High Confidence
The one thing evolutionists agree on is that evolution is a fact. And when they say “evolution” they mean the strictly naturalistic origin of, well, pretty much everything. The species, life, consciousness, the Earth, the solar system, the universe and natural laws. Such all encompassing truth claims are what distinguish evolutionary theories from other scientific theories which are usually more tentative and circumscribed. This high confidence is again evident in a new peer-reviewed paper by David Penny and coworkers which begins:There are some areas of science where there is still strong resistance to basic scientific conclusions: anthropogenic climate change, the reality of long term evolution, the origin of life, and the safety and efficacy of vaccination programs are well-known examples.
In 1924 the father of origin of life (OOL) research, Alexander Oparin, wrote that “very, very soon” the last barriers between the living and the dead will crumble. That prediction failed but what did happen was that OOL attained fact-hood.
Cornelius Goebbels
ReplyDeleteThe one thing evolutionists agree on is that evolution is a fact. And when they say “evolution” they mean the strictly naturalistic origin of, well, pretty much everything. The species, life, consciousness, the Earth, the solar system, the universe and natural laws.
Gee CH, you don't even try to disguise the dishonesty anymore. Just jump straight into the big bold lie without even saying hello.
Thanks for making Baby Jesus cry again.
Thorton is just the right evolution poster boy.
DeleteSays all that we need to know about evolution; its better believing in a magic mama like NS than a magic daddy in the sky.
Thorton, always a mama's boy.
Good to have you flustering..er festering...er floundering....on this board, Thorton.
It's worth pointing out that not only did CH tell a big fat whopper lie in the second sentence of the OP, he also drastically misrepresented the Penny et al paper.
ReplyDeleteThe paper was not any argument for "all encompassing truth" as CH dishonestly claims. In fact, the authors in the introduction go out of their way to say just the opposite:
"It is basic to science that we have never tested all possible hypotheses; consequently we never obtain final and absolute knowledge about any aspect of the universe. Nevertheless, the scientific method provides us with the best form of knowledge that humans can attain, and ensures that we use the most thoroughly tested understanding at any time. This Popperian framework allows both Bayesian and frequentist approaches to be used, dependent on what is appropriate for the questions being tested.
Times are tough at the DI with Meyer's Creationist propaganda book being destroyed by real scientists and Gerbil Luskin unable to stop the bleeding. Looks like CH is being asked to step up the lie machine to help with damage control.
"Nevertheless, the scientific method provides us with the best form of knowledge that humans can attain"
DeleteDoes science really have an adequate explanation for something as sublime as love? Chemical soup being stirred and nothing more. Really? Or where the longings and aspirations of the human heart about life and eternity come from? Chemical soups once again. Really?
It seems to me that for the things that really matter, science is quite feeble. As much as I appreciate the contributions of science to my life, I'll take Jesus' words, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" over science any day of the week.
Well said RkBall.
DeleteDoes science really have an adequate explanation for something as sublime as love? Chemical soup being stirred and nothing more. Really?
DeleteI think if you consult sociologists, psychologists and neurologists, they'll have significantly more to say on the subject than just 'chemical soup'.
Moreover, what reason do you have to think science is inadequate here? It seems to me you are merely choosing to believe what you want to believe. But this is a fallacy. The universe does not simply conform to our wishes.
Facts are facts, regardless of what we would prefer to be true.
Moreover, I genuinely find life as an atheist more magical than my life as a Christian. Christmas is more wonderful for me knowing that my family and friends have spent the time, trouble and expense to buy presents for each other because we love each other. I find this infinitely more wonderous than the idea that the same presents were dished out by an all-seeing magic man who knows if you've been good or bad.
Yet, from the very next paragraph....
ReplyDeleteIt is basic to science that we have never tested all possible hypotheses; consequently we never obtain final and absolute knowledge about any aspect of the universe. Nevertheless, the scientific method provides us with the best form of knowledge that humans can attain, and ensures that we use the most thoroughly tested understanding at any time. This Popperian framework allows both Bayesian and frequentist approaches to be used, dependent on what is appropriate for the questions being tested.
IOW, it's unclear how this is anything more than handwaving over a theory you personally find objectionable.
Scott: Nevertheless, the scientific method provides us with the best form of knowledge that humans can attain,
DeleteJ: Apparently you're still oblivious to what it means to say that ALL propositions are EQUALLY a-probable. ANYONE'S view, by your view, could not POSSIBLY be discernably worse than anyone else's. You're UTTERLY confused, dude!
Life from a jar?
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't go that far.
:D
Hello Cornelius I agree they are begging the question concerning the origin of life because there is nobody who can possibly know that, at least at the moment and probably forever.
ReplyDeleteThis is no wonder due to the dearth of data upon which such far-reaching conclusions must be based.
But this cuts both way: ID proponents have also no way to know that natural processes over millions of years CANNOT bring about complex structures.
Lovely greetings from Europe.
Lothars Sohn – Lothar’s son
http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com
That's the way darwinists work: They repeat speculation over and over until suddenly it becomes 'fact' It's a shame so many fall for their propaganda.
ReplyDeleteSince Cornelius Hunter is the only one who lied about "strictly naturalistic origin of, well, pretty much everything. The species, life, consciousness, the Earth, the solar system, the universe and natural laws" being considered 'facts', why don't you take it up with him?
DeleteThe one thing evolutionists agree on is that evolution is a fact.
ReplyDeleteThat's right, the processes of evolution are an observable fact. The theory is currently the best available explanation of those facts
And when they say “evolution” they mean the strictly naturalistic origin of, well, pretty much everything. The species, life, consciousness, the Earth, the solar system, the universe and natural laws.
No, they don't, as you well know.
The origins of life are a separate, albeit related, field of research in biology
The origins of the earth, the solar system, the Universe (or even multiverse) and natural laws are questions in physics and cosmology, not biology.
There are some areas of science where there is still strong resistance to basic scientific conclusions: anthropogenic climate change, the reality of long term evolution, the origin of life, and the safety and efficacy of vaccination programs are well-known examples.
I'm guessing there are slim pickings in current search papers if all you've been able to find is one loose phrase from this paper by Penny et al.
Since there was nothing else, was this a case of 'in for a Penny, in for a pound'? (Sorry, couldn't resist)
Did Life on Earth Come From Mars?
ReplyDeletehttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130905-mars-origin-of-life-earth-panspermia-astrobiology/
Excerpt:
"Basically, we went looking on Mars because the origins-of-life options on Earth just aren't looking very good," Benner said.
One of the stumbling blocks to life starting on Earth is the fact that water is almost universally accepted as necessary for the onset of life. Yet RNA—which many consider to be the earliest expression of genetic replication and another essential precursor to life as we know it—falls apart if you try to build it in water.
This is what we get for waiting eleven days in anxious anticipation - two paragraphs and a small inane quote? I wait anxiously, counting the hours to be illuminated by your brilliance and you give us this - DISAPPOINTED. (that's an allusion to a humorous mistalke Kevin Sorbo made in his show Hercules the Legendary Journeys. It's on youtube. Check it out. The word disappointed in the script was meant to tell him the emotion to express. Mistakenly he takes it as dialogue. People jealous of Kevin use the mistake to mock him. Like who hasn't made a mistake, and once in a hundred shows, really. Is it that bad. But it is kinda funny). Well look at me ramble on. In almost no effort I probably wrote more than the post. Now I am really disappointed. CH, please try to understand how much we need you. Don't leave us starving for your insight for day after day and not reward us proportionally.
ReplyDeletePeter:
DeleteWait no more (well, not much more), I will be posting more on this paper.
Wow CH, it's going to take you that long to think up more lies and dishonest Creationist spin on real scientific work?
DeleteYou're sure slacking badly these days.