallen angels. Fallen angels would try to convince me Jesus is not God. If they were sent by God, they would affirm Jesus is God. I would not have to prove anything to them.

      Who do you say that Jesus is?

      Delete
    3. Marcus, I suspect Velikovsky is a fallen angel.

      Delete
    4. Eugen, I think he's modern day liberal. :)

      Delete
    5. "Eugen, I think he's modern day liberal. :)"

      same thing ;)

      Delete
    6. Marcus June 19, 2013 at 7:15 AM

      [...]

      I bet if there were aliens and they desired to communicate with us, they would either be sent by God or fallen angels. Fallen angels would try to convince me Jesus is not God. If they were sent by God, they would affirm Jesus is God. I would not have to prove anything to them.


      It's certainly possible that aliens could arrive on Earth holding the same beliefs as you.

      On the other hand, there are around twenty major religions in the world and many lesser faiths, not counting all those that are now extinct. Given that and the chances that visiting aliens will be more advanced than us, it's also possible they developed different faiths or even discarded them altogether.

      Who do you say that Jesus is?

      I think the evidence that Jesus existed at all is flimsy but I have no problem with the possibility that he was an itinerant preacher who traveled around first-century Galilee and Judea. Was he the son of God? Personally, I don't think so.

      Delete

    7. Marcus, I suspect Velikovsky is a fallen angel.


      One would need to be an angel in the first place. Just think the anthropomorphic view of God is erroneous. If our human mind cannot comprehend to finite size of the universe, it is unlikely that we can accurately comprehend the infinite, in my opinion.

      Delete
    8. Marcus
      Eugen, I think he's modern day liberal. :)


      A blue speck in a sea of red, so true. Alas not as modern as I once was.Vintage is about right.

      Delete
    9. "On the other hand, there are around twenty major religions in the world and many lesser faiths, not counting all those that are now extinct. Given that and the chances that visiting aliens will be more advanced than us, it's also possible they developed different faiths or even discarded them altogether."

      As long as any race of being has free will they both can and will at some point make up alternatives to the truth. That makes no claim against the existence of the truth. the quantity of religion argument which is part of your argument is like saying history can not be known because fictions have been based on them. An alien would therefore most likely have various religions from his own planet but there is nothing to say he would have discarded all of them or that one being a universal truth he would not recognize and hold to.

      However once again the whole advanced alien argument is silly. its nothing more than a prop for you to claim that an alleged at this point imaginary being would find your position more reasonable and as such the alien stands for nothing more than your own position.

      Delete
    10. "I think he's modern day liberal. :)


      A blue speck in a sea of red, so true. Alas not as modern as I once was.Vintage is about right."


      I like liberals and conservative politicians all the same - they are both lying crooks.

      Delete
    11. Eugen,
      I like liberals and conservative politicians all the same - they are both lying crooks


      Perhaps we should be like the Spartans, each politician on leaving office stands trial.

      Delete
    12. whole truth,

      "DEEEEP BREATH FROM OXYGEN TANK

      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

      Maybe a mature response would garner more respect.

      Delete
    13. Explain why childish, ridiculous, monstrous, impossible, religious fairy tale beliefs deserve a "mature response", especially when you godbots who believe in that crap are cramming or trying to cram it down everyone's throat, and ruin science and education.

      Instead of just hypnotizing yourself with some delusional notion of 'special creation' by a loving, merciful, all powerful sky daddy, why don't you really look at what's actually in the bible?

      Why do you need a hashed together mess of old, absurd fairy tales to tell you how and what to think? Is letting yourself be controlled by long dead, ignorant, fearful, deluded, barbaric authoritarians a good indicator of how 'special' and 'exceptional' you are?

      Delete
    14. Twt: You seem to be full of questions. This may help you. http://www.prageruniversity.com/Religion-Philosophy/God-or-Atheism--Which-Is-More-Rational.html

      Delete
    15. whole truth,

      "Explain why childish, ridiculous, monstrous, impossible, religious fairy tale beliefs deserve a "mature response",..."

      Well, that's what mature people do. You're entitled to your opinion regards the Bible, but your opinion is not shared by everyone. Nor is your opinion rejected only by those who believe the Bible to be true. Many non-believing scholars hold the Bible in very high esteem not only has a book of history, but also as a beautiful work of literature. So, for those reasons alone you should treat it and those who believe and respect it with an attitude of maturity.

      "especially when you godbots who believe in that crap are cramming or trying to cram it down everyone's throat, and ruin science and education."

      As for cramming it down someone's throat, the only one I see trying to cram his opinion down people's throats is you. You're the one with the nasty chip on his shoulder, calling people 'godbots' and any other number of insults you can come up with.
      Hypocrisy is not a flattering personality trait.

      And exactly how are the Bible and Christians ruining science and education. If you had a least a little objectivity in your outlook, you would see it's evolutionary thinking which hinders science more than any other philosophy.

      "Why do you need a hashed together mess of old, absurd fairy tales to tell you how and what to think? Is letting yourself be controlled by long dead, ignorant, fearful, deluded, barbaric authoritarians a good indicator of how 'special' and 'exceptional' you are?"

      None of what you claim in this paragraph is even remotely close to the truth. Al it demonstrates is that you possess an inordinate degree of hostility and hate. I really think you have serious issues you need to deal with. Your attitude is very worrisome, you need help.

      Delete
    16. Nic, the little fella needs Jesus.

      Can I getta AAAmen!?

      Delete
    17. Marcus,

      "Nic, the little fella needs Jesus."

      We all do.

      Delete
    18. nic and marcus, you're a barrel of laughs.

      Delete
    19. "Marcus,

      "Nic, the little fella needs Jesus"

      ..or he needs "rerationship with Jedus", like our Vietnamese priest says.
      :)

      Delete
    20. Nic:"None of what you claim in this paragraph is even remotely close to the truth. Al it demonstrates is that you possess an inordinate degree of hostility and hate. I really think you have serious issues you need to deal with. Your attitude is very worrisome, you need help."

      Nic why do you expect Twt to argue at a rational level? Twt believes he is a summation of random events which occurred over billions of years. Why should the fractal relationship end when he is putting word to thought? He clearly needs the loving Savior Jesus. Please keep the little guy in your prayers.

      Delete
  9. That eel could have sprouted wings. The religious paradigm of Natural Selection Dunnit encompasses everything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lifepsy, the great thing about evolution, you get to make up your story as you go. When you are surprised that your hypothesis is wrong, you just fold the new data into the paradigm. If you're prolific enough, you get to make the rules. Take for example the video of Venter and Dawkins. Dawkins sets the standard, mutation,natural selection, everything from one DNA, there is a tree, etc etc. Venter says the tree is nonexistent, it's more like a bush. He immediately gets called on the carpet. Venter and his team have only synthesized the first synthetic bacteria. He should know something about DNA. He is on the way up but Dawkins isn't ready to be dethroned. Same for Krauss. He gets to redefine what nothing means. These guys think they have a lock on the truth. Thankfully, Cornelius is showing the fallacies on his blog.

      Delete
  10. Elijah, when Scott says things 'progress', the word seems arbitrary if you have no beginning. Can you help me understand why he would say things progress at the elementary level? Why wouldn't 'progress' be the definition no matter where we are in history. If we were to plot 'progress' on a chart would it always be pointing in the increasing direction? Anyway, it just seems arbitrary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We can measure progress of a sort in terms of things we now know that we didn't know before.

      For example, without the understanding of how electricity and magnetism are related distilled by scientists like James Clerk Maxwell much of the modern electronics we take for granted would not exist.

      Without our knowledge of the human brain we might still think epileptic fits were a sign of demonic possession rather than an 'electrical storm' amongst the neurons.

      Think how many illnesses we would not understand, let alone be able to treat, if we knew nothing of bacteria or viruses. It's hard to unlearn what we have already learnt but I sometimes try to imagine what it must have been like for people in the Middle Ages watching helplessly as family and friends were cut down in huge numbers by the Black Death and having absolutely no idea what was causing it.

      We still have a lot to learn but that doesn't mean we can't be pleased with the progress we have made.

      Delete
    2. Marcus,

      I realize it might seem arbitrary from your current perspective, but it is possible to change your perspective if you're genuinely interested in doing so.

      To start, would you agree that we have made progress in our ability to solve problems?

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

      Delete
    4. Scott, Am trying to decipher what is at the root of your argument. I want to understand because I want to improve my apologetic. I want to understand why you put faith in your ideas. What is your idea in a nutshell?

      To answer your question, the term 'made progress' is only meaningful in a context that we both agree upon. So, we haven't made much progress in the problem of evil. We still end up using the old way, brute force to stop it, of course this assumes there is a better way than brute force. On the other hand, the infant mortality rate from the 18th century to now, we have made progress in its reduction. This assumes we actually want our babies to survive. A case could be made that not everyone agrees with that. Just look at the abortion rate, it has made progress in accelerating. So, some problems we have made progress but others we have not. I have not made a survey of all the problems we have and compared them to prior problems.
      Jesus made a statement and it has been preserved in the Bible, and it's true to this day. Matt: 26:11 You will always have the poor but you will not always have me. It was stated in Deuteronomy 15:11 There will always be some in the land that are poor. Therefore I command you, .You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land. This true statement too.
      How do you derive your ethical standard?

      Delete
    5. Marcus: I want to understand because I want to improve my apologetic.

      So, you know how to better defend Christianity against the argument I'm presenting?

      Marcus: To answer your question, the term 'made progress' is only meaningful in a context that we both agree upon.

      Then perhaps I need to take a step back. Do we have problems?

      Delete
    6. Marcus: So, we haven't made much progress in the problem of evil. We still end up using the old way, brute force to stop it, of course this assumes there is a better way than brute force.

      But we have made some progress?

      Marcus: On the other hand, the infant mortality rate from the 18th century to now, we have made progress in its reduction. This assumes we actually want our babies to survive.

      It's only a problem if we want babies to survive? Is a math problem only a problem if we want to calculate something?

      A problem isn't a problem in the absence of wanting to solve it. While all organisms have problems from our perspective, not all conceive of them as problems like we do. Specifically, problems include how to perform specific kinds of transformations. They also include the question of if they are even possible or if prohibited by the laws of physics.

      I can conceive of traveling though space faster than the speed of light but, AFAWK, this is prohibited by the laws of physics. The idea that such a transformation is not possible is itself progress about specific kind of transformation.

      Our ability to turn raw materials into other materials, which we can then transform in to particular configurations, such as automobiles, airplanes, vaccines, computers, etc., represents yet another set of transformations which we've made progress.

      So we can look at the entire space of conceivable transformations as a vast set of problems in which we can make progress. This includes the problem of whether specific kinds of transformations are prohibited by the laws of physics and those that are not.

      When we make progress in these areas, this represents ideas about how the world works, which we may or may not be applicable to transformations that align with our preferences. In fact, some transformations do not align with our preferences and making progress can result in knowledge that can prevent them from occurring at all.

      Can we agree on this?

      Delete
    7. Scott:"Our ability to turn raw materials into other materials, which we can then transform in to particular configurations, such as automobiles, airplanes, vaccines, computers, etc., represents yet another set of transformations which we've made progress."

      M:I agree with this.

      Scott:"So we can look at the entire space of conceivable transformations as a vast set of problems in which we can make progress. This includes the problem of whether specific kinds of transformations are prohibited by the laws of physics and those that are not. "
      M: Ok

      Scott:"When we make progress in these areas, this represents ideas about how the world works, which we may or may not be applicable to transformations that align with our preferences. In fact, some transformations do not align with our preferences and making progress can result in knowledge that can prevent them from occurring at all. "

      M: I think I'm following you. Can you give me an example to clarify this last statement in my mind?

      Delete
    8. Marcus: A case could be made that not everyone agrees with that. Just look at the abortion rate, it has made progress in accelerating.

      While I'm against abortion as a form of birth control and think it should only be used in cases where the mother's heath is in danger once the nervous system has completely formed, have we made progress in the area of reducing physical complications for mothers? Wouldn't knowledge about how abort foetuses also inform us how to lower the rate of failed desired pregnancies?

      IOW, progress in general knowledge about how the world works can be used to prevent things from happening as well as bringing them about.

      Have we make progress in regards to these problems?

      Marcus: Jesus made a statement and it has been preserved in the Bible, and it's true to this day.

      Whether something is true or not, what truth is, how we could know it, etc., is part of the problem knowledge. Specifically, "what is knowledge and how does it grow?" When applied to human beings over time, this is the growth of human knowledge.

      For example, in the distant past, almost nothing changed from the perspective on an individual. Generations upon generations passed with only the occasional advance in knowledge, such as fire, etc. Despite preferring to make progress, people with brains of essentially the same structure as ours made almost none. Yet, in the last 300 years or so, our ability solve problems has grown at an exponential rate. What changed that enabled this rapid growth?

      Would you agree this is a problem? Have made progress in this field as well? Is it even possible to make progress?

      Matt: 26:11 You will always have the poor but you will not always have me. It was stated in Deuteronomy 15:11 There will always be some in the land that are poor. Therefore I command you, .You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land. This true statement too.

      Marcus: How do you derive your ethical standard?

      All evil is caused by the absence of knowledge. It is immoral to oppose systems designed to find and discard errors. The same can be said for denying that we have or can make progress by discarding errors in specific fields.

      For example, the conclusion that for someone to be happy, other people have to be poor is an idea about how the world works. And it's one that we can objectively be mistaken about. It's knowledge that is scarce, not resources.

      From the Wikipedia entry on solar energy…

      The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined

      What we lack is the knowledge of how to efficiently capture and use it.

      Delete
    9. "Scott, Am trying to decipher what is at the root of your argument."


      Marcus trust me. He has no real idea himself. he has some nebulous ideas about how the progress of knowledge repudiates religion but its all in his head.

      He is the Pontiff of pontification and little else. He'll whip out a paragraph worthy of Alice in wonderland and swear its just sheer brilliance.

      Its what all pontificators do

      "So, you know how to better defend Christianity against the argument I'm presenting?"

      You have no argument. You batter about at the air with your hands call the air religion and then claim you have made some point.

      Narcus there is a biblical word for all this

      Its called vain janglings

      Delete
    10. Elijah:He is the Pontiff of pontification and little else. He'll whip out a paragraph worthy of Alice in wonderland and swear its just sheer brilliance.
      Its what all pontificators do"

      As you know I'm very optimistic. I comes with being an American. :) Perhaps Scott will have a A-Ha moment while he's explaining his ideas in an elementary way.

      Delete
    11. Scott:"What changed that enabled this rapid growth?"

      I think the growth of knowledge is a result of Liberty. When people are free to choose how to spend their time, they can find God's plan for their lives. For example, Let's say God put you on earth to find the cure for cancer. You would not have the time to spend on the problem if you were living a subsistence life style. Cure for cancer type progress only comes when much free time is devoted to learning. When people have more time to devote to their God given purpose, knowledge grows. That's the way I see it.

      Delete
    12. Scott:"The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined

      What we lack is the knowledge of how to efficiently capture and use it."

      M: I agree with this statement. It's makes sense. The key word is 'efficiently'. Right now it's more efficient to extract energy from non-renewable resources. We can know this is FACT because the price is lower than the alternative.

      Delete
    13. Scott: "All evil is caused by the absence of knowledge. It is immoral to oppose systems designed to find and discard errors. The same can be said for denying that we have or can make progress by discarding errors in specific fields."

      M: I don't know about this. Like Vel said, (loose paraphrase)the Germans were knowledgeable.
      Look what happened when they were seeking the perfect evolutionary, naturally selected human race. The difference is values. They devalued the Jewish, crippled, black peoples then enslaved and murdered them. What are your values? If you turn your back on Judeo/Christian values, you have to ask yourself if your values can stand up to other peoples values. Can your values withstand Islamic extremest values? Are you willing to die for your values? Will they last? I think these are all very important questions to ask oneself when seeking knowledge.

      Delete
    14. Scott: It is immoral to oppose systems designed to find and discard errors.

      Jeff: You can never find errors if literally NO idea is ever known to be more or less probable/plausible than any other. And yet this is your claim. You're either mis-articulating something, or you are contradicting yourself OVER and OVER.

      Delete
    15. Marcus June 22, 2013 at 2:20 PM

      [...]

      M: I don't know about this. Like Vel said, (loose paraphrase)the Germans were knowledgeable.
      Look what happened when they were seeking the perfect evolutionary, naturally selected human race. The difference is values. They devalued the Jewish, crippled, black peoples then enslaved and murdered them. What are your values? If you turn your back on Judeo/Christian values, you have to ask yourself if your values can stand up to other peoples values. Can your values withstand Islamic extremest values? Are you willing to die for your values? Will they last? I think these are all very important questions to ask oneself when seeking knowledge.


      Knowledge and morality are not the same thing.

      In philosophy, arguing that moral values can be inferred from the way things are in nature is considered a fallacy - the is/ought problem. For example, the fact that, in some species, adults will kill and eat their own young doesn't necessarily mean that we should do the same. A forensic psychologist might study rape in detail to try and understand why it happens without approving of it in the slightest.

      Those who try to undermine the theory of evolution by arguing that it inspired Nazism in Germany are making both logical and historical errors and, in so doing, practising some of the same policies as the Nazis themselves.

      In Nazi Germany, as we know, the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and the mentally-defective were all scapegoated by the regime as being the source of all their perceived social and economic woes. Purge them all from society, it was argued, and the so-called Aryan "master-race" would be able to flourish unoppposed. There is a clear parallel between that and the belief in some quarters of Christianity that many social problems are attributable to the abandonment of Christian values, belief in the theory of evolution and atheism. They would very much like to see evolution and atheism purged from our society to allow Judeo-Christian culture and values to spread unchallenged.

      [Continued ...}

      Delete
    16. [...Continued]

      What happened in Nazi Germany was not based on Darwin's theory of evolution. In fact, we have documentary evidence that they tried to purge books about it from their libraries.

      In Darwin's theory, survival is determined, to some extent, by how well fitted an animal is to the environment in which it finds itself - natural selection. That is what 'fitness' means in evolution. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with popular notions of physical fitness. But that is what the Nazis thought. They believed that these other social groups and races were undermining and diluting the purity of the Aryan 'master-race. Remove them from the gene-pool, the argument ran, and all would be well. There would only be fit, healthy blonde Aryans left to go forth and multiply. That sort of thinking is derived much more from animal husbandry - artificial selection - than it is from Darwinian theory. It is treating human beings as breeding-stock, to be bred to meet arbitrary and politically-acceptable ideals of fitness and beauty.

      If you want to understand one of the main sources of Nazi attitudes towards the Jews you need look no further than the anti-Semitism that had been endemic in European society - and religion - for at least a thousand years. Germany, traditionally, was either Roman Catholic or Lutheran. If you want to sample some really virulent anti-Semitism, read what Martin Luther wrote about the Jews. It's really offensive. But Luther did not originate those views, he was only articulating what had been widespread in that society for many hundreds of years. Nonetheless, those views were widely held by people who considered themselves to be good Christians. If you want one of the roots of the Holocaust, it's there.

      As for Judeo-Christian values, it's questionable whether some of them are unique to those faiths at all. There is evidence, for example, of something equivalent to the Golden Rule both pre-dating Christianity and emerging independently in other cultures. Does this undermine its value or does it emphasize the point that, at root, we are all human with interests and needs in common and those can be the basis of a perfectly good morality?

      Delete
    17. Ian:

      One quick point.

      Hitler mad it abundantly clear in "Mein Kampf" that the mingling of the races was unnatural, as was encouraging the unfit to breed. He wrote that his racial theories were natural.

      And anti-Sematism was a little different under Christians. Christians accepted Jews who converted to Christianity. The Nazis considered Judaism a genetic thing. No one way anyone could covert out of his race.


      Delete
    18. According to this:

      http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/hitler-darwinism.htm

      Evolution was taught in Universities under the Third Reich, so they didn't seem to have too big a problem with evolution.

      Delete
    19. Ian: "What happened in Nazi Germany was not based on Darwin's theory of evolution."

      M:I suspect what happened in Nazi Germany is a confluence of human failures. Simply, they knew nobody was going to stop them. They could give any reason for what they were doing. Evolution was just one. However, natural selection and survival of the fittest are ideas extruded from evolutionary thought. While Christian ideals require protecting the weak. The Christians in that country abandoned their Christian values and allowed murder and theft to happen. It illustrates, we can have an ideal and yet some will not have the character to stand up for it. The Christians just watched it happen. A few stood up like Dietrich von Bonhoeffer. It also illustrates how ideals are relative if you don’t have a unchanging standard to compare.

      Ian:"Does this undermine its value or does it emphasize the point that, at root, we are all human with interests and needs in common and those can be the basis of a perfectly good morality?"

      M: God gave us the ten commandments to show us we cannot live up to his perfect standard. We are all failures in that regard. If we try to live by the ten commandments, we live in more harmony than if there is no standard. This standard is not from the minds of humans but from the mind of God. The commandments are not relative, they were written in stone because they are unchanging, dare I say eternal. Since all humankind are descendants from Noah, those ideals have been passed on from generation to generation. From time to time people would stand up and give a new definition to theft or murder but eventually, those new definitions are found to be wanting and we go back to the old definition. So I don’t think we can arrive at good morals between ourselves. I think we are all basically sinful in nature.

      M: Ian, what do you think happens when you die? Do you think you will have to account for your life, or is it just lights out?

      Delete
    20. "The Christians in that country abandoned their Christian values and allowed murder and theft to happen."

      Murder, theft, and other wrongs ARE "Christian values". Read the bible, and don't skip the parts that are inconvenient to your delusions.

      Delete
    21. marcus also said:

      "I think we are all basically sinful in nature."

      Then you must believe that 'God' is responsible for that, and that 'God' is "basically sinful in nature" since you believe that 'God specially created humans in his own image'.

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

      Delete
    23. What part of 'Do not murder' don't you understand? What pare of 'Do not steal' don't you understand?
      No, God is good, we are sinful thanks to Adam and Eve choosing to disobey God in the Garden of Eden. That brought judgement and death into the world. What is your reason for the existence of evil?

      Delete
    24. nat, richard weikart is a discotute IDiot and a loon:

      http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/02/407-richard-weikart.html

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

      Delete
    25. marcus said:

      "What part of 'Do not murder' don't you understand? What pare of 'Do not steal' don't you understand?"

      I repeat: Read the bible, and don't skip the parts that are inconvenient to your delusions.

      "No, God is good, we are sinful thanks to Adam and Eve choosing to disobey God in the Garden of Eden. That brought judgement and death into the world."

      Who do you believe specially created adam and eve in his own image? Who do you believe created satan? Who do you believe created evil? Who do you believe created everything everywhere? Who then is responsible for everything everywhere?

      Delete
    26. Twt: "I repeat: Read the bible, and don't skip the parts that are inconvenient to your delusions."

      God by definition is Good. If He committed murder he would contradict His very nature. So, you can see He never commits murder. You are misrepresenting who God is. You have committed the sin of bearing false witness. Because of your decision to choose to represent God in a false way, you bring His judgement upon yourself. It's you who choose and you who will bear responsibility. God knows your heart and everything about you and He sent Jesus as a living sacrifice as payment for your sin. You can accept His free gift and be thankful or keep shaking your fist at Him. It's totally up to you, not your friends or your father or any other human on earth, it's up to you. I am praying for you brau.

      Yes, God created Satan. God created a world where evil had a potential to exist. Adam and Eve sinned and sin was brought into the world for humans. He did not create human or angelic robots.
      Are you ready to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior? Rev: 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock, if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them and they with me. Jesus is waiting for you, Twt.

      Delete
    27. Scott: All evil is caused by the absence of knowledge.

      Marcus: M: I don't know about this. Like Vel said, (loose paraphrase)the Germans were knowledgeable. Look what happened when they were seeking the perfect evolutionary, naturally selected human race.

      I’ve already addressed this when I said..

      “Germany's society was hijacked by a Fascist leader. This is analogous to an alien stealing technology to reach earth.”

      Fascism is yet another authoritative form or rule, which is includes antiliberalism and mythological aspects. Hitler thought he was chosen by a higher power. He used violence, rather than rational criticism to bring about his authoritative rule.”


      To use an example, Nazi Nordicism is based on the idea that there is a distinct Nordic race that differentiates itself from Caucasians and is a master race. However, this is a non-starter because the idea that such a race actually is distinct does not survive criticism of modern day genetics.

      Marcus: The difference is values. They devalued the Jewish, crippled, black peoples then enslaved and murdered them.

      They, in this case, were Fascists. And their actions were based on the lack of knowledge, as indicated above.

      Furthermore, Hitler essentially hijacked the German people by exploiting their belief in God.

      ”“I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it.”

      [Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, _The Voice of Destruction_, pp. 239-40]

      Marcus: What are your values? If you turn your back on Judeo/Christian values, you have to ask yourself if your values can stand up to other peoples values. Can your values withstand Islamic extremest values? Are you willing to die for your values? Will they last? I think these are all very important questions to ask oneself when seeking knowledge.

      You’re asking the wrong question. The question is, how do we find errors in our values and discard them. If you start out thinking you have an infallible source, then you’ll try to lock them in. But if we start out with conjecture, then we know our ideas have errors in them from the start.

      I’m not suggesting any particular values are the best in an positive sense. That would be short sighted because it assumes we cannot make any progress on how our actions effect conscious beings. Rather, I’m suggesting we should adopt moral values have withstood the most criticism.

      Again, the underlying conflict is based on epistemology, not evidence.

      Delete
    28. Scott: For example, the conclusion that for someone to be happy, other people have to be poor is an idea about how the world works. And it's one that we can objectively be mistaken about. It's knowledge that is scarce, not resources.

      [Gives example, which just happens to include solar energy]

      Scott: What we lack is the knowledge of how to efficiently capture and use it.

      Marcus: I agree with this statement. It's makes sense. The key word is 'efficiently'. Right now it's more efficient to extract energy from non-renewable resources. We can know this is FACT because the price is lower than the alternative.

      The reason *why* it's more efficient than alternatives is because of a current deficiency in our knowledge.

      The major limiting factor in solar is the current degree of efficiency in photovoltaic cells, which convert solar radiation into useable energy in much fewer steps. We know that significantly more efficient conversion is not prohibited by the laws of physics because this transformation occurs when the requisite knowledge to do so is present in the genes of biological organisms. Furthermore, electric motors are significantly more efficient at powering vehicles than internal combustion engines.

      So, as our knowledge grows, the price will become cheaper than non-renewable resources, just as computing power has grown exponentially, while the size and cost has dropped. Again, it's not that resources are scarce, because there is plenty. What is scarce is knowledge.

      Delete
    29. Jeff: You can never find errors if literally NO idea is ever known to be more or less probable/plausible than any other. And yet this is your claim. You're either mis-articulating something, or you are contradicting yourself OVER and OVER.

      See this comment.

      Delete
    30. It seems we're in agreement that that we have made progress in solving some problems to at least some degree.

      At which point, the question becomes, "how did we make this progress?"

      There are many problems with justification and induction, which I've outlined here. As such, it's unclear how we could have used induction to positively make the progress that we agree on.

      IOW, we've made progress despite the problem of induction While we cannot prove that some other means was used instead, the idea that we used induction or that theories are justified does not withstand rational criticism.

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

      Delete
    32. Scott: “You’re asking the wrong question. The question is, how do we find errors in our values and discard them. If you start out thinking you have an infallible source, then you’ll try to lock them in. But if we start out with conjecture, then we know our ideas have errors in them from the start.”

      M: Ok, lets make some ‘progress’ in our discussion. I’ll agree with you about me asking the wrong question. I’m ready to learn. How do we find the errors in our values and discard them. Who gets to decide what progress means?.

      Delete
    33. Marcus: How do we find the errors in our values and discard them.

      We find ourselves in the position to make decisions that will effect ourselves and others. Moral values are based on ideas about how the world works. As such, we criticize them, just as we do with other ideas about how the world works.

      Marcus: Who gets to decide what progress means?

      I thought we agreed that moral progress means discarding errors?

      So, you're asking the same question as above, which is how do we find errors.

      We do not positively say value X is the best moral value anymore than we say X is the best food for human beings to eat. Since we start out with conjecture, we know our ideas about what is moral or what is the best food would be incomplete and contain errors. So, we make progress by criticizing our ideas about the nutritional needs of human beings, how foods provide it, etc. Just because we do not know what is objectively is the most healthy food, this doesn't mean that we conclude that some foods are less heathy than others, such as processed fast foods or poison.

      However, treatments such as chemotherapy is essentially a form of poison that effects their entire body. If effective, that's the most moral choice we can make at the present. However, it would be immoral to continue to treat cancer with chemo if our knowledge of how to treat cancer (how the world works) had improved so we reprogram the person's immune system to attack just the tumors, starve just the tumors, deliver drugs just to the cancer cells, etc.

      Assuming we do not blow ourselves up first, nano technology will allow us to constantly monitor a person's heath, destroy cancer cells, repair ongoing damage and even rebuild entire organs without invasive surgery. At which nearly all of our treatments today will become immoral.

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

    ReplyDelete
  12. Scott:"So, you know how to better defend Christianity against the argument I'm presenting?"

    Yes.

    Scott: Then perhaps I need to take a step back. Do we have problems?

    Yes, we have problems.

    ReplyDelete
  13. TWT:

    "nat, richard weikart is a discotute IDiot and a loon:"

    That's why I did m own research and found the following in the Wikipedia article on Guenther.

    "The new institute, as Eugen Fischer had announced proudly, would no longer occupy itself with mere skull measuring. In the sense of opening up anthropology toward human genetics, which Fischer outlined with the catchword of anthropobiology, the conventional, static, taxonomically organized concept of race that proceeded from morphological features was to be abandoned in favor of a dynamic concept of race conceived in terms of evolutionary biology and grounded in genetics. [...] It could be applied to a multitude of topics, practically all anatomical, morphological, physiological, pathological, and psychological features and characteristics -- "from the dimensions of the skull measurements, structure of spine, red hair, the shape of the ear, the pattern of fingerprints, hemogram, or disposition to tuberculosis, all the way to conceptions of morals, criminality, performance in school or talent for playing chess."[10][11]

    It clearly says evolution. Fisher was a big important professor under the Nazis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So it says evolution, SO WHAT?

      All you're showing is that hitler and other nazis were racists, which is already WELL KNOWN. And what the hell does that have to do with Darwin or evolution, especially since hitler was a christian creationist and did not agree with Darwin's evolutionary theory?

      Hey nat, were there racists WAY before Darwin was born? Were there slavers WAY before Darwin was born? Were there racists and slavers WAY before ANYONE even thought about evolution or any theory of evolution?

      I'm amazed that you creobots don't blame 'the fall' on Darwin, since you sure do like to blame virtually everything else on him.

      By the way nat, do you actually believe that no one has ever discriminated against, picked on, harassed, demonized, coerced, fired, lied to, lied about, conned, stolen from, evicted, cheated on, neglected, falsely imprisoned, abused, raped, enslaved, deliberately harmed, tortured, kidnapped, made war upon, conquered, slaughtered, manipulated, controlled, threatened, and murdered people of their own 'race'?

      And another thing: A majority of the people on Earth believe in a god or gods, yet all of the wrongful things I mentioned above occur every day, and occurred even more in the past when religious beliefs were held by more people and in stronger ways. Do you believe that only atheists and/or 'evolutionists' commit or committed those or other wrongful acts?

      Delete
    2. whole truth,

      "since hitler was a christian creationist and did not agree with Darwin's evolutionary theory?"

      Get serious for once in your life. Evolutionary theory was the very basis of Hitler's Final Solution. I'm sick and tired of ignorant people like you thinking they can willfully ignore the facts of history, and distort the truth to satisfy their own selfish philosophical needs. And don't even bother coming back with supposed quotes trying to prove Hitler was a Christian who believed in creation. Hitler was a master manipulator and would say whatever was convenient whenever he felt it appropriate. You might be able to fool some people with your complete ignorance and total dishonesty on the subject, but I'm not one of them.

      Why would a Bible believing Christian as you like to think Hitler was, remove all crosses, religious emblems, icons, pictures of Christ, etc., from all the churches in Germany and replace them with swastikas and portraits of himself? Because he was such a devout Christian? That's just one example of the things he did to trample the Christian church in Germany. It's about time you grew up and at least tried to act with integrity in these debates. I for one am totally tired of your arrogant attitude.

      Delete
    3. nic, you sure do have a problem with accepting reality:

      http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitlerchristian.htm

      http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

      http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/nazi-racial-ideology-was-religious-creationist-and-opposed-to-darwinism/

      http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/hitler-despised-atheism-as-much-as-pope-benedict-does/

      http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Was%20Hitler%20a%20Darwinian.pdf

      Delete
    4. whole ruth,

      "nic, you sure do have a problem with accepting reality:"

      Seriously, do you not think I've read this before. If you would bother to do any research into the personality of Hitler you would know what kind of thinker he was. Whatever was necessary was what he did to influence and control people. If it was expedient to speak as if he worshiped the Christian God, he would do so.

      I don't know if it's because you're so poorly educated, so gullible or lack the intellectual integrity to face the facts of history because they get in the way of your philosophy, that you fall for this garbage. Perhaps it's all three.

      I know you won't change your mind regardless how much proof is put before you. You're too arrogant for that. As such I will discuss the subject no longer with you. Hitler was not a Christian and did not perpetrate his atrocities in the name of Christ. You simply don't wish to face the indisputable historic fact that the overwhelming majority of atrocities inflicted on the human race were done by atheists in the hope of eradicating religion, and any and all other philosophies which might be in their way.

      You'll have to live with it nonetheless. Atheism as a philosophy, and by its very nature leads to such actions. Not all atheists as individuals are responsible, or believe in such actions. But atheism as a philosophy is completely responsible. Your efforts to absolve it from that responsibility is nothing short of disgusting.

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

      Delete
    6. TWT and Nat and Marcus and Nic and whoever else is in this idiotic discussion: Hitler wasn't motivated by Christianity and he wasn't motivated by Evolutionary Theory. Hitler was a sadistic megalomaniac who would use any available tools at his disposal to achieve and keep absolute power. Trying to demonize any science or any religion due to the actions of a monster is one of the stupidest arguments possible from both sides. Capisce?

      Nic, you are 100% wrong about atheists being responsible for the majority of atrocities committed over the history of the world. Events like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were responsible for every bit as much horror as any atheist ever started. The common thread in virtually every bit of mass murder in history (Hitler, Stalin, Pol pot, etc.) has been the desire for power, where religion was seen as either a tool to crush the opposition or a threat to be eliminated.

      The actions of madmen don't make religion wrong, and they don't make science wrong.

      Delete
  14. I found this about Gerhard Heberer:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/100715924/Gerhard-Heberer-and-Issues-in-Current-Historiography-of-The-Modern-Synthesis

    ReplyDelete
  15. TWT:

    First of all, the point was made that the Nazi's were anti-evolution. If evolution was taught in German universities, then that probablty wasn't the case.

    Hilter wrote quite clear in his second book that he believed in the conventional scientific account of the Earth's history. And he made it abundantly clear from a number of passages in "Mein Kampf" in Book 1 chapter 11, and in Book 2, chapter 4 that he believed in evolution.
    Please don't make me cut and paste again. I'm really busy today.

    As far as Hitler's religious beliefs, his frequent interchanging "The Creator" and "Nature" would seem to indicate that he was a pantheist.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I found this in the Wikideia article on religion in Nazi Germany:

    Bormann believed Nazism was based on a "scientific" world-view, and was completely incompatible with Christianity.[88] Bormann stated:


    Martin Bormann, Hitler's "deputy" from 1941, also saw Nazism and Christianity as "incompatible" and had a particular loathing for the Semitic origins of Christianity.[89]
    Alfred Rosenberg, the official Nazi philosopher. A proponent of "Positive Christianity", he planned the "extermination of the foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany", and for the Bible and Christian cross to be replaced with Mein Kampf and the swastika.[90]When we National Socialists speak of belief in God, we do not mean, like the naive Christians and their spiritual exploiters, a man-like being sitting around somewhere in the universe. The force governed by natural law by which all these countless planets move in the universe, we call omnipotence or God. The assertion that this universal force can trouble itself about the destiny of each individual being, every smallest earthly bacillus, can be influenced by so-called prayers or other surprising things, depends upon a requisite dose of naivety or else upon shameless professional self-interest.[91]

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is interesting:


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

    Doesn't sound like conventional Christianity to me.

    ReplyDelete