Monday, July 15, 2013

Evolutionist: We know very little about how evolutionary innovations originate

But Evolution is a Fact

When Charles Darwin presented his theory of evolution in 1859 it received instant approval. Darwin’s tome was the perfect creation narrative for a culture and a clergy that viewed the creator as more eminent than immanent. Like Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover, the creator was exalted as transcendent, and so safely sequestered away from the details of this world which he should be neither aware of nor responsible for. A decade earlier John Millais discovered all of this the hard way when Charles Dickens, as just one example, scathingly criticized the young prodigy’s Christ in the House of His Parents (shown above) for its portrayal of the subject as a “hideous, wry-necked, blubbering, red-headed boy, in a bed-gown.” Another critic lamented the painting’s “studious vulgarity of portraying the youthful Saviour as a red-headed Jew boy.” Millais had presented a decidedly immanent deity that did not comport well with the Gnosticism of the day. Darwin, on the other hand, had been concerned for decades about how the creator should be juxtaposed against the various inefficient, ignoble or downright evil aspects of nature that he and others were uncovering. Do you believe “the shape of my nose was designed?” Darwin asked his friend Charles Lyell. If Lyell did think so then, Darwin added, “I have nothing more to say.” This ancient sentiment that our spiritual God should have little or nothing to do with this material world was more than just popular in Darwin’s day. It dictated what was acceptable and unacceptable in the arts and sciences. But what about the empirical evidence?

While Darwin’s theory of evolution followed the cultural norms, the idea that the most complex things known arose via random events and natural law did not seem scientifically feasible. Do we really live in a universe in which complex, interdependent, fine-tuned mechanisms and structures just happen to arise by themselves? This has always been the main problem with evolution.

Evolution is a fact, not because of the science, but because of the metaphysics. We don’t know evolution is true because the science just makes it so obvious. Quite the opposite, as evolutionist Andreas Wagner explains this week, “we know very little about how they [evolutionary innovations] originate.”

We know very little about how evolutionary innovations originate? But that is the main sticking point. How can we then say evolution is a fact? It would be like claiming perpetual motion is a fact, though we haven’t demonstrated it and don’t yet know how it could work.

The answer, of course, is that evolution is a fact because evolution must be a fact. Until and unless we understand its complex intertwining of theology and science, we won’t understand this thing we call evolution.

201 comments:

  1. Cornelius hunter

    We don’t know evolution is true because the science just makes it so obvious. Quite the opposite, as evolutionist Andreas Wagner explains this week, “we know very little about how they [evolutionary innovations] originate.”


    CH, why do you have to continually lie and misrepresent what scientists actually say?

    Here is what you dishonestly quote mined AGAIN:

    "TS: How did you become interested in the transition from pre-adaptive to adaptive traits?

    AW: I consider this to be the last frontier in evolutionary biology. Natural selection we’ve known about for more than 150 years. So, we know a lot about how evolutionary innovations spread through populations, but we know very little about how they originate."

    Wagner was only describing how we don't know what percentage of traits are adaptive vs. exapted, NOT that we don't know anything about evolution.

    Lies, lies, and more lies. Lying never gets old for you, does it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't see how excaptations solves the problem. You still have to change the thing you are changing in very specific ways. For example, for a flight feather has a very specific shape. Without that shape, it wouldn't work. And they have o be distributed on the birds body in a specific way. How could they just evolve from non-fight feathers? How could different proteins be excapted? You have to change some of the amino acids in very specific ways. without the protein losing stability. How does that happen?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nat,
      You still have to change the thing you are changing in very specific ways. For example, for a flight feather has a very specific shape


      How specific?

      Delete
    2. They are assymetrical. they have a certain curve. they are arrainged along the wings in a specific pattern.

      Delete
    3. No Nat how specific do they have to be to function?

      Delete
    4. Velikofsky:

      Are you asking me to quantify it? I'm afraid I don;t have the necessary expertise. I do know that flight feathers have to be assymetrical, they have to have a certain curve to get an airfoil shape, and they have to be arrainged together in a closely in a line on the birds arm.

      Delete
    5. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      Are you asking me to quantify it? I'm afraid I don;t have the necessary expertise.


      So you were blindly regurgitating an "argument" you picked up from some anti-science website that you don't understand and can't explain. That seems to be your only tactic, when you're not spewing your hateful bigotry that is.

      Typical Creationist moron. Absolutely typical.

      Delete
    6. So please be so kind as to explain how we go from a non-flight feather to a flight feather. And don't forget to include the way the flight feathers are distributed on the bird's body.

      Oh, and by the way, I can explain the argument. You see, it goes like this. Not all feathers will enable the bird to fly.
      They need to have a shape like an airfoil, something like the wing of an airplane. This means it is curved on the top more than on the bottom. As the air flows over the top, it has further to go and flows faster. As a fluid flows faster, it exerts less pressure to the side of the flow. So the air flowing under the feather exerts more upward pressure. This creates what is called lift. A feather without an airfoil shape will not have generate lift. The excaptation arguments holds that originally feathers evolved for some other purpose other than flight. In order for them to allow flight, they had to evolve the assymetrical, curved shape, among other things. How did this happen? Please be specific. I would ask you to quantify things,but I know you evolutinists don;t do math so won't bother.

      Delete
    7. natschuster the homophobic bigot and ignorant Creationist dumbass

      So please be so kind as to explain how we go from a non-flight feather to a flight feather


      "explain to me why the puddle has the exact shape of the hole it's resting in."

      See if your ignorant Creationist brain can sort that one out first bigot. Then go read up on why the "what good is half an eye" Creationist argument is so stupid.

      Delete
    8. I really don't understand your point. I see a complete non-sequitor. But I'll try anyway.
      The water in the puddle, being a fluid, conforms to the shape of the hole it is in.

      Adn can you be a little more precise in what you mean by half an eye? Which half? And I still don't see your point.

      Now, could you please address my question? Remember, I don't need any math. I know you guys don't like that. Just a simple explanation will do.

      Delete
    9. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      I really don't understand your point.


      Of course you don't, because you're a willfully ignorant dumbass.

      Go ahead and explain why the "what good is half an eye" argument is so stupid. Then apply it to your "what good is half a wing" idiocy.

      Delete
    10. I'm not talking about wings. I'm talking about feathers. I'm not talking about half feathers. I'm talking about two different kinds of feathers, flight feathers and non-flight feathers. I would like to know how to go from one to the other. Could it be that you can't answer my question, so you are resorting to subject changing?

      Delete
    11. And I really don't think the "half an eye"argument is so stupid, anyway. If a structure provides no benefit until it is complete, then then natural selection doesn't act. If there are a number of parts to the structure, then they have to show up all at once, or there is no benefit. The standard answer is functional intermediates.
      Bu that can involve a lot of unsupported conjecture as to what the functional intermediates might have been. When evolution skeptics do that, evolutionists cry "foul."

      Delete
    12. Nat,

      They need to have a shape like an airfoil, something like the wing of an airplane. This means it is curved on the top more than on the bottom. As the air flows over the top, it has further to go and flows faster


      Yes and they also need a means to create that flow, but birds have been around for a while, when exactly did this design take place? Do all birds have as efficient flight feathers? If not what is the design rationale for that?

      As a fluid flows faster, it exerts less pressure to the side of the flow. So the air flowing under the feather exerts more upward pressure. This creates what is called lift. A feather without an airfoil shape will not have generate lift.

      But in the case of birds the whole wing also acts as an airfoil,

      The excaptation arguments holds that originally feathers evolved for some other purpose other than flight. In order for them to allow flight, they had to evolve the assymetrical, curved shape, among other things.

      The anchioris had what appeared to be flight feathers which were not asymmetrical

      How did this happen? Please be specific. I would ask you to quantify things,but I know you evolutinists don;t do math so won't bother.

      The can figure out the second law does not prove evolution impossible, biology is heavily into statistical methods, read one of the studies CH cites.


      Of course scientists don't know specifically how flight feathers evolved,but with each fossil discovered they have more information.

      But I am open minded, answer your own questions if you have a better explanation. When specifically and how were flight feathers designed? What is the Csi? of flight feather and show you math and assumption,please.

      To paraphrase " he who must not be named" I am sure we all would be fascinated to hear what you have to say is the positive evidence for your theory.

      Delete
    13. Vel:


      "But in the case of birds the whole wing also acts as an airfoil,"

      This is because the shape of the feathers allows them to form a single flight surface.

      Delete

    14. I'm talking about two different kinds of feathers, flight feathers and non-flight feathers. I would like to know how to go from one to the other


      Read a book, how do you think they came about? Or are you assuming a " designer" is the default answer?

      Delete
    15. Nat,
      This is because the shape of the feathers allows them to form a single flight surface.


      Bats have no feathers and seem to be able to have a single flight surface.

      Delete
    16. Vel:

      I'm asking for details because evolutionist often insist if ID proponents can't fill in all the details then ID is no good. I'm just playing by your rules. I was also told that when the numbers look like they go against an evolutionary explanation it is okay for evolutionists to ignore them, since they are only estimates anyway.


      I'm not sure how flight feathers evolved. One explanation is that they wee created ex nihilo on the fifth day of creation. Another is hat God first created some proto birds a long time ago, then tinkered with the feathers.

      See, I'm allowed to bring a super natural explanation. You insist on sticking with the laws of nature that we are familiar with, so I'm asking you to explain it according to your rules.

      I don't have the expertise to figure out the CSI of a bird's wing. I don't know why that is relevant. I'm asking for a mechanism and steps and such.

      Delete
    17. Vel:


      "Bats have no feathers and seem to be able to have a single flight surface."


      Bat wing have a single membrane that stays in one piece. Birds feathes are separate pieces that would be blown apart by the air pressure if it wasn't for the shape of the feathers allowing them to saty in one surface,

      Delete
    18. Nat,
      Bat wing have a single membrane that stays in one piece. Birds feathes are separate pieces that would be blown apart by the air pressure if it wasn't for the shape of the feathers allowing them to saty in one surface,


      Of course, but there is skin under the wings right, that is the tastiest part of the chicken.

      I'm asking for details because evolutionist often insist if ID proponents can't fill in all the details then ID is no good

      No,ID doesn't fill in anydetails except an unknown designer with unknown abilities at an unknown time for an unknown reason designed something somehow.

      Another is hat God first created some proto birds a long time ago, then tinkered with the feathers.

      Why would an omniscient being tinker?

      Delete
    19. Nat,
      don't have the expertise to figure out the CSI of a bird's wing. I don't know why that is relevant. I'm asking for a mechanism and steps and such.


      I thought that was a test of designess. Not the expertise in math? Do you think this is wise then "Remember, I don't need any math. I know you guys don't like that. Just a simple explanation will do."

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

      Delete
    21. ""I'm asking for details because evolutionist often insist if ID proponents can't fill in all the details then ID is no good"

      No,ID doesn't fill in anydetails except an unknown designer with unknown abilities at an unknown time for an unknown reason designed something somehow."

      If we accept the Bible, we have lots of details filled in. Ifnot, we can infer from the design that the designer was smart, that the designer considers humans something special, since He gave them the ability to think about things beyond existance, that He wants humans to behave morally since, he gave them a moral sense, and that he gave humans a need for spirituality, so He wants us to connect to hm somehow.

      Delete
    22. Vel:

      ""Another is that God first created some proto birds a long time ago, then tinkered with the feathers."

      Why would an omniscient being tinker?"

      Why not?

      Delete
    23. Vel:

      "I thought that was a test of designess. Not the expertise in math? Do you think this is wise then "Remember, I don't need any math. I know you guys don't like that. Just a simple explanation will do.""

      Its one of the test for designedness. We aren't even discussing complexity here. WE are talking about a shape.

      Delete
    24. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      WE are talking about a shape


      There is plenty of evidence that the morphology of feathers can change over time through the well known empirically observed evolutionary processes of genetic variations filtered by selection pressure.

      Show us your evidence that such feather shape evolution is impossible.

      Delete
    25. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      If we accept the Bible, we have lots of details filled in. Ifnot, we can infer from the design that the designer was smart, that the designer considers humans something special, since He gave them the ability to think about things beyond existance, that He wants humans to behave morally since, he gave them a moral sense, and that he gave humans a need for spirituality, so He wants us to connect to hm somehow.


      Then we also can infer from the designs that the Designer was a sadistic monster who enjoys watching animals including humans suffer and die in agony. Harlequin ichthyosis anyone? We can also tell He was an incompetent bumbler who produces kluged-together just barely working models.

      If you can argue what the Designer would or wouldn't do, then so can we bigot.

      Delete
    26. Thorton:

      In order for it to work as a flight feather, a number of features have to show up together.

      And scientists keep on discovering more and more really good design. There is a whole field of called bio-mimetics that looks at organisms to find good ideas for design. So the designer is smarter than human designers. And the Designer did design us to enjoy things like sunsets. He didn't have to. That was nice. There is a lot of gratuitous goodness out there, cutesy of the creator. And I'm not talking about what a Creator would or wouldn't do. I'm not a Creator so I wouldn't know. What I'm talking about is what I can infer from the creation.

      Delete
    27. And I have no objection to you making inferences from creation to the Creator. I don't have one set of rules for me, and another for you.

      Delete
    28. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      In order for it to work as a flight feather, a number of features have to show up together.


      LOL! "what good is half an eye", er, "what good is half a feather"

      Damn but you're a dumbass, even for a Creationist bigot.

      Where's your evidence that well known evolutionary processes can't make the required stepwise modifications from non-flight feathers?

      And scientists keep on discovering more and more really good design.

      No, they find incredibly efficient evolved features, features that have been fine tuned by selection over millions of years. They have never found a biological feature that was "intelligently designed".

      Delete
    29. Aren't you asking me to prove a negative? I recall you having a problem with that? Oh well. I'll try anyway.

      If someone told me that by a random process, he turned a non-flight feather into a flight feather, I would not believe him. I would ask for a mechanism and some details. I would say the burden of proof is on him to convince me. II

      Delete
    30. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      Aren't you asking me to prove a negative?


      You're claiming a negative you bigoted moron. That the evolution from basal feathers to flight feathers is impossible. Do you wish to retract your stupidity?

      If someone told me that by a random process, he turned a non-flight feather into a flight feather, I would not believe him.

      I wouldn't either. Good thing empirically observed evolution isn't a random process. It has a stochastic component but that's not the same thing. You can read about the actual mechanisms of evolution in any high school science textbook, or easily find it on line. If you weren't such a willfully ignorant moron you'd have learned about it by now. But you are, so you haven't.

      Delete
    31. Nat,
      If we accept the Bible, we have lots of details filled in. Ifnot, we can infer from the design that the designer was smart, that the designer considers humans something special


      The problem with using the bible as a guideline is that it defeats the purpose of ID, it eliminates it from the schools. I will grant you the designer is probably smart.

      As for humans being special, we may be designed as a form of 3D entertainment for the designers

      since He gave them the ability to think about things beyond existance, that He wants humans to behave morally since, he gave them a moral sense

      It might been more effective to design humans who were less inclined to act immorally then if that was the goal.

      and that he gave humans a need for spirituality, so He wants us to connect to hm somehow.

      Unless the designer wasn't your God. But more of a Loki

      Delete
    32. For the non-brain-damaged, non-bigoted readers actually interested in the topic:

      Evolution of the Morphological Innovations of Feathers

      The early evolution of feathers: fossil evidence from Cretaceous amber of France

      There's a good bit of scientific literature of the evolution of feathers, not that the Creationist morons will ever look.

      Delete
    33. Nat,
      Vel:

      ""Another is that God first created some proto birds a long time ago, then tinkered with the feathers."

      Why would an omniscient being tinker?"

      Why not?


      You know what omniscient is, right? All knowing. Tinker...Verb
      Attempt to repair or improve something in a casual or desultory way, often to no useful effect

      Could a perfect being create less than perfectly, if so He would not be" that of which there is no greater"

      Its one of the test for designedness. We aren't even discussing complexity here. WE are talking about a shape

      Was the Grand Canyon designed to look like the Colorado River caused it?

      Delete
    34. Nat,
      If someone told me that by a random process, he turned a non-flight feather into a flight feather, I would not believe him. I would ask for a mechanism and some details. I would say the burden of proof is on him to convince me.


      If someone told me that an unknown designer designed flight feather 150 million years ago I would ask for a mechanism and some details. The burden of proof is on him to convince me.

      But since evolution at some scale has been observed, whereas no designer capable of such design has, I would accept the former provisionally . But then again I am not a believer in the inerrancy of the Bible.

      Delete
    35. Thorton:

      I acanned the articles you linked I didn't see anything on how non-flight feathers turned into flight feathers.

      I recall asking for someone to demonstrate how it is possible. You asked me to prove it is impossible.

      You see, you need to change the shape in two different ways simultaneously, and only on certain feathers along the flight surface, or it won;t allow flying. How did that happen? All I'm getting is that it must have happened.





      Delete
    36. Vel:

      A omniscient designer can do anything he wants. And perfection includes the ability to be imperfect.

      And the specific shape of the Colorado river has no special significance over other shapes. the shape of the flight feathers does. Only certain shapes work.

      Delete
    37. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      I acanned the articles you linked I didn't see anything on how non-flight feathers turned into flight feathers


      Besides being a disgusting bigot you're also a bare-faced liar.

      Delete
    38. Nat,
      And the specific shape of the Colorado river has no special significance over other shapes. the shape of the flight feathers does. Only certain shapes works.


      I already gave you an example of flight feathers being used for non flight purposes. Symmetrical not asymmetrical. You are assuming the evolution wanted birds to fly so had to come up with a solution, just like geology wanting the Grand Canyon to appear as we know it.

      You are assigning teleology to evolution. It doesn't care if it works,evolution does not care if birds can't fly. We only see the survivors in our brief snapshot of time.

      Now if you want a specific answer, you need to drill down to the genetic level and find what mechanism causes flight feathers to differentiate from non flight feathers

      .If a flight feather is 10% less efficient does it work, 20,30,40% does the shape of the bird allow less efficient feathers to function? A bird is a total system, less weight less lift needed, is some limited flight better than no flight?


      How does the designer do it? Ex nihilo or repurposing existing structures? Now if you found the flight feathers were a completely different genetic structure than other feathers, totally incongruent from the rest of the bird,that would be interesting.

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

      Delete
    40. Thorton:

      Then please be so kind as to C&P the part I missed about non-flight feathers evolving into flight feathers.

      And, by the way, you are the one the one who as a problem with proving a negative. I was merely bringing up you rules, not mine.

      Vel:

      Are you talking about the Anchiornis? I understand that it isn't known if it actually flew, so its feathers might be flight feathers. And it had those freaky big feathers on its legs as well.

      I'm not assigning teleogy to evolution. I'm doing just the opposite. How did the several changes, and just right changes, i.e, only the feathers on the edge of the wings, needed to change a non-flight feather into flight feathers happen? The standard answer is functional intermediates. But that is highly conjectural and we don't know what they might be. It's a just-so story. And this same thing happens over and over. Exaptation of proteins requires simultaneous changes in the active sites, in the binding sites, and compensatory changes to keep the protein stable. The evolution of the flagellum from a toxin shooter requires 20 or so theoretical functional intermediates. That's one of the reasons find evolution distasteful. It's always the same "it must have happened this way. It just had to."

      Delete
    41. natschuster the homophobic bigot and liar

      Then please be so kind as to C&P the part I missed about non-flight feathers evolving into flight feathers


      Sorry bigot. The Evil Atheist Conspiracy has started requiring a new font on all scientific papers that renders the content invisible to assholes.

      Looks like you'll never be able to see the data.

      Delete
    42. So it's not there. Got it.

      Are we going back to childish word games instead of discussing the issues? Are you sure you want to do that? No one is better at being childish than me.

      Delete
    43. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      So it's not there. Got it.


      It's there, it's just invisible to assholes like you who lie about having read the papers.

      Sorry bigot, it's out of my hands. Try writing to the EAC, see if they'll publish a special version just for natschuster the trolling homophobic liar.

      Delete
    44. Thorton:

      Your mama wears army boots.

      Delete
    45. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      No one is better at being childish than me.


      Probably the first honest thing you've typed in a year. Not something that most people would want to brag about though.

      You sure do a good job representing "natschuster" Christianity.

      Delete
    46. Nat,
      Are you talking about the Anchiornis? I understand that it isn't known if it actually flew, so its feathers might be flight feathers. And it had those freaky big feathers on its legs as well.


      True, so the feathers may not orginally started out as flight feathers but got repurposed. Your expatation. Gliders which had those feathers survived better than those without. Or you can believe a designer at some point did something.

      I'm not assigning teleogy to evolution. I'm doing just the opposite. How did the several changes, and just right changes, i.e, only the feathers on the edge of the wings,

      You just did again, you don't see all the changes that didn't survive, you assume that it is a straight line. You can only figure the probability if you know how many" not the right changes "occurred as well as the " right changes".


      The standard answer is functional intermediates. But that is highly conjectural and we don't know what they might be


      Of course,we have only known about DNA for around 50yrs,

      It's a just-so story. And this same thing happens over and over

      And the Bible is not a just so story?

      Exaptation of proteins requires simultaneous changes in the active sites, in the binding sites, and compensatory changes to keep the protein stable. The evolution of the flagellum from a toxin shooter requires 20 or so theoretical functional intermediates.

      Make up your mind,first you want specifics then your claim they are too specific.

      That's one of the reasons find evolution distasteful. It's always the same "it must have happened this way. It just had to."

      I doubt that is why you find it distasteful,if you want certainity then religion is the place for you. If you like solving puzzles science. After all even Newton was superceded

      Delete
    47. Thorton:

      Yo mama's so ugly, she a model for halloween masks.

      Vel:

      "You just did again, you don't see all the changes that didn't survive, you assume that it is a straight line."

      Well, where are all the changes that didn't survive? Are they in the fossil record?

      "Make up your mind,first you want specifics then your claim they are too specific."

      I'm not sure what you mean. TO change from one protein to another, you need to make very specific changes simultaneously unless you have functional intermediates. But no one knows what those intermediates might be. Same thing with the flagellum.

      And the main reason I don't like evolution is that my faith is weak. I require evidence. Evolution requires too much blind faith. I'm too much of a realist.

      Delete
    48. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      And the main reason I don't like evolution is that my faith is weak. I require evidence.


      Learning about the evidence requires that you actually read and understand the scientific literature instead of just lying about it.

      I'm afraid you're just too much of a willfully ignorant Fundy bigot.

      Delete
    49. Thorton:

      Your mama's so fat, each legs is in a separate time zone.

      Delete
    50. LOL! I suppose when you're as dumb and dishonest as natschuster the homophobic bigot, making yourself look like an even bigger fool is all you've got.

      Do carry on bigot. It's not like you would otherwise use the time to be reading and educating your willfully ignorant dumbass self.

      Delete
    51. Your mama's so stupid, she tripped over a cordless phone.

      Delete
    52. LOL! Good old natschuster the lying homophobic bigot. When he's not screwing his Special Ed kids out of their science education he's stealing their 3rd grade jokes.

      Pick it up bigot. If you're going to be a clown at least be funny.

      Delete
    53. Nat,
      Well, where are all the changes that didn't survive? Are they in the fossil record?


      You are like a creationist jukebox, one hit after another. They died because even if they reproduced birds don't live millions of years. They may be in the fossil record, perhaps next to the first bird built by the designer. Where is that one? Why demand what you can't produce yourself?

      I'm not sure what you mean. TO change from one protein to another, you need to make very specific changes simultaneously unless you have functional intermediates.

      Perhaps you should visit Elizabeth's blog,those folks are protein smart,


      But no one knows what those intermediates might be. Same thing with the flagellum.

      They have some ideas I suspect, what does design say about intermediates do they exist? Maybe when the designer tinkers around?

      And the main reason I don't like evolution is that my faith is weak. I require evidence.

      What kind of evidence, something written in a book by a tribe wandering in the desert?

      Evolution requires too much blind faith. I'm too much of a realist.

      It doesn't require any faith, only curiousity

      Delete
    54. Thorton:

      Your mamma;s so nasty that she braids her armpits when she goes out.

      Delete
    55. Vel:

      I, for one, would expect to see a lot of fossils of the ones that didn't survive becuase there are probably a whole bunck of bad mutations for every good one. Where are they?

      And, to the best of my knowledge, design doesn't have to have intermediates, but doesn't exclude them either. An omnipotent Designer, by definition, cam do anything any way he wants to.

      And the evidence I'm referring to would be the Universe, the fantastic complexity of life, the fact that life exists at all, the human mind, etc. This doesn't require all this "we hope to have an answer for you someday" and apologetics like punctuated equilibrium, the incompleteness of the fossil record, convergent evolution, horizontal gene transfer, and lots and lots of negative reasoning.
      Oh, and lets not forget how some evolutionists wind up resorting to insults and such when they run out of answers.

      And I'm sorry, but evolution requires faith that all the intermediates will be found, or did exist even if we don't find them, and that the same process that allows bacteria to develop anti-biotic resistance can turn bacteria into blue whales. I'm sorry, but that is just too incredible for me.

      Delete
    56. LOL! Poor natschuster the homophobic bigot. The scientifically illiterate moron got caught lying again, now trying his best to create a distraction.

      Too late bigot. You already face planted on this one.

      Delete
    57. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      I'm sorry, but that is just too incredible for me.


      Of course it's too hard for you nat. Understanding science takes at least a 3 digit IQ and the maturity level of at least a teenager. You fail in both areas.

      Stay a willfully ignorant ass, stick to your 3rd grade jokes. They seem to be your only skills.

      Delete
    58. Nat,
      I, for one, would expect to see a lot of fossils of the ones that didn't survive becuase there are probably a whole bunck of bad mutations for every good one. Where are they?


      You are not very good at math yourself are you. The " right"ones leave more babies, and those babies leave more babies, that is the point of natural selection. Perhaps the reason you are having trouble with evolution is you just don't understand the ToE.

      And, to the best of my knowledge, design doesn't have to have intermediates, but doesn't exclude them either. An omnipotent Designer, by definition, cam do anything any way he wants to.

      Exactly, good point, anything is proof of an omnipotent designer, an omnipotent designer is unfalsifiable. In fact an omnipotent designer could use any tool and create his design,for instance nature. So the ToE could be viewed as proof of design,just a certain kind of design choice.

      Delete
    59. Nat,
      And the evidence I'm referring to would be the Universe, the fantastic complexity of life, the fact that life exists at all, the human mind, etc.


      It is complex,what is amazing is too that some of it is less complex than others. Like a hierachy.

      This doesn't require all this "we hope to have an answer for you someday"

      Such is the fate of beings who are not blessed with omniscience.

      apologetics like punctuated equilibrium, the incompleteness of the fossil record, convergent evolution, horizontal gene transfer, and lots and lots of negative reasoning.

      Those are mechanisms, what is the negative reasoning?

      Oh, and lets not forget how some evolutionists wind up resorting to insults and such when they run out of answers.

      No Nat,that is not why they insult you. And that, of course has nothing to do with whether the ToE is more explanatory than some unknown designer.......

      And I'm sorry, but evolution requires faith that all the intermediates will be found,

      It does not require that every intermediate to be found. So that must be a relief for you

      or did exist even if we don't find them, and that the same process that allows bacteria to develop anti-biotic resistance can turn bacteria into blue whales.

      One creationist trope after another, That is fine,don't accept the ToE as the best scientific explanation. Scientists could care less what your opinion is. Since your have no competing theory to even consider or test, remember your theory is not even theoretically falsifiable

      I'm sorry, but that is just too incredible for me.

      I can see your point it is way less incredible to believe that one can know how everything came to be ,based on a book written by nomads thousands of years ago.

      Delete
    60. "If we accept the Bible, we have lots of details filled in."

      Who's "we"?

      What "lots of details"?

      How about you start with the "lots of details" in the bible about how, when, and where 'God' designed and created various types of feathers?

      After that you can show the "lots of details" in the bible about the history and diversity of living things and everything else in the universe, okay?

      Delete
    61. Vel:

      The surviving, good mutations leave more offspring, true, but there are a lot more bad mutations than good mutations. Where are they in the fossil record?

      Often, when a problem with evolution is pointed out, the answer is "we hope to have an answer for you someday." That's an expression of faith.

      The various mechanism were devised to explain away problems with the theory of evolution.

      And if there are from 2 to 10 million species living today, and lots more that are extinct,and every one is the products is the product of evolution, then that means that there were lots and lots of transitionals. But why are they so rare in the fossil record? And every time they find a transitional between groups,it turns to be not so. If you take the fossil record at its face, then it just shows different species living at different times. No change from one to another. Evolutionists need to explain away that problem.

      Delete
    62. TWT:

      We would be us.

      And the details are things like timelines, dates, raw materials.

      Delete
    63. Vel:

      If design by an omnipotent Creator is nt falsifiable, how can people claim to have falsified it?

      Delete
    64. The stuff scientists would have us believe is a lot more incredible than anything fond in the Bible. Universe's popping out of nowhere, multi-verse, a Universe somehow being just right to accomodate life by accident, subatomic particles doing all kinds of weird things, spontaneous generation of life, i.e. abiogenesis, bacteria turning into blue whales, a lump of protoplasm, the brain, containing the mind, etc. The Bible is easy compared to this. And when problems are raised with all this science stuff, we are told to have faith science will produce an answer someday.

      Delete
    65. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      The surviving, good mutations leave more offspring, true, but there are a lot more bad mutations than good mutations. Where are they in the fossil record?


      You can't tell "good" or "bad" mutations by looking at an individual fossil. You can only tell that particular animal was alive in its particular environment. You can't tell if it was more reproductively fit or less than the rest of its population.

      How many more hundreds of times will you have to have this same stupid question answered?

      Often, when a problem with evolution is pointed out, the answer is "we hope to have an answer for you someday." That's an expression of faith.

      What you claim as "problems" are about 99% your willful ignorance and stupidity. Science saying "we don't have enough info yet to tell" isn't the same as "this is a big problem"

      that means that there were lots and lots of transitionals. But why are they so rare in the fossil record?

      LOL! First it was "what good is half a wing", Now it's "no transitionals". You're just running right down the laundry list of stupid Creationist PRATT claims.

      And every time they find a transitional between groups,it turns to be not so. If you take the fossil record at its face, then it just shows different species living at different times. No change from one to another. Evolutionists need to explain away that problem.

      More blustering ignorance and stupidity from the bigot.

      transitional fossil series

      Go ahead bigot, start lying again and say you looked at the evidence but didn't see any transitionals. Tell a few more whoppers in the name of your God.

      Delete
    66. Nat,
      If design by an omnipotent Creator is nt falsifiable, how can people claim to have falsified it?


      There is no " if" about it, which people are those?

      The stuff scientists would have us believe is a lot more incredible than anything fond in the Bible

      You are not much of a biblical scholar then.


      Universe's popping out of nowhere
      , multi-verse, a Universe somehow being just right to accomodate life by accident


      Actually if the multiverse is true then the universe didn't pop out of nowhere, and the probability of our particular universe increases. Remember your odds on winning the lottery depend on how many tickets you buy

      subatomic particles doing all kinds of weird things,

      Sorry Nat whether the Bible is true or not, subatomic particles do weird things

      a lump of protoplasm, the brain, containing the mind,

      Sorry, we have lots of evidence that the mind relies on a functional brain


      The Bible is easy compared to this.

      Sure,it is. Except in the end it just says God did it without any explanation beyond that, how the world actually works on a physical level, so yes it is easier not to have any details. Turn off that curiosity.

      And when problems are raised with all this science stuff, we are told to have faith science will produce an answer someday

      Sorry, life is complicated. If all you need is " God did it " to be satisfied, fine. Just be glad that someone felt differently when you go to the doctor, or fly in a airplane. All results from " someday we will find an answer"

      Delete
    67. Thorton:

      Can't pathologists tell if something is defective by looking at the bones?

      And I'm told to have faith that "we will have answers someday."

      I looked at the list of transitionals. The status of many of them as transitionals e.g. the whales, tiktaalik, archaeopteryx is questionable. They might have a transitional characteristic, but they are not the real ancestors. Where are they? If they existed, why can't we find them? And again, the series represents different species that existed at different times. If one species actually changes into another, why can't we find that? But I'm told that either the fossil record is incomplete or that evolution happens too fast to be caught. Why not just tale the fossil record at face value?

      Delete
    68. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      Can't pathologists tell if something is defective by looking at the bones?


      Which has zero to do with determining good or bad effects on overall reproductive fitness. Keep up the ignorance and stupidity bigot.

      The status of many of them as transitionals e.g. the whales, tiktaalik, archaeopteryx is questionable.

      Only to willfully ignorant jerks like you. Not to scientists who actually study them.

      They might have a transitional characteristic, but they are not the real ancestors

      Transitional doesn't mean "has to be on the direct lineage". More willful ignorance and stupidity from nat the bigot.

      If one species actually changes into another, why can't we find that?

      We have. You've been shown examples. If all you can do is go "NUH UN!" why don't you go back and play with the 3rd graders? They're about your intellectual speed.

      Delete
    69. Vel:

      Darwin said that God wouldn't do things a certain way. Gould said similar stuff. Dawkins said that a smart Creator would not design the eye the way it is, nor the laryngial nerve of the giraffe.

      Sorry, but a Universe popping out of nowhere is more incredible than splitting the Red Sea. And a Universe somehow fine tuning itself to accomodate life is more amazing that water turing to blood. And small molecules somehow forming a cell all by themselves is more unbelievable than a talking donkey. But I'm told to have faith.

      And the mind depends on the brain, true, but the brain is not sufficient.

      If the Big Bang is true, then our Universe and all space and time in it came from a mass timeless, dimensionless particle. That sounds like nothing to me. And I don't understand why people who accept multiverse have a problem with the Bible. Multiverse says that magic is happening, just not here. Why can't the magic be here? In fact if multi-verse is true, then there has to be a universe where a transcendent God create a world in six days, created a human from dust. Destroyed the world in a flood, while saving a man named Noah, then made a covenant with a man named Abraham, etc. If you accept multi-verse then you have to accept that as true.

      I accept the weirdness of sub-atomic particles. That's why I don''t have difficulty accepting the Bible.

      And belief in the Bible, for the most part, has not hindered scientific curiosity. There have been lots of religious scientists.

      Delete
    70. Thorton:

      Are you saying that the archaeopteryx, tiktaalik, and the whales are unquestionably ancestors?

      And I know that transitionals aren't necessarily ancestors. That's the point I was making. If the ancestors really existed, why can't we find them?

      And I scanned the list a second time. I didn't notice any examples of species-to-species change. Just different species living at different times. I've seen half a dozen or so possible examples elsewhere, but the changes, e.g. change in the shape of a diatoms shell, that it might just be normal intraspecies variation. And if species to species change happened for each and every species, how come it is so rare in the fossil record. Fossils aren't rare.

      Delete
    71. Thorton:

      I'm sorry. I forgot. The list of real transitions between species must be written in that special magical font that people like me can't see. My bad.

      Delete
    72. natschuster the lyinh homophobic bigot

      And belief in the Bible, for the most part, has not hindered scientific curiosity. There have been lots of religious scientists.


      And not a single one has made a scientific discovery based on those religious beliefs or what's written in the Bible.

      Delete
    73. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      If the ancestors really existed, why can't we find them?


      We have in some cases of isolated ecosystems. In most cases however it's impossible to determine direct lineages based of fossil samples that may be a millions years or more apart.

      I didn't notice any examples of species-to-species change.

      Animal lineages are continuous and have been for the last 3 billion years. 'Species' is a human construct for identifying points on the continuous lineage. Since the fossil record does not record every generation the determination of 'species' from fossils is based on best inferences from the morphological data. The examples shown did include some species-to-species transitions as best determined by the data at hand. You in your ignorance and dishonesty just hand-wave them away. away. Keep up your willful ignorance and lying bigot, it's so very Christian of you.

      And if species to species change happened for each and every species, how come it is so rare in the fossil record. Fossils aren't rare.

      Having serially fossilized sample points of direct lineages over millions of years is extremely rare.Don't you ever get tired of flaunting your willful ignorance?

      Go ahead and show us the skeletons of your ancestors all the way back to Adam. Or even for the last 1000 years. If those ancestors really existed, why can't we find them?

      Delete
    74. We might find entire bone beds of discrete species. Fossils aren't rare. But they just don't show species top species change.

      I didn't notice any examples of clear species to species change in the examples cited. Must have been that invisible ink.

      Why is serialized fossil points of direct lineages rare? Fossils aren't rare. And we aren't talking about the ancestors of one individual. We are talking about the ancestors of millions, of entire populations that had entire populations of ancestors. Why not just take the fossil record at face value?

      Delete
    75. Thorton:


      "And not a single one has made a scientific discovery based on those religious beliefs or what's written in the Bible."

      Wasn't Newton trying to understand the "Mind of God."

      Delete
    76. Nat,
      Darwin said that God wouldn't do things a certain way. Gould said similar stuff. Dawkins said that a smart Creator would not design the eye the way it is, nor the laryngial nerve of the giraffe


      Need the exact Darwin quote. If you argue good "design" proves God created the world, then logically bad "design" would prove otherwise. If you argue that anything could be proof of God, I expect both would agree. They are merely countering your argument.

      Sorry, but a Universe popping out of nowhere is more incredible than splitting the Red Sea.

      How about a being creating the universe in seven days from nowhere?

      And a Universe somehow fine tuning itself to accomodate life is more amazing that water turing to blood

      Really, what are the probabilties that water would turn to blood? And the universe did not fine tune itself,at least get the argument correct.

      And small molecules somehow forming a cell all by themselves is more unbelievable than a talking donkey. But I'm told to have faith.

      That is because you believe that supernatural power exists, and again unless you have an actual scientific argument think whatever you want.

      And the mind depends on the brain, true, but the brain is not sufficient.

      I agree, probably chemistry and physics as well.

      Delete
    77. Nat ,
      If the Big Bang is true, then our Universe and all space and time in it came from a mass timeless, dimensionless particle.


      You know of course the Big Bang theory was formulated by a Jesuit priest, and it is thought to be an infinitely dense point.

      That sounds like nothing to me.

      Luckily you assent is unnecessary for the math to work out

      And I don't understand why people who accept multiverse have a problem with the Bible

      Some do,some don't, just like some scientists support the notion of a multiverse and some don't. No one claims to have proven the multiverse exists,it is a hypothesis. Relax

      Multiverse says that magic is happening, just not here. Why can't the magic be here?

      No magic in science,Nat

      In fact if multi-verse is true, then there has to be a universe where a transcendent God create a world in six days, created a human from dust.

      Maybe if such a thing as a transcendent God who creates universes is possible, the question is how do you know it is this one, Faith?

      Destroyed the world in a flood, while saving a man named Noah, then made a covenant with a man named Abraham, etc. If you accept multi-verse then you have to accept that as true

      Why Nat? Let's see if you can articulate the reasoning.

      And belief in the Bible, for the most part, has not hindered scientific curiosity. There have been lots of religious scientists

      Nice" for the most part", depends on how inerrant one considers the Bible.

      There still are, but they don't include supernatural variables into their work.

      Delete
    78. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      We might find entire bone beds of discrete species. Fossils aren't rare. But they just don't show species top species change.


      All entombed at the same time. We don't find closely temporally spaced fossils over hundreds or thousands of generations.

      Once again all you do is try to twist the science that was presented to prop up your preconceived ignorance. Amazingly dishonest on your part, but you've proven yourself to be to be willfully ignorant lying scum many times over

      Delete
    79. "You know of course the Big Bang theory was formulated by a Jesuit priest, and it is thought to be an infinitely dense point".

      For things to explode out of an infinitely dense point, don't you need infinite force? There isn't infinite force in a finite Universe. And things don't explode for no reason.

      "Why Nat? Let's see if you can articulate the reasoning."

      Multi-verse gets around the problem of fine tuning by saying that there are an infinite number of universes out there, each one is different. They have different laws and parameters. We happen to live in the one with laws that allow for life. In some of them, unicorns exist. In some of them, a transcendent Creator created the universe in six. That just has to be the case if every conceivable universe exists.
      So multiverse proponents don't have a problem with magic, as long as it happens somewhere else. And isn't multi-verse non-falsifiable anyway?

      And suspect that the transcedent Creator is in this Universe because it is really hard to explain things like the Big Bang, the the origin of life, the mind etc, without it.

      "I agree, probably chemistry and physics as well."

      Can you predict or explain the mind with just the laws of physics and chemistry alone? If not, why not?



      Delete
    80. Thorton:

      Aren't there rock formations that contain strata lad down of continuously over millions of years? Do we find species to species transitions in them? And why can't we find closely temporally spaced fossils? Fossils are common.Why not just take the fossil record at face value.

      Delete
    81. Nat,
      For things to explode out of an infinitely dense point, don't you need infinite force? There isn't infinite force in a finite Universe. And things don't explode for no reason.


      Then good thing it did not explode,and technically there was no universe or time before the Big Bang.

      So multiverse proponents don't have a problem with magic, as long as it happens somewhere else. And isn't multi-verse non-falsifiable anyway

      Depends on which theory you are talking about, that is the bad thing about science, no certainty
      "Level I: Beyond our cosmological horizon
      Level II: Universes with different physical constants
      Level III: Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics
      Level IV: Ultimate Ensemble

      Since I know you like things written in books a long time ago as proof
      "Hindu cosmology hints the existence of multiverse in various texts such as Vedas and Puranas. "

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

      Delete
    83. Nat,
      And suspect that the transcedent Creator is in this Universe because it is really hard to explain things like the Big Bang, the the origin of life, the mind etc, without it


      True, there is nothing simpler than god did it, I suspect the concept of a transcendent anthropomorphic god is because life is complicated and scary and then you die. The Myth of Sisyphus,

      Can you predict or explain the mind with just the laws of physics and chemistry alone? If not, why not?

      Is there a creationist handbook somewhere? To answer that perhaps you should give me a definition of the mind

      Delete
    84. Okay it didn't explode, it went bang, expanded, whatever. But you need infinite force to get it to expand. And what was the cause.

      And the mind has qualities that aren't qualities of matter. But the brain is just matter. How does a lump of matter get qualities that aren't qualities of matter?

      Delete
    85. Thorton:

      See, it's like this. The smoking gun, the direct evidence that one species can turn into another, isn't there. Its has to be inferred. Bacteria develop antibiotic resistance so it must be hat they can evolve into blue whales. We don't see it happening in our lifetimes because it is too slow. We don't see it in the fossil record because it is too fast. The fossil don't show it, but we just know it happened. But, if it happened over and over again millions of times, I for one would expect to see a lot more real direct evidence.

      Delete
    86. Nat.

      Okay it didn't explode, it went bang, expanded, whatever. But you need infinite force to get it to expand. And what was the cause


      We don't know, and since gravity is not thought to have existed until after the Big Bang the need of an infinite force is also thought unnecessary. What causes the the expansion of space is also unknown.

      And the mind has qualities that aren't qualities of matter. But the brain is just matter. How does a lump of matter get qualities that aren't qualities of matter

      Just as water has qualities that hydrgen and oxygen do not have? Is the quality of wet, supernatural? Define the mind and maybe we can quantify those qualities. But it is undeniable that external forces can affect the mind, if the mind is immaterial how do material forces interact with the material?

      Delete
    87. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      See, it's like this.


      No bigot, it's like this.

      That speciation occurs and has occurred is a scientific fact. You're a lying willfully ignorant Creationist who refuses to read the evidence put right under his nose.

      So go ahead, lie all you want, put the big red clown nose on again as a distraction. Won't change scientifically determined physical reality even a little bit

      Delete
    88. Vel:

      So it is either "we don't know" or "Go did it." Gotcha. There seems to be a lot of "we don't know."

      And s nanosecond after the Big Bang, you di have space, time, and all the mass in the Universe pulling in. So you need a lot of force pushing out. Where did it come from?

      And we can predict the qualities of water from what we know about the qualities of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. We can't predict the qualities of a mind from what we know about matter.

      Thorton:

      Your declaring it a fact doesn't make it a fact. If it is a fact that millions, or even tens of millions of species evolved form other species, I for one would expect to see more evidence. But again, my faith is weak.

      Delete
    89. Nat,
      So it is either "we don't know" or "Go did it." Gotcha.


      Well actually God did it contains " I don't know as well" , how did god create a physical universe specifically? Big Bang, everything as is, when did this happen? Do you have any answers or is it unknown? Oh yes, how do you know which god did it?

      There seems to be a lot of "we don't know."

      Welcome to the real world, Nat. For every answer there are more questions. I advise you stick to fields which everything is known. Which fields have all the answers?

      And s nanosecond after the Big Bang, you di have space, time, and all the mass in the Universe pulling in

      Good question, I believe there are many theories concerning the Big Bang , when mass came to exist is of some debate ans well as the expansionary period. The CMD seems to support the theory of the Big Bang as well as the mathematics.
      But is is likely that our understanding is incorrect. Just as our understanding of the size of our universe was different from what we know now. We are finite creatures. All theories are conditional. Some less than others, than is why they compute levels of confidence.

      And we can predict the qualities of water from what we know about the qualities of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

      Really how so? Neither oxygen or hydrogen has the quality of wet, where does it come from? Does it predict the freezing point or boiling point?

      We can't predict the qualities of a mind from what we know about matter. .

      Until you define the mind, we can't know, again if the mind is immaterial how does the mind interface with the material world? Since you seem to mock science for not being omniscient I am sure you have the answer.

      Delete
    90. Nat,
      Your declaring it a fact doesn't make it a fact. If it is a fact that millions, or even tens of millions of species evolved form other species, I for one would expect to see more evidence


      What is your expectation based on? In other words what is your expertise in the related fields, geology, paleontology. What is the rate of fossilization? What are the criteria the must be meant for fossilization , necessary for the discovery of fossils?

      Delete
    91. Vel:


      First of all, how do you define "wet?" Does it mean having water? Then saying water is wet is a tautology. What we do know is that the valence shells of hydrogen and oxygen atoms cause them to bond in a certain way, so that the water molecule has a certain shape. The oxygen atom has more protons in its nucleus, so the electrons spend more time there, giving then molecule a polarity. That can give us pretty good idea about things like crystal structure, freezing point, boiling point. It even explains why water expands as it freezes. Can we say the same things about the brain/mind connection?

      And I guess I'm not demanding too much when I say that I'd like to see 1% of the cases of actual species to species evolution show up in the fossil record. That should give a minimum of 10,000 cases. I'm being generous here. 10,000 is more than zero.

      Delete
    92. natschuster the lying homophoboc bigot

      And I guess I'm not demanding too much when I say that I'd like to see 1% of the cases of actual species to species evolution show up in the fossil record. That should give a minimum of 10,000 cases. I'm being generous here. 10,000 is more than zero.


      LOL! People in Hell demand icewater too bigot. You're not in a position to demand anything of science.

      And for the record, all we really need is *one* confirmed instance of speciation and your Special Creation fantasy goes bye bye. You've already been shown dozens of transitional series on this thread alone. Looks like you need a new fantasy.

      Delete
    93. "Science" isn't in a position to demand anything of me. What do you mean by science anyway.

      I don't recall seeing any clear unambiguous examples of species to species change here. The list you were kind enough to link was different species living at different times. And many were of questionable status transitionals, anyway. Why is that so often they find an ancestral species, then it turns out to be not so?

      Delete
    94. Nat,
      First of all, how do you define "wet?" Does it mean having water? Then saying water is wet is a tautology


      A quality of a liquid. It is a description of an aspect of the substance.

      It is noted that you ask for definitions and still have not supported your claim about the mind without a definition.

      What we do know is that the valence shells of hydrogen and oxygen atoms cause them to bond in a certain way, so that the water molecule has a certain shape. The oxygen atom has more protons in its nucleus, so the electrons spend more time there, giving then molecule a polarity

      That sounds like BS, citation please.Has anyone ever seen a proton or a nucleus?

      Can we say the same things about the brain/mind connection?

      Until you define mind we will never know

      And I guess I'm not demanding too much when I say that I'd like to see 1% of the cases of actual species to species evolution show up in the fossil record.

      Ok, what is the basis for that expectation?

      That should give a minimum of 10,000 case. I'm being generous here. 10,000 is more than zero

      If you find a ancient croc and a present day croc does that count? Could you specify exactly what evidence would satisfy your demands? Would plants be acceptable? Perhaps this would be a good time to define a species

      Just curious since you need to know to calculate a percentage, how many different species have scientists discovered fossilized?

      Delete
    95. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      I don't recall seeing any clear unambiguous examples of species to species change here.


      No wonder where you keep your head lodged. Why do you keep lying about having read the papers I keep presenting when it's obvious you never even looked at the abstracts?

      Why is that so often they find an ancestral species, then it turns out to be not so?

      Because it doesn't. You're lying again.

      Delete
    96. Vel:

      Here is the Wikipedia article on water:

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

      And the wikipedia of mind definition seems to be good enough.

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

      And I understand that there are an estimated 1.5 million known species, and 250,000 known fossil species. That's a lot of species, but where is the species to species transition?

      I think 1% is being generous. What would be a good estimate? I would actually expect to see more, if that is what actually happened.

      If we found an ancient croc in one layer, and thenin the next layer a croc that was a little different, then on top of that, a coc that was a little different, and so on, unitl we get to a present day croc. IF that's what evolution is, if that is what happened, that's what I would expect to see.

      Thorton:

      Tiktaalik, IDA, the whale series, all turned out to be side branches. The status of archaeopteryx as an ancestor of bords is questionable. So too with a lot of the fossil that were claimed to be human ancestors.

      Delete
    97. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      Tiktaalik, IDA, the whale series, all turned out to be side branches. The status of archaeopteryx as an ancestor of bords is questionable. So too with a lot of the fossil that were claimed to be human ancestors


      "Transitional fossil" doesn't mean "has to be on a direct ancestral lineage." You've only had that explained to you half a dozen times but still continue to lie about it. Why do you keep lying about the scientific facts bigot? Do they scare you that much?

      Delete
    98. Thorton:

      I know that. I'm asking about the ancestors. Where are they if they really existes.

      Delete
    99. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      I know that. I'm asking about the ancestors. Where are they if they really existes


      In most cases the fossil record doesn't preserve with enough granularity to identify direct ancestors. Only in rare cases do we get enough of the record preserved for that level of detail, like here

      Bone histology indicates insular dwarfism in a new Late Jurassic sauropod dinosaur

      You've only had that explained to you half a dozen times but still continue to lie about it too.

      Do you ever do anything with science except lie about having read papers and dishonestly quote-mining abstracts?

      Delete
    100. Didn't see anything in the paper about a series of fossils slowly changing, that is evolving. If it happened, why can't we find it?

      Delete
    101. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      Didn't see anything in the paper about a series of fossils slowly changing, that is evolving.


      Aah, there's the lying bigot we all know. Lying about having read and understood the paper in the half hour since I posted it.

      A moral person would be embarrassed to be caught in lies as often as you are bigot. But then a moral person wouldn't be a compulsive liar like you are.

      Nathan Schuster, compulsive liar.

      Delete
    102. Thorton:

      All I saw in the was how they studied the bones of one species of dinosaur and found evidence of an evolutionary mechanism, Nothing about finding one species changing into another. Are you sure your not resorting to insults, name calling, and subject changing because you can't address the question again?

      Delete
    103. Nat,
      Wikipedia


      Does that help your argument somehow?

      And I understand that there are an estimated 1.5 million known species, and 250,000 known fossil species. That's a lot of species, but where is the species to species transition?

      According to paleontologists, people who actually do the work, they are there.

      I think 1% is being generous

      As I said you opinion is meaningless without a basis. What is the distribution of fossils we have discovered?

      What would be a good estimate? I would actually expect to see more, if that is what actually happened.

      Of course, since you put your own theory to such rigorous demands as well.

      If we found an ancient croc in one layer, and thenin the next layer a croc that was a little different,

      Really, is the rate of sedimention steady through time? What is the average time between layers, are some layers more favorable to fossilization? What part does erosion and metamorphism play in this scenario? What is the macimun time between layers that is acceptable? Is there such a occurrence in the geologic record?

      . IF that's what evolution is, if that is what happened, that's what I would expect to see.

      That is what would be nice, but we still live in the real world where to ideal seldom is the real. Even if we found reasonable transitions such as the horse or whale, what do you think would be the objection? Where is the transitions between the transitions?

      Unrealistic expectations are bound to lead to disappointment.

      Delete
    104. Nat,
      All I saw in the was how they studied the bones of one species of dinosaur and found evidence of an evolutionary mechanism, Nothing about finding one species changing into another


      Explain the difference?

      Are you sure your not resorting to insults, name calling, and subject changing because you can't address the question again?

      I expect it is because he really finds you worthy of derision.And any answers is a waste of effort on a closed mind.

      Delete
    105. Vel:

      The Wikipedia article on water shows how we know some of the qualities of water can be are the result of the qualities of individual atoms.

      And given the wikipedia definition of mind, can you predicts it qualities from the known qualities of matter?

      I keep on looking for examples, or species to species transition. I found half a dozen or so. Each case is questionable.

      Delete
    106. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      All I saw in the was how they studied the bones of one species of dinosaur and found evidence of an evolutionary mechanism, Nothing about finding one species changing into another.


      But you didn't read the paper you lying bigot. You just skimmed the abstract as usual.

      That's why you'll always be a willfully ignorant bigot.

      Delete
    107. Nat,
      The Wikipedia article on water shows how we know some of the qualities of water can be are the result of the qualities of individual atoms.


      Was " wet " among them?

      And given the wikipedia definition of mind, can you predicts it qualities from the known qualities of matter

      As we learn from water,the combination of elements has qualities that the individual element do not have. As for wiki

      "Many modern philosophers of mind adopt either a reductive or non-reductive physicalist position, maintaining in their different ways that the mind is not something separate from the body.These approaches have been particularly influential in the sciences, e.g. in the fields of sociobiology, computer science, evolutionary psychology and the various neurosciences.Other philosophers, however, adopt a non-physicalist position which challenges the notion that the mind is a purely physical construct.
      Reductive physicalists assert that all mental states and properties will eventually be explained by scientific accounts of physiological processes and states.
      Non-reductive physicalists argue that although the brain is all there is to the mind, the predicates and vocabulary used in mental descriptions and explanations are indispensable, and cannot be reduced to the language and lower-level explanations of physical science."

      Neither helps nor hurts your theory, so again if the mind is immaterial how does it interact with the material brain? Why does changes in the brain likewise affect an immaterial mind?

      I keep on looking for examples, or species to species transition. I found half a dozen or so. Each case is questionable

      Which ones and why are they questionable? Why would there be any with a designer?

      Delete
    108. Vel:

      If you define wet as being liquid, then yes, the reason water is a liquid at normal temperatures is due to the shape and size of the molecules.

      There are some fossil diatoms that exhibits some morphological change over time. There is a very small clam that shows reduced ridges over time. Bu the changes are all so trivial, that they migh be within the range of normal intra-species variation.

      Delete
    109. Thorton:

      Are you saying that the paper does discuss finding a series of fossils showing change over time, from a big sauropod, to a small one? I missed that. All I saw was the analysis of the fossils of the small sauropod.

      Delete
    110. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      Are you saying that the paper does discuss finding a series of fossils showing change over time, from a big sauropod, to a small one? I missed that. All I saw was the analysis of the fossils of the small sauropod.


      You missed everything because you still haven't read the paper. You missed the discussion about the paleogeological evidence, you missed the discussion on the dwarfed sauropod's full sized ancestors, you missed the discussion about speciation through island isolation due to rising sea levels.

      That's what happens when you lie about reading a paper you never looked at.

      I can't have a discussion with a lying bigot who's too lazy to read.

      Delete
    111. I must have missed the part where they said they actually found the ancestors. I did see the part where they discussed the hypothetical ancestors. See, they so often turn out to be hypothetical.

      Delete
    112. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      I must have missed the part where they said they actually found the ancestors.


      You missed the whole paper because you never read it. You're a bare-faced Creationist liar caught in another big fat porkie.

      and found evidence of an evolutionary mechanism,

      What evolutionary mechanism was found bigot? What's it called, and how does it work?

      What well known process is the mechanism an example of?

      Delete
    113. It mentioned a slowed growth rate. Why is that relevant?

      Delete
    114. LOL! look at the bigot dodge!

      C'mon bigot, what was the mechanism that led to the smaller morphological size? It's right in the title of the paper. Even though you never read the paper you at least scanned the title, didn't you?

      Delete
    115. "Comparison with the long-bone histology of large-bodied sauropods suggests that the island dwarf species evolved through a decrease in growth rate from its larger ancestor."

      Aren't "slowed" and "decrease" almost synonimous in this context? Am I misunderstanding your question. I'm at least attempting to answer your question. Please return the courtesy and explain to me how this address my question about the actual ancestors.

      Delete
    116. That's not the title bigot. Here's the title:

      "Bone histology indicates insular dwarfism in a new Late Jurassic sauropod dinosaur"

      Use that tiny lying Creationist brain and give me the two words in the title that describe the phenomenon observed. Hint...I even bolded them for you.

      Delete
    117. Insular dwarfism is the phenomenon we are discussing. You asked about a mechanism. My understanding is that a mechanism is the means by which something happens. decrease in growth rates leads to dwarfism. Now, where are the big dinosaurs that the dwarf evolved from?

      Delete
    118. natschusterJ the lying homophobic bigot

      Insular dwarfism is the phenomenon we are discussing.


      Very good bigot! Here's your next test. Try to find the same words in the scientific description below.

      "Allopatric Speciation:
      During allopatric speciation, a population splits into two geographically isolated allopatric populations(for example, by habitat fragmentation due to geographical change such as mountain building or social change such as emigration). The isolated populations then undergo genotypic and/or phenotypic divergence as they (a) become subject to dissimilar selective pressures or (b) they independently undergo genetic drift. When the populations come back into contact, they have evolved such that they are reproductively isolated and are no longer capable of exchanging genes.

      Observed Instances
      Island genetic, the tendency of small, isolated genetic pools to produce unusual traits, has been observed in many circumstances, including insular dwarfism and the radical changes among certain famous island chains, for example of Komodo. see adaptive evolutionary radiation."

      So insular dwarfism is a type of A________ S________.

      Fill in the blanks for us.

      Delete
    119. The answer would be a hypothetical form of theoretical evolution that is inferred but hasn't actually been observed called allopatric speciation that is assumed to happen by evolutionists because the "smoking gun" of evolution, that is, species to species change, has not been observed. Evolutionists resort to talking about allopatric speciation as a way to "blow smoke" and because the have no real "smoke" from a real gun.

      Delete
    120. The answer would be a hypothetical form of theoretical evolution that is inferred but hasn't actually been observed called allopatric speciation that is assumed to happen by evolutionists because the "smoking gun" of evolution, that is, species to species change, has not been observed

      And yet you believe in a designer,which possibly cannot even theoretically be observed, creating the same organisms which has not been observed, with technology that has not been observed, based on a book which contains events that have not been observed? What is up with that, Mr Skeptic?

      Delete
    121. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      The answer would be a hypothetical form of theoretical evolution that is inferred but hasn't actually been observed called allopatric speciation that is assumed to happen by evolutionists because the "smoking gun" of evolution, that is, species to species change, has not been observed. Evolutionists resort to talking about allopatric speciation as a way to "blow smoke" and because the have no real "smoke" from a real gun.


      LOL! Here we see the willfully ignorant Creationist in full reality denial mode. What's next Schuster, gonna use Ken Ham's "were you there??? did you see it??? on us?

      The body of scientific evidence for allopatric speciation is of course huge. There are hundreds of well documented examples that are backed up with genetic data and geologic data. One area with hundreds of examples is the island of Madagascar, which separated from mainland India some 60 MYA.

      Madagascar as a model region of
      species diversification


      There's another big paper for you to scan for quote-mines and lie about reading.

      We can even see the process happening today in real time by observing ring species.

      Stick a fork in this Schuster clown.. He's done.

      Delete
    122. I didn't see anything about actually observing speciation in the article on Madagascar.

      As far as ring spcies are concerned I found this:

      http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1542/893

      sbout the gulls.

      Delete
    123. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      I didn't see anything about actually observing speciation in the article on Madagascar.


      LOL! I see once again you didn't read the paper, just skimmed for buzzwords. Then you fall back to your usual moronic Creationist excuse "NO ONE SAW IT HAPPEN!!!"

      I'm almost feeling bad about how stupid you're making yourself look in this thread Schuster. Almost.

      Delete
    124. So wo0uld you be so kind as to call my bluff, and cut and paste something that says actual speciation was observed.

      Or maybe, just maybe, I'm not the one who is bluffing.

      Delete
  3. DrHunter,
    a clergy that viewed the creator as more eminent than immanent. Like Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover, the creator was exalted as transcendent, and so safely sequestered away from the details of this world which he should be neither aware of nor responsible for


    Since I expect all clergy believe their God is omniscient, " unaware" seems merely your own religious views of those clergy. Clergy which accepted the miraculous transubstantiation as a daily occurrence. So" safely sequestered" also seems at odds with their theology.

    Perhaps more accurately they accepted the conception of secondary causation, "In the Summa contra Gentiles, Aquinas remarks that "the same effect is not attributed to a natural cause and to divine power in such a way that it is partly done by God, and partly by the natural agent; rather, it is wholly done by both, according to a different way, just as the same effect is wholly attributed to the instrument and also wholly to the principal agent." It is not the case of partial or co-causes with each contributing a separate element to produce the effect. God, as Creator, transcends the order of created causes in such a way that He is their enabling origin. Yet the "same God who transcends the created order is also intimately and immanently present within that order as upholding all causes in their causing, including the human will"

    So we are back to the underlying point,science must abide by your religious views to be legit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So we are back to the underlying point,science must abide by your religious views to be legit.

      It is always amazing how evolutionists can enforce and mandate their own religious beliefs on others, and manage to pin the blame on those pointing it out.

      Delete
    2. DrHunter,
      It is always amazing how evolutionists can enforce and mandate their own religious beliefs on others, and manage to pin the blame on those pointing it out


      It is always good to be able to do two things at once, though in this case I was merely attempting to help your refine your argument by correcting your mischaracterization of my former religion.

      Second,my only religious belief is laissez faire.Since you brought it up how would characterize your own religious leanings?

      Third, your whole post by your own definition was a religious belief that another religious belief is in error

      How was I wrong? Why is the religious belief in secondary causes incorrect?

      Apologies for any victimization I may have inadvertently inflicted, I thought we were just having a discussion

      Delete
    3. V:

      how would characterize your own religious leanings?

      I believe Jesus died for us and without him we have no hope. Regarding the subject at hand (ie, evolution), my religious beliefs don’t mandate it to be true or false.


      your whole post by your own definition was a religious belief that another religious belief is in error

      No, the OP has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. I think you misread somewhere. Nor does the OP say a “religious belief is in error.”

      Delete
    4. cornelius, since you believe (erroneously) that "evolution" is a religion and that "evolutionists" are religious, then whenever you say that "evolution" and "evolutionists" are wrong you are saying that a religion is wrong. And since you ARE religious (extremely so), you are saying that your religion is right and another religion ("evolution") is wrong. AND, since all you ever do is say that "evolution" and "evolutionists" are wrong, then velikovskys is absolutely correct by saying this:

      "your whole post by your own definition was a religious belief that another religious belief is in error"

      You obviously believe that everyone else is as dumb, dishonest, and blind as you are. You play a whole bunch of dishonest, childish, diversionary games in an attempt to fool people into thinking that you actually care about truth, reality, and science, but you're only fooling yourself and others who have already been fooled into swallowing monstrous, impossible, religious fairy tales.

      You said about evolution:

      "my religious beliefs don’t mandate it to be true or false."

      That's a lie and you know it. If it's not a lie, have you told your bosses at biola that that's how you feel?

      And, if it's not a lie, then why are you so OBSESSED with bashing evolution and evolutionists?

      You also said:

      "No, the OP has nothing to do with my religious beliefs."

      If your imaginary god exists (LOL) you're going to burn for that gargantuan lie. ALL of your posts have to do with your religious beliefs and ONLY your religious beliefs. If it weren't for your religious beliefs this site wouldn't exist and you might actually be a productive scientist.

      Delete
    5. DrHunter,
      I believe Jesus died for us and without him we have no hope. Regarding the subject at hand (ie, evolution), my religious beliefs don’t mandate it to be true or false.


      A non teleological world is acceptable to your religious beliefs?

      No, the OP has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. I think you misread somewhere. Nor does the OP say a “religious belief is in error.”

      Always possible to misunderstand, to clarify one can talk about another's religious belief and question it without making a religious statement themselves?

      For instance saying ID is motivated by an ancient sentiment which deems what is acceptable or not in science , is this a religious belief ?

      Delete
    6. Cornelius Hunter

      Regarding the subject at hand (ie, evolution), my religious beliefs don’t mandate it to be true or false.


      The oath you signed when you took the job at BIOLA sure mandates evolution to be false

      "The existence and nature of the creation is due to the direct miraculous power of God. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power. A proper understanding of science does not require that all phenomena in nature must be explained solely by reference to physical events, laws and chance. Therefore, creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and (c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that
      (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms."

      How about it CH? Were you lying to them or to us? I suppose it's possible you're just lying to yourself.

      Delete
    7. Well now, one of my comments has disappeared. The truth hurts, eh cornelius?

      Delete
    8. A non teleological world is acceptable to your religious beliefs?

      Yes, though it is a moot point given the science.


      Always possible to misunderstand, to clarify one can talk about another's religious belief and question it without making a religious statement themselves?

      The OP doesn’t question anyone’s religious beliefs. The point, which you seem to have missed, is that evolution is mandated by religious claims, not scientific findings. In fact, as the OP points out, the science remains contrary to evolution (after all this time, the most basic problem, how complex things evolved, remains unknown).


      For instance saying ID is motivated by an ancient sentiment which deems what is acceptable or not in science , is this a religious belief ?

      No, that would be the fallacy of contriving motives.

      Delete
    9. CH:"I believe Jesus died for us and without him we have no hope. Regarding the subject at hand (ie, evolution), my religious beliefs don’t mandate it to be true or false."

      With all of the darkness in the comments, it's nice to see some light. :)

      Delete
    10. Hmm, my missing comment has reappeared. Interesting.

      Delete
    11. cornelius said:

      "The OP doesn’t question anyone’s religious beliefs. The point, which you seem to have missed, is that evolution is mandated by religious claims, not scientific findings."

      Beside the fact that you still haven't figured out the difference between evolution and evolutionary theory, your second sentence totally contradicts your first sentence.

      You say that "evolution" is "mandated by religious claims" and you constantly assert that "evolution" is a religion, yet you have the nerve to say that you're not questioning anyone's religious beliefs and that you're not claiming that religious beliefs contrary to yours are wrong?

      To you "evolution" is religious, religious, religious and it's wrong, wrong, wrong but you "don't care" whether it's right or wrong and you aren't questioning and bashing anyone's religious beliefs when you constantly question and bash "evolution". Makes perfect sense, NOT.

      Evolution isn't religious and neither is evolutionary theory. Evolution is a fact, and it will continue to occur whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

      Since you also have a huge problem with evolutionary theory you should first figure out the difference between evolution and evolutionary theory (aka the theory of evolution) and then learn as much as possible about evolutionary theory, and then if you still don't like any parts of it you should do the necessary research and find better explanations for those parts. Just hating on "evolution" isn't going to make evolution and the history of evolution go away, and it's not going to change or eliminate evolutionary theory either.

      Your 'crusade' to deny that evolution occurs and to replace evolutionary theory with your fundie religious/political dogma is a lost cause. It's not too late for you to discard your belief in ancient, impossible fairy tales and join the 21st century, if you really try.

      Delete
    12. The OP doesn’t question anyone’s religious beliefs. The point, which you seem to have missed, is that evolution is mandated by religious claims, not scientific findings.

      No, I really did understand your point, you seem to be missing mine. The claim that evolution is mandated by religious claims is a religious belief by your logic.

      Why, just as theists used religious beliefs to support a naturalistic view, the opponents of evolution used a religious view to oppose it. Therefore if support is a religious belief ,so is the opposition.


      In fact, as the OP points out, the science remains contrary to evolution (after all this time, the most basic problem, how complex things evolved, remains unknown).

      This is your opinion,vastly disagreed by the majority of scientists. Then the question is how is your opinion based on facts so contrary to an overwhelming majority of professionals.

      Your answer seems to be religious beliefs cause the majority to be incorrect. If religious beliefs can cause one to be incorrect about whether science is based on evidence or metaphysics,what evidence do you have that you are not infected as well?

      Delete
  4. Cornelius Hunter

    It is always amazing how evolutionists can enforce and mandate their own religious beliefs on others, and manage to pin the blame on those pointing it out


    It is always amazing how Creationists can continue to use the ridiculously transparent lie "evolution is a religion" and manage to act indignant towards those pointing it out.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cornelius Hunter: "It is always amazing how evolutionists can enforce and mandate their own religious beliefs on others, and manage to pin the blame on those pointing it out"

    Thorton: "It is always amazing how Creationists can continue to use the ridiculously transparent lie "evolution is a religion" and manage to act indignant towards those pointing it out."

    Me: It used to amaze me how proponents of Darwin so often present themselves like someone driving down the highway in a car, whereas proponents of intelligent causation are like someone walking down the boardwalk with you, side by side, engaging in conversation. Speaking solely for myself, that by itself is enough to make me favor the side that favors intelligent causation.

    ~Kaz

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alethinon61

      Me: It used to amaze me how proponents of Darwin so often present themselves like someone driving down the highway in a car, whereas proponents of intelligent causation are like someone walking down the boardwalk with you, side by side, engaging in conversation. Speaking solely for myself, that by itself is enough to make me favor the side that favors intelligent causation.


      The big problem is that the whole time the ID-Creationists are walking beside you they are still lying their asses off about pretty much everything.

      Many of us in the scientific community have long since gotten fed up with the nonstop lies and dishonesty of professional IDC propagandists. We're sick and tired of being portrayed as incompetent or deliberate frauds by dishonest religiously motivated hacks and scientifically illiterate Fundy morons who couldn't qualify for a job in a real science lab as a janitor. That's why there's such animus and push-back.

      Delete
    2. Yes Yes Yes to what Thorton said above.

      Delete
    3. @Thorton: You've just made my point! When people get into a car they often doff whatever civility they normally have and allow the epithets to fly at the slighted provocation. Cars and the Internet seem to be a sort of antidote for civility. It's a bit bizarre, really.

      Here's why this is telling: People who have the stronger position, and who are confident in it's correctness, are more often able to convey their arguments in a patient, dignified way, whereas those who are aware of the weaknesses in their position but are determined to support it anyway are often given to fits of peevishness. In my own experience, there is much more peevishness and trollery coming from the Darwinian side then from the ID side.

      Delete
    4. Alethinon61

      @Thorton: You've just made my point! When people get into a car they often doff whatever civility they normally have and allow the epithets to fly at the slighted provocation. Cars and the Internet seem to be a sort of antidote for civility. It's a bit bizarre, really.

      Here's why this is telling: People who have the stronger position, and who are confident in it's correctness, are more often able to convey their arguments in a patient, dignified way, whereas those who are aware of the weaknesses in their position but are determined to support it anyway are often given to fits of peevishness. In my own experience, there is much more peevishness and trollery coming from the Darwinian side then from the ID side.


      You miss the whole point. Science has been dealing with these professional liars for decades. They've been corrected way enough times to establish that their continued attacks on science and scientists are deliberate dishonesty. These people aren't interested in scientific discussion, they're pushing a political/religious position. To the scientific community the repeated lies and slander are extremely vulgar and impolite even if they dress it up with nice sounding "polite" language.

      Maybe you would feel differently if it was your good reputation and honest life's work that was continually being dragged through the mud. Every day you issue corrections for the deliberate falsehoods being spread, and the next day the same lies and slander reappear. Wash, rinse, repeat.

      I used to have much more patience with these dishonest scoundrels but that wore thin some time ago. After 20 years of being lied about I suspect you wouldn't remain so cheerful and happy either.

      Delete
    5. @Thorton:

      "You miss the whole point. Science has been dealing with these professional liars for decades."

      No, I got the point, and you've helped make mine yet again. I don't consider your opinion that your side has been misrepresented as an excuse to behave badly. I think that the reason so many Darwinists behave badly is because they know in their heart-of-hearts that their preferred theory's larger claims are simply preposterous. The very notion that structures that exhibit an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts came into being via a purposeless process is the grandaddy of all absurdities. I'm sure you don't like it when folks point that out, as there really is no good come back.

      I've followed the ID/anti-ID debate for some time, and I've found that those in the forefront of the movement always address the strengths and weakness of the Darwinian argument while presenting their positive case for ID. From the anti-ID side, I often see ad hominem after ad hominem, condescension, peevishness, unmitigated arrogance, etc.

      Delete
    6. Alethinon61

      The very notion that structures that exhibit an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts came into being via a purposeless process is the grandaddy of all absurdities. I'm sure you don't like it when folks point that out, as there really is no good come back.


      The 'comeback' is the fact that people who make such claims haven't studied the science involved and are arguing from ignorance and personal incredulity like you appear to be, or have studied the science and are deliberately lying like the scoundrels at the DI.

      The scientific community is quite unimpressed with both approaches.

      ID-Creationists have had ample opportunity to make their case through experiments and presenting positive results, yet they never have. There's a damn good reason all we get from them are misrepresentations and lies published in the popular press and aimed at ignorant laymen, never any data in any scientific journals. Why is that do you suppose?

      Delete
    7. Alethinon61

      I've found that those in the forefront of the movement always address the strengths and weakness of the Darwinian argument while presenting their positive case for ID.


      There has never been a positive case for ID presented anywhere by anyone at any time. NEVER.

      The entire ID position is based on the negative argument "ToE can't explain this to my satisfaction, so ID wins by default". Again, science isn't impressed with such false dichotomies even though ignorant laymen may be swayed.

      Delete
    8. Thorton:

      What would you consider acceptable evidence for ID?

      Delete
    9. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      What would you consider acceptable evidence for ID?


      Same answer as the last time you asked bigot.

      Evidence that establishes

      1. The timeline for when the design was done.
      2. Source of the raw materials used.
      3. The manufacturing process, how the raw materials were physically manipulated.
      4. Location where the design/manufacture was done.
      5. Purpose of the design.
      6. Identify of the designer(s) - one or more than one working at cross purposes.

      Those are the first things that archaeologists look to establish when trying to identify if an unknown geofact is designed.

      You have any of that bigot?

      Delete
    10. Why exactly do we need all this evidence to simply establish whether something was designed or not? Does the evidence for evolution, e.g. common homologies, provide all this?

      To the best of my knowledge archaeologist don't need to fill in all the details to determine whether something was designed. Just seeing a sharp edge on a piece of flint is enough. They fill in all the details with other evidence.

      Delete
    11. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      Why exactly do we need all this evidence to simply establish whether something was designed or not?


      You asked what would be acceptable evidence for ID. I gave youe some examples and you have none of them.

      Does the evidence for evolution, e.g. common homologies, provide all this?

      Yes, it does. It provides a timeline and a mechanism for sure, while abogenesis research provides a likely source for materials and locations. There is no purpose or identity of designer(s) to provide.

      To the best of my knowledge archaeologist don't need to fill in all the details to determine whether something was designed.

      But they need to fill in some of them, which they do. You have none of them bigot.

      Just seeing a sharp edge on a piece of flint is enough.

      BZZZT! WRONG ANSWER! Again I see you're too stupid and too lazy to have done any research on the topic. Go look up "geofact" you ignorant bigot.

      Delete
    12. IF the SETI people receive a signal that was obviously designed like alist of all the prime numbers from 1 to 100, are they going to say, that since we don't have the details, it can't be designed? What if astronauts find a big rectangular monolith in space. Since they don't have all the questions answered, will they conclude it wasn't designed?

      Delete
    13. Okay, now that I understand your rules, I'll try.

      There are more than one possibilities.

      The Designer started his work around four billion years ago. The raw materials were found on the early earth. The raw materials were out together by His will.
      The location was the early ocean. The purpose of the design was because He wants to do good. The designer was the creator of the Universe.

      Another approach would be fund in the first chapter of Genesis.

      Delete
    14. More dumb analogies from natschuster the homophobic bigot.

      Did you find a set of prime numbers in a genome? Did you find a monolith inside a dinosaur fossil?

      Where is your positive evidence for intelligent design of biological life?

      I'll help you bigot - THERE IS NONE.

      Delete
    15. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      The Designer started his work around four billion years ago. The raw materials were found on the early earth. The raw materials were out together by His will.
      The location was the early ocean. The purpose of the design was because He wants to do good. The designer was the creator of the Universe.


      You forgot your evidence for these claims bigot. You're just asserting POOF! MAGIC! which is about what we'd expect from a clueless idiot.

      Delete
    16. ""Just seeing a sharp edge on a piece of flint is enough."

      BZZZT! WRONG ANSWER! Again I see you're too stupid and too lazy to have done any research on the topic. Go look up "geofact" you ignorant bigot."

      Your right. I got careless. My bad. But the problem with geofacts is not that we don't have all the details. It is because there might be another explanation. So if archaeologists find a symmetrical leaf shape piece of flint with pressure flakes running along both edges, and notches in the base for tying isn't that enough to conclude design?
      If they see some rocks arainged in a circle, don't they conclude that they were put there on purpose? What if the see rocks stacked in a column? Don't they conclude somebody then there? DO they really need all the details?

      Delete
    17. @Thorton:

      "There has never been a positive case for ID presented anywhere by anyone at any time. NEVER...The entire ID position is based on the negative argument "ToE can't explain this to my satisfaction, so ID wins by default". Again, science isn't impressed with such false dichotomies even though ignorant laymen may be swayed."

      This comment merely demonstrates your absolute or near absolute ignorance of ID. Since this ignorance is obviously by choice, there's not much to say. I noticed your comments to natschuster, and it seems to me that you amply demonstrate the very ugliness that I see so often inspired by Darwinism. I'm afraid that your demeanor makes it so that you and I are not compatible dialogue partners, so I'll move on, at least for now.

      Delete
    18. natschuster the homophobic bigot and liar

      DO they really need all the details?


      I keep saying Intelligent Design of biological life requires some details, you keep lying and changing it to ALL the details are needed.

      Why are you such a dishonest scumbag? Did God design you that way?

      Delete
    19. Thorton:


      "The Designer started his work around four billion years ago. The raw materials were found on the early earth. The raw materials were out together by His will.
      The location was the early ocean. The purpose of the design was because He wants to do good. The designer was the creator of the Universe."

      The evidence that the designer started his work 4 billion years ago is form geology. Same with the evidence for the raw materials. The evidence that he willed it is the fact that ther is no good naturalistic evidence for abiogenesis. The evidence for the location being the early ocean is from geology. the evidence that it was the Creator of the Universe is form parsimony. Who else would it be?

      Delete
    20. Alethinon61

      This comment merely demonstrates your absolute or near absolute ignorance of ID.


      You're right, I'm 100% ignorant of any positive evidence for the Intelligent Design of biological life. Why don't you go ahead and summarize it for me and the lurkers.

      Unless you have none and decide to flounce like the rest of the IDiots do when asked to back up their grandiose claims.

      What will it be? Positive evidence or flounce? I know what my money's on.

      Delete
    21. More dumb analogies from natschuster the homophobic bigot.
      Thorton:

      "Did you find a set of prime numbers in a genome? Did you find a monolith inside a dinosaur fossil?

      Where is your positive evidence for intelligent design of biological life?

      I'll help you bigot - THERE IS NONE."

      I found better, I found fantasticallt complex little nano-machines that are mind boglling complex. More so than a list of prime numbers.

      And that isn't the point. The point is that we don't need all thatmuch detail to conclude design. the SETI people don't. And if I found a set of prime numbers in an organism, that would prove design without any need for details, right?

      Delete
    22. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      The evidence that the designer started his work 4 billion years ago is form geology.
      ,

      The evidence is that the planet is 4.5 BYO. There is NO evidence a designer did it.

      Same with the evidence for the raw materials. The evidence that he willed it is the fact that ther is no good naturalistic evidence for abiogenesis.

      LOL! Same negative claims: 'Science can't give us all the details so GAWDDIDIT!" Sorry bigot, that's not positive evidence.

      The evidence for the location being the early ocean is from geology.

      Again, no evidence that a Designer did it.

      the evidence that it was the Creator of the Universe is form parsimony. Who else would it be?

      Odin.
      The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
      Slartibartfast.

      Poor bigot has no positive evidence for his claims.

      Delete
    23. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      I found better, I found fantasticallt complex little nano-machines that are mind boglling complex


      No positive evidence that they were intelligently designed, just your ignorance based personal incredulity again.

      There is no positive evidence for intelligent design of biological life. NONE.

      Delete
    24. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      The point is that we don't need all thatmuch detail to conclude design.


      We still need SOME. You have NONE.

      the SETI people don't.

      Yes, even in your example they still need the original list of prime numbers to pattern match against. That's SOME detail. You IDiots have NONE.

      Delete
    25. Thorton:

      I'm having trouble following our discussion. I said there is evidence for ID in the extreme complexity of life that is hard to explain without design. You said that it isn't acceptable because we provided no details. That seems arbitrary. When I pointed out that evolutionists don't have all the details, you said that we don't need all, we just need some. That sounds kind of arbitrary. When I decided to humor you and provide details, you said that the details don't count because I didn't provide evidence for the details. When I did provide evidence for the details, I provided some of the same evidence that evolutionist use, e.g. for the age of the earth. Now you are saying that the evidence for the details has to be design evidence. Are you sure your not moving the goalposts?

      When - The Designer designed life ~4 billion years ago because life is so complex, that it could not have come about by accident. I know, negative reasoning, I'll fix that. We know from experience that there are certain characteristics of things can't be made without intelligent input, just like we know from experience that you can't more than you put in, or even as much. Y'know, no spontaneous generation.

      Where - The Universe certainly looks like it was designed to accomodate life. The Earth is in just the right spot to accomodate life. Looks planed to me. Water is just the right place to make life since water molecules are just right. So I guess that means the place would be the early oceans.

      How - The Creator willed it. I know, magical thinking. But why is this better than a bunch of small molecules just happened to form bigger molecules of the right kind, and then the bigger molecules lines up into functioning bio-polymers of just the right configuration? Why isn't that magical thinking? Why isn't multiverse magical thinking? Why isn't the Big Bang?

      And the who would be the Creator of the Universe. We know the Universe needed a transcendent creator since Universe don't pop out of nowhere. So it is more parsimonious to assume that the same being that created the Universe and fine tuned it to accomodate life also created life, than saying the Creator created the Universe, then Odin created life.

      Why - Since the is so much gratuitous goodness in the World, I would say the Creator created the world to do good.

      Delete
    26. natschuster the homophobic bigot and liar

      I'm having trouble following our discussion.


      Of course you are bigot. Maybe if you weren't such a willfully ignorant trolling liar, but you are.

      Too bad for you.

      Delete
    27. So we are going back to childish word games instead of discussing the issues. I'm waring you, no one is better at being childish than me.

      Delete
    28. natschuster the homophobic bigot liar

      no one is better at being childish than me.


      No need to convince me bigot. I've watched your childish trolling, willful ignorance, and lies for several years now.

      Pity that God designed you to be such an asshole. He really does work in mysterious ways.

      Delete
    29. natschuster asked:

      "DO they really need all the details?"

      So, you claim that there are "lots of details" in the bible but then you essentially claim that no details are needed beyond 'It looks designed to me.'

      And when you're asked for details, you don't provide any detailed details. Many scientists study the nitpickiest of the nitpicky details of how, when, and where. You god pushers always just fall back on 'God-did-it'.

      Yet, for someone who claims that the appearance of 'design' is all that is needed to assert 'design' and 'the designer', you god pushers go WAY beyond that with your religious fairy tales. christianity and other religions have lots of fairy tale stories (what you would call "details") that have absolutely nothing to do with 'design' in any way whatsoever. It's not just that you godbots push 'design', it's that you also push a particular 'designer-creator-god' and the associated, ridiculous, impossible fairy tales. You say things like "The Designer" and "the Creator" but you're actually referring to yhwh-satan-jesus-holy-ghost-angels-etc. You god pushers try to make it look as though you're interested in scientific details but you're really only interested in pushing your particular religious fairy tales.

      You said:

      "We know the Universe needed a transcendent creator since Universe don't pop out of nowhere."

      Actually, "we" don't know that, and putting it that way is just a lame attempt to make it look as though science has no explanations or potential explanations about how the universe(s) came to be.

      "So it is more parsimonious to assume that the same being that created the Universe and fine tuned it to accomodate life also created life, than saying the Creator created the Universe, then Odin created life."

      Hogwash. There's nothing parsimonious about assuming the existence of your chosen sky daddy or any other co-called gods or divine beings. And what makes yhwh-satan-jesus-holy-ghost-angels-etc. any more parsimonious as the designer-creator of everything than Odin, the FSM, Zeus, Vishnu, allah, or Fifi the pink unicorn god? Exactly the same evidence supports all so-called gods -> NONE.

      Hey nat, or any other god pusher, please provide the "lots of details" from the bible of how goats and sheep produce striped/spotted offspring by mating while looking at striped sticks.

      Delete
    30. TWT:

      "So, you claim that there are "lots of details" in the bible but then you essentially claim that no details are needed beyond 'It looks designed to me.'"


      I don't need details. I don't know why they are necessary. I was asked to provide details. And most of he details I'm providing do not come from the Bible. I presented a literal interpretation of the Bible as a possibility.

      Since the a Universe popping of of nowhere violates the most basic laws of nature, we need a supernatural, that is transecedent explanation.

      To the best of my knowledge Odin, Zeus, where part of the Universe. They came into existance after the Universe did. So saying that God created the Universe, then Odin created life requires two entities. Saying God created the Universe, then he created life. That's parsimony.

      Delete
    31. TWT:

      Aren't you moving the goal posts when you said we need detailed details?

      Delete
    32. I don't think that I'm moving any goal posts. You and other god pushers apparently believe that the bible provides all the details anyone would ever want or need, but it doesn't, and that's why I said "detailed details".

      When you're asked for details, the person asking is expecting details that are actually detailed, at least to the extent that you expect and demand from science.

      Delete
    33. First of all, the some of the details I provided didn't come from the Bible, they came from the same sources as the details evolutionists use.

      And I don't know of anyone who says the Bible provides all the details. Why should it? It is a guide for living a good life not a science text.

      And I really don't think any science provides detailed details. Lots of gaps and such. And I'm not demanding details. That would be the evolutionists. And I'm not sure what a detailed detail is.

      Delete
    34. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      First of all, the some of the details I provided didn't come from the Bible, they came from the same sources as the details evolutionists use.


      You didn't provide any details at all with evidence for any sort of intelligent design of biological life. Not a single piece.

      Delete
    35. Why doesn't this count?


      natschusterJuly 17, 2013 at 11:41 AM

      Thorton:

      I'm having trouble following our discussion. I said there is evidence for ID in the extreme complexity of life that is hard to explain without design. You said that it isn't acceptable because we provided no details. That seems arbitrary. When I pointed out that evolutionists don't have all the details, you said that we don't need all, we just need some. That sounds kind of arbitrary. When I decided to humor you and provide details, you said that the details don't count because I didn't provide evidence for the details. When I did provide evidence for the details, I provided some of the same evidence that evolutionist use, e.g. for the age of the earth. Now you are saying that the evidence for the details has to be design evidence. Are you sure your not moving the goalposts?

      When - The Designer designed life ~4 billion years ago because life is so complex, that it could not have come about by accident. I know, negative reasoning, I'll fix that. We know from experience that there are certain characteristics of things can't be made without intelligent input, just like we know from experience that you can't more than you put in, or even as much. Y'know, no spontaneous generation.

      Where - The Universe certainly looks like it was designed to accomodate life. The Earth is in just the right spot to accomodate life. Looks planed to me. Water is just the right place to make life since water molecules are just right. So I guess that means the place would be the early oceans.

      How - The Creator willed it. I know, magical thinking. But why is this better than a bunch of small molecules just happened to form bigger molecules of the right kind, and then the bigger molecules lines up into functioning bio-polymers of just the right configuration? Why isn't that magical thinking? Why isn't multiverse magical thinking? Why isn't the Big Bang?

      And the who would be the Creator of the Universe. We know the Universe needed a transcendent creator since Universe don't pop out of nowhere. So it is more parsimonious to assume that the same being that created the Universe and fine tuned it to accomodate life also created life, than saying the Creator created the Universe, then Odin created life.

      Why - Since the is so much gratuitous goodness in the World, I would say the Creator created the world to do good.
      Delete

      Delete
    36. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      Why doesn't this count?


      Because it doesn't contain any details at all with evidence for any sort of intelligent design of biological life. Not a single piece. Just like I already pointed out.

      Any more lies and evasions you want to puke up tonight?

      Delete
    37. Okay, I think I'm beginning to understand what you want, though it still seems kind of arbitrary.

      The evidence hat life was designed ~4,000,000,000 years ago, as opposed to being formed magically by small molecules somehow coming together, is from the fact that life happened so soon after the Earth cooled. I would expect small molecules randomly colliding to take a lot longer to hit upon the right combination.

      And the evidence that life was designed in water, as opposed to being formed randomly comes from the fact that water happens to be the perfect medium for making life if you have certain things in place. For example, since the synthesis of proteins is a dehydration process, for it to happen in water, you need a system for overcoming the fact that you are adding water to water. Diffusion is working against you. Organism have this in place. You need semi-permiable membranes and such that can control the amount of water in the cell. Without all this life doesn't work so well.

      Is this the sort of stuff you were asking for?

      Delete
    38. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      Is this the sort of stuff you were asking for?


      LOL! No bigot, I wasn't asking for another round of your ignorance based personal incredulity. Where's your positive evidence for the intelligent design of biological life?

      "nat the bigot doesn't think life evolved" won't cut it.

      Delete
    39. I thought that the positive evidence provided was the fact that organisms possess qualities that we know from experience are qualities of designed things only. You asked for details, I provided details. You asked for design type details. I provided design type details.

      And by the way, how does evolutionary theory address the points I made in the above post, about the timing, environment? Or is it just another case of "we hope to have an answer for you someday."

      Delete
    40. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      I thought that the positive evidence provided was the fact that organisms possess qualities that we know from experience are qualities of designed things only.


      Except that's not a fact and no one "knows that from experience". That's complete speculation on your part, and completely circular logic.

      You IDiots are too stupid to understand but the scientific community understands perfectly that you don't have any positive evidence for your IDiot claims.

      You asked for details, I provided details. You asked for design type details. I provided design type details.

      No you didn't bigot. You provided some general purpose data i.e. age of the Earth, but not one iota of evidence for a Designer.

      And by the way, how does evolutionary theory address the points I made in the above post, about the timing, environment?

      You didn't make any points bigot. You regurgitated some well know scientific ideas and hung your ID stupidity on the end with zero support.

      You didn't provide a single piece of positive evidence for the intelligent design of biological life. That's because you don't have any. None of your IDiot Creationists do.

      Delete
    41. Are you saying that it is possible to create something complex like an organism without intelligent input?

      And you aren't going to address the question I raised about the the timing and the environment because you don't have an answer. Got it.

      Delete
    42. natschuster the lying homophobic bigot

      Are you saying that it is possible to create something complex like an organism without intelligent input?


      Yep bigot. That's what the evidence shows. Iterative feedback processes subject to selection and carrying forward heritable traits are empirically observed to create complexity. It just so happens that evolution is an iterative feedback process subject to selection and carrying forward heritable traits.

      Not science's problem that you IDiots are too stupid to understand that "complexity" doesn't have to equal "conscious design".

      And you aren't going to address the question I raised

      You didn't raise any questions bigot. You made a few IDiot claims and demanded they be disproven.

      Delete
    43. If you are are talking about genetic algorithms, what I've read is that they aren't used to do things like create entire structures from scratch. That's because they tend to get stuck on local fitness peaks, and the numbers are too much, too many variables, etc. They are good for things like improving the design of a turbine blade. SO it looks like they are good for micro-evolutionary things, not macro-evolutionary things. Just like real life.

      And you aren't going to answer my questions about whether abiogenesis is even possible because you hqave no answer. Got it.

      Delete
  6. As a long-time fan of the work of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood I must say I heartily approve of your choice of image to illustrate the OP.

    As for the rest of it:

    Do we really live in a universe in which complex, interdependent, fine-tuned mechanisms and structures just happen to arise by themselves? This has always been the main problem with evolution.

    The theory of evolution deals with life after it had appeared. It says nothing about ultimate origins. That's for researchers in fields like abiogenesis and cosmology and theoretical physics.

    We know very little about how evolutionary innovations originate? But that is the main sticking point. How can we then say evolution is a fact?

    The process of evolution is a fact, by Gould's definition, because we observe living things changing over time so often that it would be perverse to deny that it happens. We know animal breeders were exploiting that capacity long before Darwin put together his theory.

    The answer, of course, is that evolution is a fact because evolution must be a fact. Until and unless we understand its complex intertwining of theology and science, we won’t understand this thing we call evolution.

    The theory of evolution doesn't depend on religion in the slightest. It's possible to understand it - even if you don't agree with it - without any religious background whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian:

      The process of evolution is a fact, by Gould's definition, because we observe living things changing over time so often that it would be perverse to deny that it happens. We know animal breeders were exploiting that capacity long before Darwin put together his theory.

      That is the fallacy of equivocation.


      The theory of evolution doesn't depend on religion in the slightest. It's possible to understand it - even if you don't agree with it - without any religious background whatsoever.

      That is false. The fact of evolution makes no sense on the science. You have to understand the underlying metaphysical claims. Ironically, you have just demonstrated this above.

      Delete
    2. Cornelius Hunter

      The fact of evolution makes no sense on the science.


      You mean it makes no sense to you, personally, because of your Fundamental religious beliefs. But that's your problem CH, not science's.

      To virtually all of the millions of science professionals in the world the fact of evolution makes perfect sense. The track record speaks for itself. ToE been extremely productive over the years, has provided many spectacular discoveries, and is still used as the foundational basis for much new research.

      Pity that you deliberately exclude yourself from so much scientific knowledge and learning.

      Delete
    3. Cornelius HunterJuly 15, 2013 at 10:46 PM

      Ian:

      The process of evolution is a fact, by Gould's definition, because we observe living things changing over time so often that it would be perverse to deny that it happens. We know animal breeders were exploiting that capacity long before Darwin put together his theory.

      That is the fallacy of equivocation.


      The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a word with two or more meanings is employed in an argument without clarifying which meaning is intended so that the listener could be confused or misled.

      You and other EID/creationists have accused evolutionists of unwarranted certainty that evolution is true. The equivocation resides in your failure to distinguish between the process of evolution and the theory of evolution which has been constructed to explain the process. The process has been observed so often that it qualifies as a scientific fact by Gould's definition. Biologists have a high degree of confidence that the theory is the best currently available explanation but it is not a fact, not yet anyway.

      That is false. The fact of evolution makes no sense on the science. You have to understand the underlying metaphysical claims. Ironically, you have just demonstrated this above.

      Scientists in all fields - not just biology - hold metaphysical assumptions whether they realize it or not but the hypotheses and theories of science can be constructed without invoking them. Are there metaphysical assumptions embodied in quantum or relativity theories?

      Delete
    4. Ian said to cornelius:

      "The equivocation resides in your failure to distinguish between the process of evolution and the theory of evolution which has been constructed to explain the process."

      Yes. A million times Yes.

      cornelius constantly shows that he either doesn't know the difference between evolution (the process/result) and the theory of evolution (the research avenue and explanation) or he deliberately lumps them together to make it easier for him to smear them both.

      It's obvious that cornelius is obsessed with bashing anything that has to do with the word "evolution". To him and many other god pushers, evolution and evolutionary theory takes the exceptional-ness and superiority out of being 'specially created in God's image'.

      Delete
  7. I believe Jesus died for us and without him we have no hope.

    If he died for us and didn't give us hope by that act, what was the point?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If he died for us and didn't give us hope by that act

      You have to know the password to get the hope

      Delete
    2. Wow, so you believe that people don't and can't have "hope" unless they believe in the zombie-jesus fairy tales?

      Delete
    3. Pedant, I may have misunderstood your comment about "hope". I thought you were saying that hope comes from jesus.

      Delete
    4. TWT, I was quoting Hunter.

      Delete
  8. semi related: Exon Shuffling, and the Origins of Protein Folds - Jonathan M. July 15, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/exon_shuffling074401.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Semi semi related,
      " Episode 232: The Real Story (2003) This American Life

      In 1999, America was peaceful and prosperous, and let’s be honest, a little crazy. The American dream was finally coming to a new generation, but after John Hodgman attended an advanced screening of The Phantom Menace, everything started to go wrong. In order to save his country, Hodgman embarked on an ambitious plan: to rewrite the first installment of the Star Wars prequels.

      Delete
    2. semi-related:

      Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers.

      Delete
  9. If we accept the Bible, we have lots of details filled in. Ifnot, we can infer from the design that the designer was smart...blah, blah, blah...

    You can infer all you want, but until you devise a test of your inference (AKA "guess, hypothesis") you're just bluffing (AKA "blowing smoke").

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

    ReplyDelete