It’s All About Control
Ground crews around the country are battling permafrost for the upcoming baseball season, the Coast Guard is dealing with 30 inch ice on Lake Superior and another major snow storm just put Philadelphia over 67 inches of snow making this winter the second snowiest on record there while another major Nor’Easter appears to be shaping up. March certainly isn’t going out like a lamb and all of this is merely an exclamation point on the frigid cold from earlier in the season. From the snow in Cairo to the coldest football game ever played, the weather has not cooperated with the so-called AGW (anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming) theory. AGW has a trail of failed predictions and years ago leaked emails revealed a massive effort to manipulate and control the science by AGW proponents. So it was already clear that AGW did not come from unbiased, objective truth-seeking scientists in their clean white lab coats. And their recruitment of Al Gore to shout-out the message further demonstrated AGW was about more than “just science.” Of course none of this necessarily means AGW is incorrect. It is possible that politics, abuse of science, manipulation and theoretical failures are just accidentally tainting what at the core is legitimate and thoughtful science. It does however reveal the dogmatic AGW truth claims for what they are. As the old saying goes, it’s not what they don’t know that scares me, but what they know for sure. AGW may well be true, it may be false, or it may be somewhere in between. We just don’t know for sure. But that’s the point—we don’t know, and what we need are thoughtful minds to come forward on this important issue. Instead AGW proponents are doubling down.This month Lawrence Torcello, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, asks the question, “Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?” Torcello’s use of the term “climate denial” foreshadows his answer. This question of climate change is too important and too complicated for such overreach, but for Torcello if you do not support AGW then you are in “climate denial” and if you talk about it then your next stop should be jail.
Torcello thinks the government should enact laws enabling the incarceration of climate denialists who, after all, are “not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life.” It is time for modern societies, Torcello concludes ominously, to “update their legal systems accordingly.”
Torcello’s concern for human life stands in contrast to his advocacy of the termination of unborn human beings, for elsewhere he “promotes completely the permissive position on abortion from conception to birth.” According to Torcello, murder of the unborn should be legal but questioning AGW should be illegal because, after all, it demonstrates a “willful disregard for human life.”
And does anyone believe that in such a perverse world the inquisition will stop with climate deniers? Certainly evolution denial is at least as dangerous.
While one would hope that Torcello is an academic anomaly, the fact is he is not alone and his new found interest in criminal justice will likely help to earn him tenure. There was, for example, University of Texas evolutionist Eric Pianka who advocated the elimination of 90% of the human population (deadly viruses were his weapons of choice) and received standing ovations, and an award from his peers at the Texas Academy of Science.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
Cornelius Hunter: Torcello thinks the government should enact laws enabling the incarceration of climate denialists ...
ReplyDeleteWe're with you completely on this Cornelius Hunter. People have the right to say any silly thing they want.
Flat Earthers of the World Unite!
Zachriel:
DeleteWe're with you completely on this Cornelius Hunter. People have the right to say any silly thing they want.
You mean like "AARSs phylogenetic trees are well-supported," "ATP binding constitutes protein function," or "AGW is a fact"?
Cornelius Hunter: You mean like "AARSs phylogenetic trees are well-supported," "ATP binding constitutes protein function," or "AGW is a fact"?
DeleteOr the converse claim.
Zachriel,
DeleteZachriel,
Oh, your so mysterious, like the mysterious Sphinx in "Mystery Men". Up is down, left is right. How profound your are. Why you're a legend in your own mind. Those are arguments you lost, to keep claiming you didn't lose is just obstinacy. You aren't convincing us poor foolish religious folks, and you're not winning your arguments. So what is the point of your being here, besides to keep repeating the same tired refuted claims. I mean really, don't you have better things to do?
eklektos: Those are arguments you lost
DeleteThe claims about AARSs phylogenetic trees and ATP binding in random sequence libraries are strongly supported, and easily verified.
DrHunter
ReplyDeleteFrom the snow in Cairo to the coldest football game ever played, the weather has not cooperated with the so-called AGW (anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming) theory.
Globally, Earth had its fourth warmest January this year since modern temperature record-keeping began in 1880, according to a report released Thursday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
In January, the global average temperature – the combined temperature of both land and ocean surfaces – was 54.8°F, or about 1.17°F above the 20th century average of 53.6°F.
The U.S. may just be climbing out of the freezer, but Australia has been sweating through a major heat wave to start the year. Heat records fell across a large part of the country in the first week of the New Year. The warm weather is currently centered over sparsely populated Western Australia, but it could hit major population centers along the east coast by late next week.
The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during the winter season was 31.3 °F (−0.4 °C), one degree below the 20th-century average, and the number of daily record-low temperatures outnumbered the number of record-high temperatures nationally in early 2014.
In contrast, California had its warmest winter on record, being 4.4°F (2.4°C) above average, while first two months of 2014 were the warmest on record in Fresno, Calif, Los Angeles, San Francisco Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona.
DrHunter
ReplyDeleteAGW has a trail of failed predictions and years ago leaked emails revealed a massive effort to manipulate and control the science by AGW proponents. So it was already clear that AGW did not come from unbiased, objective truth-seeking scientists in their clean white lab coats
Spoken like Lee J Cobb, lets see what investigations concluded about the stolen emails,
"Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.
A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.
The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.""
Have any evidence to the contrary by unbiased sources?
V:
DeleteThe Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
The EPA!? Well that settles it. I guess those emails are just signs of good solid scientific research by objective scientists who obviously have no political agenda and are interested in nothing but following the data no matter where it may lead.
Have any evidence to the contrary by unbiased sources?
Um, how about Phil Jones?
The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.
How about Michael Mann:
I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.
[For more see:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB20001424052748704398304574598230426037244
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk]
All of this is OK because, after all, AGW is a known fact. As with evolution, the ends justify the means. Peer pressure, tenure denial, editorial board manipulation, peer-review influence, funding influence, manipulating and hiding data, it is all OK because we know the right answer.
Clearly AGW is a fact and anyone questioning it should be put away. Can't have those pesky researchers, er I mean denialists, actually looking at the data.
Cornelius Hunter: I guess those emails are just signs of good solid scientific research by objective scientists who obviously have no political agenda and are interested in nothing but following the data no matter where it may lead.
DeleteScience does not depend on the perfection of scientists or the scientific method. If it did, there would be no scientific progress. Pointing to scientists who are ambitious, prideful, cranky, determined, scornful, and stubborn, doesn't mean their science isn't sound. Otherwise, Galileo would be considered the least of scientists, not the greatest.
(Most of the 'climategate' emails are taken out of context.)
CH: Clearly AGW is a fact and anyone questioning it should be put away.
DeleteYou’re free to believe whatever you want. Including holding your own view of science.
CH: Can't have those pesky researchers, er I mean denialists, actually looking at the data.
Can’t or didn’t want?
AFAIK, 95% of the data in question had already been released. Did the remaining 5% somehow suggest the contrary when released? Did the Hockystick reconstruction not survive criticism?
Scott:
DeleteI think you may have missed the point. Global warming is taking a break, even AGWers admit to that. And the emails demonstrate that this isn't "just science." Whether or not AGW actually turns out to be true, or close to true, is another matter. The point is we don't know for sure, yet Torcello wants skeptics to be imprisoned. Does this not strike you as problematic? If Torcello is looking for scientific lies that have serious implications, why not the claim by abortionists that the unborn are not human beings? But then again, he's one of them. This is a sequence, going from contrived histories and the Warfare Thesis, false stereotypes, imagined and assigned motives, exclusion from publishing, exclusion from academia, delegitimization, and yes, criminalization. Each step begins with one or a few people, and spreads out from there. Let's hope Torcello's efforts do not succeed.
Cornelius Hunter: Global warming is taking a break, even AGWers admit to that.
DeleteWell, no. While increases in the mean surface temperatures have moderated, the oceans continue to warm.
http://www.zachriel.com/blog/Levitus2012.gif
Zachriel:
DeleteScience does not depend on the perfection of scientists or the scientific method. If it did, there would be no scientific progress. Pointing to scientists who are ambitious, prideful, cranky, determined, scornful, and stubborn, doesn't mean their science isn't sound.
Agreed, I said that. AGW may be completely true. But like evolution, AGW is a large, over arching general theory, not a specific idea like gravity's inverse square relationship. Even with highly specific theories the science can sometimes be underdetermined. With overarching theories such as evolution and AGW, the science is extremely underdetermined. These theories can, and do, sustain all kinds of false predictions without blushing. Evolutionists talk about natural selection, random mutations, drift, sex selection, gradualism, adaptation, punctuated equilibrium, saltations, macromutations, etc. But all of those can be, and have been at different times, forfeited. None are essential to the theory. What is the actual scientific content versus mere speculation that can be forfeited without loss of veracity? So too with AGW. Of course this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have such theories, but in such theories the science becomes highly vulnerable to manipulation which can be obvious or it can be subtle.
In addition to being underdetermined, these over arching, expansive theories tend to have many deep points of cultural contact. It would be difficult to underestimate the social, cultural, economic, political, religious, etc., connections to evolution and AGW. So there is an enormous problem of non scientific influences making their way into the science.
Continued below …
Continued from above …
DeleteNext, double blind studies are generally not possible with these expansive, underdetermined theories. In areas of science where double blind studies are, fortunately, possible, it has been well established that they are crucial. Any “insider” knowledge on the part of researchers can easily corrupt the results. But with evolution and AGW, researchers have full knowledge of where the data come from and what the different interpretations mean in the greater context. The implications are immediately obvious and researchers are constantly aware of how their results will be received. This can have a curbing and conforming effect on the “findings” as, given the significant undetermination of these theories, researchers can craft a their findings to fit any one of several narratives.
Finally, as we have documented here several times, science is usually wrong. For example, there is the problem of studies where subsequent attempts to duplicate the results fail. This is an enormous problem that is becoming more appreciated.
All these challenges: underdetermination, deep cultural influences, full knowledge of the implications, and a track record of failure where checking is possible make evolution and AGW vulnerable to false conclusions. It’s not that we shouldn’t have such theories, but objectivity and credibility are crucial. Unfortunately, those went out the window a long time ago. Both evolution and AGW have histories of data manipulation, peer review and publishing control, social pressures, persecution of skeptics, and so forth. These are extremely damaging, particularly given the challenges outlined above. These are not merely inconsequential actions that can be waved off as “boys will be boys.”
Do these problems, alone, mean evolution and AGW are wrong. Again, no. But these problems are serious. And we haven’t even begun to talk about the problem of failed predictions.
But instead of working to improve things evolutionists and AGWers are too often on the warpath. Clearly there is plenty of room for skepticism, yet skeptics are cast as “deniers,” a very strong criticism. People are sometimes in denial, true enough. This is not such a case here, and the use of this term as a smear suggests that evolutionists and AGWers are out of touch. And then finally we now have this call for encarceration.
Cornelius Hunter: What is the actual scientific content versus mere speculation that can be forfeited without loss of veracity?
DeleteThat life has evolved and diversified over millions of years from common ancestors.
Cornelius Hunter: So too with AGW.
That the Earth's surface region (hydrosphere, cryosphere, atmosphere) is gaining energy due to an increasing greenhouse effect.
Cornelius Hunter: Next, double blind studies are generally not possible with these expansive, underdetermined theories.
Galileo's observations of Jovian satellites didn't require double-blind experimentation. Predicting the placement of transitional fossils, then mounting expeditions to find them, doesn't require double-blind experimentation. It doesn't even make sense in such cases.
Cornelius Hunter: Finally, as we have documented here several times, science is usually wrong.
Scientists propose far more wrong hypotheses than correct hypotheses. It's a strength of the scientific method that all sorts of ideas can be considered, even if most are discarded as unsupported or false.
Cornelius Hunter: What is the actual scientific content versus mere speculation that can be forfeited without loss of veracity?
DeleteZ: That life has evolved and diversified over millions of years from common ancestors.
Yes agreed, precisely my point. Just what exactly is the theoretical content of the theory of evolution? That life evolved! It is self-referential. Adding that it evolved from common ancestors helps, but even that is largely forfeitable when it comes to particular cases.
Cornelius Hunter: Just what exactly is the theoretical content of the theory of evolution? That life evolved! It is self-referential.
Deletewhat is the theoretical content of the theory of gravity? That bodies move under the influence of gravity! It is self-referential. The theory is an explanatory construct, while the latter is an observed phenomenon.
In any case, you asked for scientific content, and the answer is evolution and diversification from common ancestors over millions of years.
Cornelius Hunter: Adding that it evolved from common ancestors helps, but even that is largely forfeitable when it comes to particular cases.
DeleteWhat particular cases are those?
CH: I think you may have missed the point.
DeleteNo, I haven’t. You’re conflating being in agreement on what we should do about the problem of AGW with being in agreement that AGW is a problem. See my comment on Pianka.
CH: Global warming is taking a break, even AGWers admit to that.
References? Or is this yet another vague assumption along the lines that “what we experience isn’t cooperating with the theory?”
CH: And the emails demonstrate that this isn't "just science."
The emails suggest the remaining 5% of the data conflicted with current day AGW? Is AGW yet another giant conspiracy by the climate community, just as evolutionary theory is a giant conspiracy by biological sciences?
Also, while I do not approve of their actions, as it mitigates criticism, I would agree that this isn’t just science as not all criticism is equal. The actions taken, which represented poor judgment, were driven by organizations with deep pockets employing general purpose strategies which could be used to deny anything.
CH: The point is we don't know for sure, yet Torcello wants skeptics to be imprisoned. Does this not strike you as problematic?
First, Torcello is specifically referring to organizations actively funding misinformation and portrayal that no progress can be made on this issue. This is in contrast to merely people who have a difference in opinion.
Second, he anticipated and addressed just this kind of response…
My argument probably raises an understandable, if misguided, concern regarding free speech. We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organized campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions. Protecting the latter as a form of free speech stretches the definition of free speech to a degree that undermines the very concept.
Again, you’re free to believe and voice whatever beliefs you have. Including your own view of science. (Which, for some reason, you seem unwilling to exercise, despite being asked to directly and repeatedly.) However, if that objection is not based on genuine criticism, don’t expect equal treatment.
We cannot not know anything “for sure”. That’s just another general purpose means to deny anything and claim progress is impossible. This seems vaguely familiar, don’t you think?
CH: If Torcello is looking for scientific lies that have serious implications, why not the claim by abortionists that the unborn are not human beings?
DeleteUnless you’re suggesting abortionists claim the unborn start out as aliens or amphibians, you’re referring to the rights of the unborn, which includes the problem of the transition point between potential human beings and actual human being, the problem of the intersecting rights of a human mother, etc. This is not the same as claiming we cannot make progress on the issue.
And let’s not forget the old canard that "legitimate rape" does not lead to pregnancy.
I’d also point out the current problem of unwanted pregnancies is due to the absence of knowledge. Specifically, unless it is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that is preventing us from solving the problem of unwanted pregnancies is knowing how. There are plenty of parents who are trying to get pregnant but cannot. Or we could even create synthetic wombs in which pregnancies are brought to term and the resulting children adopted. Since conceptions are brought to term all the time in nature , it’s not prohibited by the laws of physics. As such, some supernatural designer could simply give us the knowledge of how to transfer pregnancies from one woman to another. However, IIRC, there is that pesky problem in which roughly 50% of all conceptions spontaneously abort. (Does this mean you think some designer intentionally designed the human reproductive system to murder 50% of all unborn human beings?)
CH: This is a sequence, going from contrived histories and the Warfare Thesis, false stereotypes, imagined and assigned motives, exclusion from publishing, exclusion from academia, delegitimization, and yes, criminalization.
As Popper pointed out, science is a methodological tradition of criticism that includes a moral component. There is no logical methodological argument that justifies theories. As such, no one is required to approach criticism in a way that reflects a genuine attempt to make progress. IOW, one can merely sling mud at a theory they personally find objectionable in hope that something sticks.
However, while engaged in the act of slinging, if some of that mud “undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions” and the result has a significant impact which could have been avoided, shouldn’t there be consequences? Shouldn’t the organizations that actively organize and fund this slinging be held accountable?
Again, I’m not talking about genuine criticism, I’m taking about the organized funding and employment of a general purpose means to deny anything and claim progress is impossible.
CH: But like evolution, AGW is a large, over arching general theory, not a specific idea like gravity's inverse square relationship. Even with highly specific theories the science can sometimes be underdetermined.
DeleteAgain, I’d point our your comments do not exist in a vacuum.
underdetermine:
Account for (a theory or phenomenon) with less than the amount of evidence needed for proof or certainty.
On one hand, you refuse to disclose what you mean by science yet, on the other hand, your language suggests you expect certainty.
All theories are incomplete and contain errors to some degree. This includes General Relatively (GR), as we lack a working theory of quantum gravity. To use your terminology, we observe “false predictions” of gravitational theory at the very small scale. However, to use Zachriel’s terminology, these exceptions stand out against the inverse square relationship, which does hold *above* the very small scale.
But, even then, when we drop objects, we human beings do not always experience them falling. Other factors change what we will observe. However, we can explain the difference between what we experience and what the theory predicts. For example, if you drop a feather over a fan, it rises rather than falls. No theory takes into account all possible unrelated, yet parallel effects that can change what we will observe. For example, GR does not contain a laundry list of effects that would cause things not to fall down, such as fans. This is why all theories are incomplete.
Furthermore, if I said that gravity explains why the earth orbits the sun, you could just as easily object on reductionist grounds, such as we haven’t explained why gravity exists, the universe exists, etc. You could also object due the fact that we cannot know for certain that God didn’t intercede and adjust the orbit of the earth or express incredulity, in that the particular distance and arrangement of the earth and sun wasn’t an “accident”, etc.
The same could be said should we survive long to actually observe large scale evolution. We cannot observe causes. As such, you could always retreat and claim we cannot be certain they were not “programmed” to evolve, or we cannot be certain that God didn’t intercede to cause some of those mutations to end up in that particular way, etc.
IOW, “we cannot be certain theory X is true” is a bad criticism because it is equally applicable to all theories. In the same sense, “Theory X is incomplete” is also a bad criticism, etc. All of these objections are examples of general purpose strategies that can be use to deny anything, not just AGW or evolutionary theory.
What’s worse that failure is the claim that “God did it”, which implies an ultimate explanation has been reached. This merely pushes the problem into an inexplicable mind that exists in an inexplicable realm.
CH: Yes agreed, precisely my point. Just what exactly is the theoretical content of the theory of evolution?
DeleteYou’re asking as if the answer hasn’t already been provided. Nor have you provided any good criticism. So, apparently, your strategy is to simply ignore it.
Again: the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations, as found in the genomes of organisms, was genuinely created over time though variation and selection. It’s an emergent property. And it’s a universal in that it’s though to explain adaptive features in nature.
CH: Adding that it evolved from common ancestors helps, but even that is largely forfeitable when it comes to particular cases.
Good theories include prohibitions. Nature could not build adaptations before the instructions of how build them was created. This would have necessary consequences for the current state of the biosphere, which we could empirically test. We should not observe organisms appearing all at once or in the order of most to least complex. We should be able to predict where specific transitional fossils should be found, should the conditions for fossilization have been met.
On the other hand, if this knowledge had always existed, there is no reason why organisms would appear in the order that we observe. There would be no necessary corresponding consequences for the current state of the system. “That’s just what some design must have wanted” explains nothing.
Zachriel: what is the theoretical content of the theory of gravity? That bodies move under the influence of gravity! It is self-referential. The theory is an explanatory construct, while the latter is an observed phenomenon.
Space-time is warped by the presence of mass. This is a universal, in that we explain the entire universe as consisting of space-time. The evidence for GR wasn’t a picture of space-time, but a slight deviation in the orbit of mercury.
Yet, we know GR is incomplete and contains errors to some degree.
DrHunter
ReplyDeleteIt is possible that politics,
I see your Al Gore and raise you the Republican Party and Big Oil and Koch Brothers.
abuse of science,
Proved otherwise,unless you have further evidence than stolen emails.
manipulation and theoretical failures are just accidentally tainting what at the core is legitimate and thoughtful science
So you say, care to provide actual evidence?
This time you're making the positive claim. Care to show us any untainted raw data?
DeleteVelikovsky,
DeleteProved otherwise,unless you have further evidence than stolen emails.
What exactly is your claim? That how the emails were obtained iakes AGW true? Or that when pressed for the actual data they couldn't provide it? Doesn't that bother you?
eklektos
DeleteWhat exactly is your claim?
Nothing extravagant, that DrHunter claim of "abuse of science" was based only on the evidence of Climategate, which has been debunked as an abuse of science. Therefore his claim is evidence free unless he additional evidence.
That how the emails were obtained iakes AGW true?
I think there is a difference between " leaked emails" and " stolen emails" .
Or that when pressed for the actual data they couldn't provide it?
Not sure what you mean
eklektos
DeleteThis time you're making the positive claim. Care to show us any untainted raw data?
Which claim is that?
V:
DeleteNothing extravagant, that DrHunter claim of "abuse of science" was based only on the evidence of Climategate, which has been debunked as an abuse of science.
People should look at the details for themselves. For Michael Mann to call for a global boycott on citing a journal is outrageous. To simply eliminate that body of archived scientific work from citation is an incredible manipulative abuse of science. I have never heard of any scientist doing anything remotely like that and it leaves him with no credibility. The fact that the EPA has no problem with it does not mean it is OK. You cannot just dismiss such things as “boys will be boys.” This reveals an unscientific approach and it has significant implications for the community he has influence in. The cultural, social, funding, etc. pressures in science are significant, and they have big multiplier effects on the direction of science.
DrHunter
DeletePeople should look at the details for themselves. For Michael Mann to call for a global boycott on citing a journal is outrageous.
This Journal?
"In 2003, a controversial paper written by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas was published in the journal after being accepted by editor Chris de Freitas. The article reviewed 240 previous papers and concluded that "Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest or a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium".[5] Several of the scientists cited in the paper have since denied this conclusion and have claimed that their data and results had been misrepresented.[6] In response to the handling by the journal publisher of the controversy over the paper's publication, several scientists, including newly appointed editor-in-chief Hans von Storch, resigned from the journal's editorial board."
To simply eliminate that body of archived scientific work from citation is an incredible manipulative abuse of science. I have never heard of any scientist doing anything remotely like that and it leaves him with no credibility.
"Pennsylvania State University (PSU) commissioned two reviews related to the emails and Mann's research, which reported in February and July 2010. They cleared Mann of misconduct, stating there was no substance to the allegations, but criticized him for sharing unpublished manuscripts with third parties."
Then it should be easy to find the flaws in his conclusions, but that still leaves non MM science that shows there is a statistically significant rise in global temperature which seems to be increasing.
The fact that the EPA has no problem with it does not mean it is OK. You cannot just dismiss such things as “boys will be boys.”
I concede scientists are human, but you have yet to demonstrate the refusal to share one's data, which has been released by now probably, disqualifies the conclusions.
This reveals an unscientific approach and it has significant implications for the community he has influence in. The cultural, social, funding, etc. pressures in science are significant, and they have big multiplier effects on the direction of science.
Then you must find the pressures to reject the science by politics and economic self interest to be even more distressing.
Do you consider cherry picking the data more or less an abuse of science than failure to respond to FOI requests?
V:
DeleteThen it should be easy to find the flaws in his conclusions, ... disqualifies the conclusions.
That is not the point. Of course there are false predictions, even AGWers admit that. The scientific process is more complicated than naive falsificationism and I never said any of this necessarily "disqualifies the conclusions." Expansive theories such as evolution and AGW face substantial challenges including: underdetermination, deep cultural influences, full knowledge of the implications, and science's general track record of failure. These make evolution and AGW vulnerable to enormous non scientific pressure and false conclusions. It’s not that we shouldn’t have such theories, but objectivity and credibility are crucial. Unfortunately, those went out the window a long time ago. Both evolution and AGW have histories of data manipulation, peer review and publishing control, social pressures, persecution of skeptics, and so forth. These are extremely damaging, particularly given the challenges outlined above. For friendly inquiries to find that, gee there really isn't anything seriously wrong here, is says very little. Of course there is something wrong here, something very seriously wrong. These are leaders in a field that has enormous conforming pressure.
That is not the point. Of course there are false predictions, even AGWers admit that
DeleteConceded,such is the nature of life for finite beings in all their endeavors. We all make mistakes such as your inference of a false prediction of Climate Science, since no prediction that colder than average temperature cannot ever occur,especially locally. Then to compound it ,January,the dead of winter turns out to be the fourth warmest in recorded history. Oops
The scientific process is more complicated than naive falsificationism
I believe that is Zach's point as well.
and I never said any of this necessarily "disqualifies the conclusions.
"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.I come to bury Caesar, not praise him"
Expansive theories such as evolution and AGW face substantial challenges including: underdetermination, deep cultural influences, full knowledge of the implications, and science's general track record of failure.
"You don’t have to run faster than the bear to get away. You just have to run faster than the guy next to you.” When it comes to understanding the physical world nothing has proven to be as good. Philosophy does not put rovers on Mars.
Both evolution and AGW have histories of data manipulation, peer review and publishing control, social pressures, persecution of skeptics, and so forth.
And religion has slaughtered uncounted in the name of God, but lets stick to Climate Change.
You have yet to prove improper data manipulation,improper peer review, etc. And likewise ignored blatant conflict of interest in those who claim that there is nothing to see here,just move along.
And religion has slaughtered uncounted in the name of God
DeletePrecisely.
And thus the equating Climate science as religion fails.
DeleteVelikovsky,
DeleteWhat? Is the definition of a religion that it kills untold millions? The lesson from the abuse of religion is that man has a natural capacity to corrupt anything he touches, including science. The problem is they have corrupted science by turning it into a religion. Is that so hard to grasp?
eklektos
DeleteWhat? Is the definition of a religion that it kills untold millions?
According to Dr Hunter it seems to be one of its consequences, as for the definition, as far a I can tell, most anything is a religion per Dr Hunter.
The lesson from the abuse of religion is that man has a natural capacity to corrupt anything he touches, including science.
Of course.
The problem is they have corrupted science by turning it into a religion. Is that so hard to grasp?
So your point is religion is intrinsically corrupting? Or that religion is a crappy way to gain knowledge of the world?
Velikovsky,
DeleteSo your point is religion is intrinsically corrupting? Or that religion is a crappy way to gain knowledge of the world?
Yea, my point was that religion was corrupting, not that science was being corrupted. You seem to desire to be as obtuse as the borg now.
Hey veli -- Can you tell us all about that carbon, you know the stuff in the earth's crust that is causing you guys so much intellectual grief? How'd it get there considering it is bound up in hydrocarbons? How long has it been there? Forever? If not, where was it before it got there?
ReplyDeleteMSEE: How'd it get there considering it is bound up in hydrocarbons?
DeleteOver geological timescales, carbon is released into the Earth's atmosphere by volcanoes and other geological processes. It is also removed from the atmosphere by chemical weathering, especially during the erosion of mountains. Atmospheric CO2 has been in rough equilibrium for several million years.
Meanwhile, biological processes have sequestered huge quantities of carbon in the form of hydrocarbons. The burning of these fossil fuels has significantly increased the greenhouse effect.
DeleteSo Zachriel you agree that huge quantities of carbon have been sequestered into hydrocarbons, presumably by biological processes. Then maybe you can answer where was this carbon before that happened like I had asked. While we're at it where is the evidence of a "significantly increased ... greenhouse effect" , I mean something really solid, something irrefutable like the discovery of electrical conductivity in metals.
DeleteMSEE: you agree that huge quantities of carbon have been sequestered into hydrocarbons, presumably by biological processes.
DeleteOf course. That's why they're called fossil fuels.
MSEE: Then maybe you can answer where was this carbon before that happened like I had asked.
As we already answered, carbon is cycled from the Earth's interior to the atmosphere through volcanism and other geological outgassings.
MSEE: While we're at it where is the evidence of a "significantly increased ... greenhouse effect"
Frankly, didn't think it was in dispute. The climate issue is the climate sensitivity due to the interaction of numerous mechanisms. Here's the radiation spectrum of the most important greenhouse gases.
https://www.cabrillo.edu/~rnolthenius/climate/Denialists/D-WaterVapor/absSpec.jpg
Msee
DeleteHow'd it get there considering it is bound up in hydrocarbons? How long has it been there? Forever? If not, where was it before it got there?
So what is the big deal it has always been around, is that the question? Last time it was in the atmosphere 7 billion humans did not exist.
MSEE: How long has it been there? Forever?
DeleteThe original carbon was forged in a supernova before the formation of the Solar System.
Dr. Hunter,
ReplyDeleteOnce again an interesting post. The problem as I gather from your book is applicable here. What has happened to science is that it has become rationalized, and has left it's empirical underpinnings. This of course leads to extravagant and unfounded claims. Another problem in this whole enterprise is one that Adam Smith warned about years ago. Economic agents will try to gain competitive advantage through the auspices of the state and not by competition. In most of these cases if you follow the money trail you will understand the reasons for the grandiose claims. We need a return to an empirical basis for science. IE what do you know and what can you prove.
So true eklektos. But in addition to a money trail, I think there is also a religion trail.
DeleteEklektos: What has happened to science is that it has become rationalized, and has left it's empirical underpinnings. This of course leads to extravagant and unfounded claims.
DeleteIt seems we are in agreement that the current underpinning of science isn't empirical.
Where we diverge is that it never was. IOW, we were mistaken in the same sense what we experienced the sun circling the Earth. This is the psychological problem of induction.
Eklektos: We need a return to an empirical basis for science. IE what do you know and what can you prove.
How do you propose that would work, in practice? I’m asking because that would be justificationism, which has not survived criticism.
Furthermore, to assume that science has completely jettisoned empirical observations or that it is no longer considered relevant is disingenuous. Theories are tested by empirical observations, not derived from them. We had it backwards. We’ve made progress since them. But then I’m guessing that, as on other topics, you deny that we can or have actually made progress here either.
But feel free to explain how that would work, in practice.
Scott,
DeleteOh gee, I don't know, maybe not claim things as facts until you've eliminated the alternatives. Maybe couch things as this seems to indicate and not this explanation is reality. You seem to want to argue for affirming the consequent. I made a prediction based on an assumption, that prediction was correct, therefore my initial assumptions is correct. That's a logical fallacy no matter how you look at it. Maybe have open journals and peer review. Maybe stop claiming that science can actually explain reality. Stop trying to avoid the fact that you're making claims based on authority, majority, and a host of other logical fallacies. Admit that claims without a foundation are nothing but opinions which other people have no obligation to accept. No matter how "rational" you may think they are.
eklektos: You seem to want to argue for affirming the consequent. I made a prediction based on an assumption, that prediction was correct, therefore my initial assumptions is correct.
DeleteFallacy of the converse
If P then Q
Q
Therefore P
Scientific Method
If P then Q
Q
P is supported
Scientific falsification
If P then Q
~Q
Therefore ~P
Should be labeled as follows:
DeleteHypothetico-deduction
If P then Q
Q
P is supported
Actually P is only supported when you've eliminated the possible alternative explanations for Q. Which is where the whole enterprise has gone off the rails. And if Q is actually Q. But when one examines Q it frequently is not actually Q, but some paper thin claim for Q, or Q is not sufficiently defined to be an actual proof of P.
Deleteeklektos: Actually P is only supported when you've eliminated the possible alternative explanations for Q.
DeleteDid Newton eliminate all possible alternative explanations?
Equivocation. And as I also pointed out, and you ignored, what is claimed to be Q is often so weak that it couldn't be considered Q. Like your fallacious claim about the Keefe/Szostak paper. In reality I've yet to see an actual Q. And Newton's Law of motion is just that, a Law. It wasn't a prediction, it was an explanation of an observed phenomena. It was not historical science.
Deleteeklektos: Equivocation.
DeleteIt was a question. To answer, you can't eliminate all possible explanations. That's not how science works, nor would it be possible for knowledge to progress if it were required.
eklektos: And as I also pointed out, and you ignored, ...
You raised two points. We took the first point first as it was fallacious.
eklektos: Actually P is only supported when you've eliminated the possible alternative explanations for Q.
Did Newton eliminate all possible alternative explanations?
eklektos: And as I also pointed out, and you ignored, what is claimed to be Q is often so weak that it couldn't be considered Q.
Q has to be properly entailed, and then established by observation, preferably by multiple observers using various methodologies and other entailments. That doesn't "prove" P, rather it just supports it. Certainly other explanations can be considered, but then distinguishing tests should be devised.
Zachriel,
DeleteYou must eliminate plausible alternatives, period. Ijdo certainly recognized this in his comment on 2Q13. A prediction is only as good as the strictness of it's parameters. some generalized prediction won't do.
Stop claiming Newton, because that's just false. He didn't predict planetary orbits, he explained an observed phenomena. You are comparing apples and oranges. And no matter how many times you blur the lines it won't make the comparison apt. You want to play rhetorical games. That won't work. In fact your whole attitude here has been an excellent demonstration of what is wrong with historical science. And yes Virginia, there is a difference no matter how much you wish to pretend otherwise. Every one of your proofs is either obviously wrong, or pathetically weak. They are either not Q, circular, or ad hoc.
eklektos: You must eliminate plausible alternatives
DeleteThat's better. Not all "possible" alternatives, but plausible alternatives, presumably those that have actually been proposed.
eklektos: A prediction is only as good as the strictness of it's parameters. some generalized prediction won't do.
That's right. The more specific the prediction, the more "surprising", the better the confirmation. Even more so, different observers, varying methods, even other entailments, the stronger our confidence in the claim.
For any result, there are an infinitude of possible explanations. Many have what would seem to be extraneous entities. If you propose an alternative explanation, then you need to provide specific and distinguishing empirical implications of that explanation. So, Special Relativity didn't just explain the current data, but predicted data that distinguished it from Newtonian Mechanics.
eklektos: Stop claiming Newton, because that's just false. He didn't predict planetary orbits, he explained an observed phenomena.
That's certainly not correct. Halley's Comet is a case in point, which used historical knowledge to predict a future observation.
We should be in agreement on what is required to support a claim.
The law of planetary motion already existed. Stop trying to make historical science the same as operational science. Nobody agrees with that, not even scientist in the field.
Deleteeklektos: The law of planetary motion already existed.
DeleteIf you mean planets orbited the Sun before Newton, sure. If you mean Newton's orbital mechanics existed before Newton, then no.
eklektos: Stop trying to make historical science the same as operational science.
Historical sciences have their own problems, but Halley's prediction of the Comet also confirmed that that particular comet was the one seen in previous centuries. So, it is a then current observation confirming both a mechanical theory and *historical* astronomical events, all wrapped up in time for Christmas 1758.
CH: There was, for example, University of Texas evolutionist Eric Pianka who advocated the elimination of 90% of the human population (deadly viruses were his weapons of choice) and received standing ovations, and an award from his peers at the Texas Academy of Science.
ReplyDeleteEven if we assumed we had access to a full recording of the entire talk was make, which we do not, and that everyone took Pianka seriously...
We've seen these sort of doomsday predictions in the past. What was the result? We created the necessary knowledge in time to solve the problem. While there is no guarantee we will, as we could blow ourselves up first or decided to stop making progress, as many of you here have, Pianka's argument simply ignores the option.
IOW, his argument makes the same mistake you and others like you here are making. It suffers from the same fatal flaw.
Among other things, people are unique in that they share a special relationship with the laws of physics. We are universal explainers. We create new explanatory knowledge. Our planet’s long term survival depends on just this.
There was, for example, University of Texas evolutionist Eric Pianka who advocated the elimination of 90% of the human population (deadly viruses were his weapons of choice) and received standing ovations, and an award from his peers at the Texas Academy of Science.
ReplyDeleteI seem to remember a Biblical precedent for getting rid of the unwanted majority of the human population (and most other life) which involved a lot of water. That seems to be applauded by most Christians, at least, I don't hear a lot of them condemning it. Genocide's okay if God does it but no one else?
I: I seem to remember a Biblical precedent for getting rid of the unwanted majority of the human population (and most other life) which involved a lot of water. That seems to be applauded by most Christians, at least, I don't hear a lot of them condemning it. Genocide's okay if God does it but no one else?
DeleteJ: The very notion of "right" and "wrong" are only intelligible in terms OF teleology. Thus, we can't conceivably mean the same thing by "right" when we say God does right as opposed to a human does right. To say God does right is just to say that God governs the world in such a way that there actually IS a rational, moral order. To say a human does right is to say that he acts consistently with God's preference.
For such a God to exist and to exterminate large populations every now and then must mean, therefore, that such exterminations are consistent with a rational moral order in terms of being means to greater long-term goods for all. And even this would seem to mean that such occasions are necessitated (to attain the optimal long-term utility) because of the effects of the actions of creatures.
Some think that ultimate universal reconciliation is the only way to make sense of this (or even natural evil of the more extreme kinds and degrees that exist). I tend to agree. But I certainly don't see how one can prove a moral order doesn't exist.
Ian,
DeleteSo you're arguing for genocide? And you fail to see a distinction between the prerogatives of a creator and his creation?
Jeff The very notion of "right" and "wrong" are only intelligible in terms OF teleology. Thus, we can't conceivably mean the same thing by "right" when we say God does right as opposed to a human does right. To say God does right is just to say that God governs the world in such a way that there actually IS a rational, moral order. To say a human does right is to say that he acts consistently with God's preference.
DeleteIf one person deliberately kills another by rolling a rock down on him from a hillsied, we would consider that to be wrong, to be an immoral act. If that same rock killed that same person after being dislodged by an earth tremor, we would not consider that to be wrong in the sense of being an immoral act Right or wrong in this sense subsists in the way human beings behave towards one another. Morality, in practice, is a means of regulating the way people behave towards one another with the purpose of trying to ensure that the rights and interests of all are respected by all.
The question is whether human morality can be held to apply to non-human intelligent agents such as aliens - or gods. I think that if an alien, such as the one in the movie Predator, were to come to Earth in order to hunt and kill human beings as trophies, we would consider that morally wrong. By extension, we would consider the same to be true for a god - or the God.
This brings us smack up against the Euthyphro Dilemma. Is good only what God decides is good or does, or is it something other, something to which He is as much subject as we are? You obviously subscribe to the former and get around the problem of all the apparently immoral acts ascribed to God in the Old Testament by the unsatisfactory expedient of assuming that it is all in our best, albeit unknown and unexplained, best interests. Well, there are others of us - including, I'm sure, all those who would have been drowned in the alleged Great Flood - who beg to differ. We would like the freedom to decide what is best for us - and to make our own mistakes - with impunity.
eklektos So you're arguing for genocide? And you fail to see a distinction between the prerogatives of a creator and his creation?
DeleteNo, I am saying that genocide is as wrong for a god as it is for any human tyrant.
I am also denying that being a creator necessarily entails a prerogative to kill any living being that it might create, especially if it is assumed that this creator is all-knowing and all-powerful and has the means to correct any errors - which a perfect creator would never have committed in the first place - by other means.
Ian,
DeleteWhy is it wrong for God? Particularly when the individuals in question are in rebellion? Why is God not merciful by not wiping them out the instant the first stench of their existence reached His nostrils? (metaphorically speaking) It seems your argument speaks more to your rebellion and less to the prerogatives of God. Does not God have a perfect right to exercise justice? Or is He just a monad?
Jeff: J: The very notion of "right" and "wrong" are only intelligible in terms OF teleology. Thus, we can't conceivably mean the same thing by "right" when we say God does right as opposed to a human does right. To say God does right is just to say that God governs the world in such a way that there actually IS a rational, moral order. To say a human does right is to say that he acts consistently with God's preference.
DeleteAnd if you define the very notion of “government” as a monarchy, then “government” is only intelligible in terms of the divine right of kings. Yet, the vast majority of all kings in government are kings in title alone. We’ve made progress in that, to a overwhelming greater extent, we choose to elect government leaders based on their ideas, not their divine providence.
In the same sense, if you define knowledge of “right” and “wrong” as knowledge that comes from a supernatural authoritative source, then yes, it would be intelligible only in terms of said supernatural authoritative source. But that’s a tautology.
Nor is it clear how you could infallibly interpret such an authoritative source, should one even exist, to know its preference.
If you invoke God to explain why we can rationally comprehend the world, as a foundation to determine why things are wrong or right, etc. you’re not actually solving the problem. You’re merely pushed the issue up into an inexplicable realm without improving it.
Jeff: For such a God to exist and to exterminate large populations every now and then must mean, therefore, that such exterminations are consistent with a rational moral order in terms of being means to greater long-term goods for all.
Extinctions can be explained by global events such as meteor strikes, massive volcanic eruptions, etc. Of course, if you presuppose that God is ultimately in control, then you would have to conclude that such catastrophic events must have been somehow sanctioned, etc.
If Yahwah’s people are greatly defeated in battle, they either have to conclude their God got put in the corner, or that he allowed them to be defeated as a form of punishment. But note that, to conclude the latter, this implies that Yahwah uses and controls other God’s to bring about that punishment. It’s just these sorts of decisions by which we can explain the rise of monotheism.
Jeff: And even this would seem to mean that such occasions are necessitated (to attain the optimal long-term utility) because of the effects of the actions of creatures.
Myths like the flood as a global cleansing are a bad explanation because they are easily varied.
For example, God couldn’t simply make people disappear, rather than drowning them? What was the point of killing them in that particular way, over some other way? What did the animals do to deserve it? Being omnipotent, God could simply reset peoples brains rather than kill them. However, the field of neuroscience didn’t even exist at the time, we attributed bad weather to God’s wrath, etc.
Nor can we rule out extinction as collateral damage between a war between God and his equally powerful, yet perfectly evil twin. And that’s just what I can think of off the top of my head.
Jeff: Some think that ultimate universal reconciliation is the only way to make sense of this (or even natural evil of the more extreme kinds and degrees that exist). I tend to agree.
Universal reconciliation makes sense of natural evil, how?
Jeff: But I certainly don't see how one can prove a moral order doesn't exist.
Unifying moral knowledge, in that grows as part of our universal explanation for the growth of human knowledge, and criticizing forms of morality foundered on Justificationism, does not represent proving “a moral order doesn't exist.”
In fact, the expectation that we could or even should prove “a moral order doesn't exist.” is an extension of this every idea being criticized.
eklektos
DeleteWhy is it wrong for God? Particularly when the individuals in question are in rebellion?
Were there no children in those days? Were the animals in rebellion as well?
It seems your argument speaks more to your rebellion and less to the prerogatives of God.
Then logically it must be objectively moral to drown someone who is in rebellion against the God of Abraham, unless morality is not objective.
Then logically it must be objectively moral to drown someone who is in rebellion against the God of Abraham, unless morality is not objective
DeleteIs there something controversial in this. It is objectively moral for God to drown those who would not repent, though repeatedly called to do so for 100 years. It is not objectively moral for you to destroy God's creation because it doesn't belong to you. You seem to fail to grasp the fundamental difference between you(created being) and God (Creator). You wish to put yourself in the position of God. That is not only absurd it is logically a category error.
I don't allow my children to punish each other. I discipline when necessary. It's my job, not theirs. I don't allow my students to disciplne or cosequence each other. That's my job, not theirs. Punishing sinners is God's job, not ours.
Deleteeklektos Is there something controversial in this. It is objectively moral for God to drown those who would not repent, though repeatedly called to do so for 100 years. It is not objectively moral for you to destroy God's creation because it doesn't belong to you. You seem to fail to grasp the fundamental difference between you(created being) and God (Creator). You wish to put yourself in the position of God. That is not only absurd it is logically a category error.
DeleteAgain, being a creator does not necessarily entail a moral right or prerogative to kill a living creature any more than being a parent entitles someone to kill their child if it displeases them in some way.
And far from trying to put ourselves in the position of God, we are asking why should God not be bound by the moral standards He wants to impose on us. As a corollary, we would ask, if God acts hypocritically by telling us to do one thing and then doing the opposite whenever it suits Him, why should we listen to anything He has to say at all?
natschuster I don't allow my children to punish each other. I discipline when necessary. It's my job, not theirs. I don't allow my students to disciplne or cosequence each other. That's my job, not theirs. Punishing sinners is God's job, not ours
DeleteI assume you don't kill your children if they're disobedient, especially if you have other means at your disposal for making them behave.
eklektos Why is it wrong for God? Particularly when the individuals in question are in rebellion? Why is God not merciful by not wiping them out the instant the first stench of their existence reached His nostrils? (metaphorically speaking) It seems your argument speaks more to your rebellion and less to the prerogatives of God. Does not God have a perfect right to exercise justice? Or is He just a monad?
DeleteWho says they were in rebellion? The God who killed them all? That's just the killer saying the victims all deserved it. We never get to hear the victims side because, of course, they're all dead. Is that just?
And if they behaved a certain way, that is how they were created by God. As an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect being He doesn't make mistakes. So where's the justice in punishing creatures for being how they were made to be?
Worse than that, He must have known right from the very beginning what would happen. That's part of what being all-knowing means. If anyone deserves blame it's the Creator not His creatures.
Ian,
DeleteI suggest you tell Him that when you're face to face. You seem like a very bitter individual.
Ian,
DeletePlus you have neither the knowledge nor the right to put God in the dock. I think you overestimate yourself. Also you might learn the difference between determinism and compatiblism.
eklektos
DeleteIs there something controversial in this. It is objectively moral for God to drown those who would not repent, though repeatedly called to do so for 100 years.
Not as a metaphor,but as an actual event then yes. I missed your explanation how a child deserves to be drowned for rebellion.
It is not objectively moral for you to destroy God's creation because it doesn't belong to you.
So essentially humans are God's slaves, property to be disposed of as He wishes . Innocent or rebellious is irrelevant to the morality of it.
You seem to fail to grasp the fundamental difference between you(created being) and God (Creator). You wish to put yourself in the position of God.
Not at all, I believe that human's finite mind is incapable of understanding much about an infinite being . We have no reference.
But I am not claiming I know what an infinite being's motives are, you are. I just think that the Abrahamic God holds humans to a higher standard of morality then He does Himself. Killing the family dog because the owner is evil seems immoral to me.
That is not only absurd it is logically a category error.
That was my point too.
Ian:
Delete"I assume you don't kill your children if they're disobedient, especially if you have other means at your disposal for making them behave."
I don't kill my children or my students. I assumed that the point you were making is that if it is okay for God to kill his creation, then it is okay for people to kill people. My response was that often we say that the job of punishing is for some, not for others.
eklektos
DeletePlus you have neither the knowledge nor the right to put God in the dock.
So you feel the same about the God of Islam? Thor?
Velikovsky,
DeleteDo you know any Christian theology at all? It certainly seems not. You don't seem to grasp the fundamentals. I'd suggest before you start making theological statements about God you actually learn some theology. Things like original sin, the nature of revelation, the creature/created distinction, ect. Your view seems to want to elevate man beyond his actual status. Like the silly slavery statement. If man was made for a purpose, and God is not a kid with an ant farm, then failure to fulfill that purpose would demand justice. God is not a monad, as I've said before. The glory of man has brought many good things, but it has also brought death and destruction. There is no such thing as moral neutrality, it doesn't exist. In fact apart from God there's no morality at all, just opinions. The reason we know is because God revealed Himself, otherwise we couldn't know anything. You just don't like the revelation, because it deflates mans self-importance. Learn some theology before you seek to critique it.
Velikovsky,
DeleteThat was my point too.
It wasn't your point, it was your argument. If you want to critique Christian theology then learn some. Don't critique a god of your own imagination then punch that strawman for all it's worth.
eklektos,
Delete"I'd suggest before you start making theological statements about God you actually learn some theology."
What an absolutely unreasonable request. Don't you realize anyone who wishes to pontificate on the subject of theology is entirely entitled to do so without one iota of knowledge or understanding of the subject?
True, this is not acceptable in any other filed of endeavor, but it is wholly acceptable when it comes to theology. It is also highly tolerated when it comes to history as well. Especially so in the area of the history of Christianity. It is not tolerated, however, when someone points out the historical failures of evolution.
So, eklektos, I would suggest you learn the basic rule when it comes to these discussions. You and I know nothing, the evolutionists know everything. Understanding this basic rule will make the whole exercise so much easier.
eklektos
DeleteDo you know any Christian theology at all? It certainly seems not. You don't seem to grasp the fundamentals. I'd suggest before you start making theological statements about God you actually learn some theology
Seven years of nuns,five years of Jesuits. And I saw "The Ten Commandments".
Things like original sin, the nature of revelation, the creature/created distinction, ect.
Then perhaps you can answer my question,why was it just to kill every child in the Flood? A three old is hardly capable of rebellion against God.
Like the silly slavery statement.
"It is not objectively moral for you to destroy God's creation because it doesn't belong to you"
Then since it is objectively moral for God to destroy His creation,we must belong to him. And if we don't do our job/ purpose he has the obligation/ right to punish us even unto death. And yes we are morally obligated to obey and worship Him.
You are right,nothing like slavery
God is not a monad, as I've said before.
Could you elaborate?
he reason we know is because God revealed Himself, otherwise we couldn't know anything
Closer to my thoughts.
You just don't like the revelation, because it deflates mans self-importance
Just the opposite, revelation inflates man's self importance, the Divine Imprimatur.
But the problem of revelation is whose revelation is correct? Which version is correct?
"So you feel the same about the God of Islam? Thor?"
DeleteThat's nothing but an equivocation. If you want to posit the god of Islam I suggest you actually study the claims of Islam. All you done is exhibit more reductionist thinking. Because there are competing claims we can't know which one is correct. That's ridiculous. If it was my soul that was in the balance I'd try to examine the claims. If I was going to deny the existence of the soul I would have to actually examine whether my assumption was correct. You are simply trying to evade responsibility via ad hoc reasoning. Then you want to make claims based on absolute ignorance of the matters involved. Before you critique something it would behoove you to actually examine it in detail. I have no more desire to teach you 2 millennia of Christian thought than I do to teach teach genetics to someone via a combox. I reject the 2Q13 fusion claim because I have just spent two weeks of intensive study on the matter with two PHD's in related fields. I didn't just reject it because it doesn't fit my worldview. Stop being intellectually lazy.
Velikovsky,
DeleteLapsed catholic, I should have known. God is not simply omnibenevolent, nor has the church up to the modern era understood Him that way. He is as full orbed as you or I. He has different kinds of love. He is just as well as loving. You can't claim a full personality for yourself and try to limit God to one dimension. That's a child's view.
eklektos
DeleteIt wasn't your point, it was your argument.
It was the point I was making, the belief in an actual flood fraught with problems. Do you believe in an actual flood?
If you want to critique Christian theology then learn some.
So you are saying that an amateur's opinion should take backseat to to a more learned one. The more knowledge the more validity. Good advice
Don't critique a god of your own imagination then punch that strawman for all it's worth.
Au contraire, I feel like I am defending God against the scurrilous charge that He literally flooded the earth,killing man and beast
eklektos
DeleteBecause there are competing claims we can't know which one is correct. That's ridiculous
This is the place traditionally you provide a actual reason why
If it was my soul that was in the balance I'd try to examine the claims.
I am attempting to,why was it just to kill every child in the Flood? A three old is hardly capable of rebellion against God.
If I was going to deny the existence of the soul I would have to actually examine whether my assumption was correct.
I don't deny the existence of anything, you do when you claim your God is the One True God
I reject the 2Q13 fusion claim because I have just spent two weeks of intensive study on the matter with two PHD's in related fields.
Impressive, which related fields? I hear there are literally hundreds of actual PHDs in the field who disagree with you. Shouldn't you defer to their superior knowledge in the field, if I should defer to your superior theological expertise?
I didn't just reject it because it doesn't fit my worldview
Just mostly
Stop being intellectually lazy.
Just answer the question
eklektos
DeleteLapsed catholic, I should have known. God is not simply omnibenevolent, nor has the church up to the modern era understood Him that way
Exactly what kind of omni God drowns a two year old because they rebelled against His purpose? As an example to other two year olds?
He is as full orbed as you or I. He has different kinds of love.
He hasn't drowned me yet, so thanks for that.
He is just as well as loving. You can't claim a full personality for yourself and try to limit God to one dimension.
I actually would guess an infinite being had a infinite number of dimensions else He would be finite in some sense. None greater can be imagined after all
Velikovsky,
DeleteExactly what God is it your defending? One that has some basis in revelation or one you created in your own mind? The one you'd prefer or the One that is revealed? And if you actually had listened to those Jesuits You wouldn't be babbling about anyone being innocent. That may be your claim, it's not the Christian view. Plus you keep speaking as if physical death is all ther is. You either don't understand the fundamentals or you want to reject them because they don't suit your worldview. either way I don't find your arguments very compelling as they seem to have no basis other then your opinion. They certainly run counter to the view of the church throughout history. As to your 2Q13 question one was a geneticist and one was a microbiologist, and on either side of the issue.
Velikovsky,
DeleteShouldn't you defer to their superior knowledge in the field, if I should defer to your superior theological expertise?
I didn't say you should defer to me, now did I? What did I say? I said you should study the relevant information. The reason I said that is that to date you've shown no knowledge of what you're criticizing as you keep making blatantly false statements about the subject which shows no understanding of what Christians actually believe. It's your life, you do the work. I am not a catholic, but I am not a catholic because I actually know what they teach and not because I have some bigotry against catholics.
Nic,
DeleteI know, how un-PC of me. As we know all knowledge is to be found on Wikipedia and various Darwinian and atheist websites. What was I thinking? ;)
Velikovsky,
DeleteThis is the place traditionally you provide a actual reason why
Because the claims are different and contradictory. Unless you wish to claim God deliberately revealed Himself in a contradictory way. Christian claims are exclusive, as are Islam and Judaism. So they cannot be synthesized with Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other ism. They are true or false on their own merits. This is obvious so why are you asking such a lame question?
As to the flood what did your catholic upbringing teach you about the culpability of man? What did it teach you about his nature? The fall? ect.
I actually would guess an infinite being had a infinite number of dimensions else He would be finite in some sense. None greater can be imagined after all
DeleteWell, assuming that you're using dimensions here in the context in which I said it, and not some other context in a bait and switch tactic, then God has prerogatives over His creation. And that would include to love people in different ways, just as we do. I don't love my wife in the same way I love someone else's wife. He has the right to show mercy where he will and justice where He will. He has a right to expect his creation to be obedient to Him just as I expect my children to be obedient to me. The miracle of salvation is not that we are slaves, but that we are adopted children. That's Christian theology, which to date you haven't demonstrated the slightest knowledge of.
Just mostly
As you are ignorant of both the conversations, and most likely the issues involved your statement is nothing but an assumption based on your own biases.
I told you explicitly to research the matters before pontificating on them. I did not ask you to defer to my knowledge. So your claim is a blatant misrepresentation. That does not mean go to some website where you can get pat answers to reinforce your views. Read the documents involved. Read the bible. Read the ECF, which are available online. Read the Reformers. Read church history. Learn something about textual criticism. Learn how to use language tools even if you're not going to learn the languages involved. Learn something about the culture of the period, not some historians anachronistic view.
In fact, as you like puzzles I'll put one to you that relates to this. In Exodus 15:23-25 it says the waters were bitter, God showed Moses a log, Moses threw the log into the waters and the waters became sweet. Now, did the log make the waters sweet? If so why? If not what was the point of the log? Ponder that for a while before you make simplistic statements about God.
eklektos
DeleteBecause the claims are different and contradictory. Unless you wish to claim God deliberately revealed Himself in a contradictory way.
Perhaps, or as likely some revelations are in error. What is the basis for your assumption that your revelations are correct? The revelations themselves?
Christian claims are exclusive, as are Islam and Judaism.
Hence my question, we have competing claims, how does one determine the true God? Faith?
They are true or false on their own merits
Good idea, for instance?
This is obvious so why are you asking such a lame question?
Let me repeat it, how does one differentiate false revelation from true revelation if revelation is the source of truth?
Quote Vel Quoting Eklectos:
Delete""This is obvious so why are you asking such a lame question?"
Let me repeat it, how does one differentiate false revelation from true revelation if revelation is the source of truth?"
One way might be the fact that the Revelation at Mt. Sinai was to the whole nation, as opposed to other Revelations that were only to one person. And it was accepted by the entire Israelite Nation as part of their authentic history.
eklektos
DeleteAs to the flood what did your catholic upbringing teach you about the culpability of man?
First,Catholic has a capital C, second asking me to do what you have avoided?
Catholics are free to believe in a poetic interpretation of the OT. I cannot ever recall anyone believing in a literal Flood.
It is interesting that you focus on the villains not the hero. We view it as a story about God and Noah, that no matter how obstacles stand in your way don't lose the faith( in God). The drown were much like the red shirted crew members in Star Trek, a two dimensional plot device. And a plot device obviously is not the same as a real human being.
The culpability was a subplot, the bad cop.
What did it teach you about his nature?
Catholic version, God's nature is not the focus,it is man's struggle against evil. And of course the satisfying " who's laughing now?"
For the literalists,the realization that they only exist at the whim of the King whose objective morality and justice allows for a grisly death for two year children for inherited guilt.
And even worse you have been already judged guilty as well.
Velikovsky,
DeleteI was guilty, but I have a savior who took my place. But I repented and believed. I quit arguing with God, I quit trying to retain my dignity, as if I had any. I realized that I was a wretch deserving of nothing but death and hell. There are no innocents. There were two, but they fell. That is and has been the Christian view from the beginning. Period. Now I don't say these things to build myself up, but to bring men to Christ. I care about you, Scott, Ian, and Zachriel, and everyone else here. Now you may be a Christian, you may be deluding yourself, I don't know. But your answers here and the things you've said are clear indications that you are still rebelling. Whether you believe in evolution is not the issue, what you need to examine yourself on is why you believe in evolution. As to innocent children it never ceases to amaze me that most often the people who rail against God for working out His plan in creation are frequently the same one that have no problem killing "innocents" in utero. The hypocrisy of it reeks to heaven, and will be punished because God is loving, but He is also just. Just think about it.
Velikovsky,
DeleteBesides, while that may be the liberal American Catholic view, it is not dogma. I have read the RCC catechism, original sin is still there. Mortal sin, purgatory, ect. are still there. Further I am not a Roman Catholic, so I am not bound by their dogma. I am bound by what God revealed in His word, and He didn't mumble. He wasn't unclear. He commanded, not requested, that you repent and believe. Failure to do so will ensure one receives the just penalty for his sin. That also is RCC dogma.
eklektos
DeleteYou wouldn't be babbling about anyone being innocent. That may be your claim, it's not the Christian view.
Yep,you are right. The two year old deserved to die for not its own actions but for the crime of being human. A yet Noah and his family who were just as guilty as that child were spared. Equal guilt, differential punishment. The Flood God's justice.
eklektos
DeleteI realized that I was a wretch deserving of nothing but death and hell. There are no innocents. There were two, but they fell. That is and has been the Christian view from the beginning. Period
I know. Flawed creations being punished for crimes committed by imaginary ancestors.
But your answers here and the things you've said are clear indications that you are still rebelling.
Only against that interpretation of what nature of an Uncaused Cause is.
I respect your beliefs, but I don't have any confidence that your version is more likely than Islam. I prefer reason over blind faith. I will risk that God feels the same way, after all God should be omni logical as well.
As to innocent children it never ceases to amaze me that most often the people who rail against God for working out His plan in creation
The rail against your interpretation of God, you cannot prove your version is not just your version.
are frequently the same one that have no problem killing "innocents" in utero.
Maybe you should worry more about the people who don't dismiss your version of God who have abortions. Need the statistics?
he hypocrisy of it reeks to heaven, and will be punished because God is loving, but He is also just.
Maybe He should support birth control and sex education or have tweaked the sex drive a bit. After all he built us.
eklektos
DeleteBesides, while that may be the liberal American Catholic view, it is not dogma
That is what happens when reason meets dogma, the prohibition of birth control is routinely ignored as an other example.
I have read the RCC catechism, original sin is still there. Mortal sin, purgatory, ect. are still there.
Though eating meat on Friday is no longer considered punishable by eternal damnation.
Further I am not a Roman Catholic, so I am not bound by their dogma.
Except their dogma says different,they view themselves as true voice of a God on earth, directly founded by God ,the Son.Their view is that man exalts himself to believe he can interpret the Word of God without the Church You imperil your soul in this heresy.
I am bound by what God revealed in His word, and He didn't mumble
This heresy condemns you to hell per Catholic dogma.Sorry,you are in the same boat as me.
Why are they wrong and you are right?
He wasn't unclear. He commanded, not requested, that you repent and believe. Failure to do so will ensure one receives the just penalty for his sin.
Luckily for Catholics the sacrament of Confession exists. Sins are washed away just like those poor souls judged unredeemable in the Flood.
Both the good and bad one does in his life is judged. As well as how much you put in the collection plate,though that is not solely Catholic dogma.
eklektos
DeleteWell, assuming that you're using dimensions here in the context in which I said it, and not some other context in a bait and switch tactic, then God has prerogatives over His creation.
Mathematically all infinities are not equal, an infinite dimensional infinite being would be greater than a three dimensional infinite being, or four.
he miracle of salvation is not that we are slaves, but that we are adopted children. That's Christian theology, which to date you haven't demonstrated the slightest knowledge of.
You think I am arguing what Christian believe? I am merely relaying my view of the logical consequences of belief in a particular version of the Christian God.
We are God creation, we are God's property, He has no moral obligation to us. If you prefer indentured servants, ok.
As you are ignorant of both the conversations, and most likely the issues involved your statement is nothing but an assumption based on your own biases
Do you have any religious ,non scientific objections to the ToE? If so,would accepting the ToE constitute a rebellion against God in some way? Any social costs involved?
.
" I didn't just reject it because it doesn't fit my worldview " implies that you did reject it because your worldview just not exclusively.
If I misunderstood apologies, you meant that your worldview accommodates acceptance of the ToE,
that man descended from a common ancestor. It is just your unbiased by religious dogma or worldview that the science is just not convincing
Learn something about the culture of the period, not some historians anachronistic view.
Was there a literal flood or not in your expert opinion?
n fact, as you like puzzles I'll put one to you that relates to this. In Exodus 15:23-25 it says the waters were bitter, God showed Moses a log, Moses threw the log into the waters and the waters became sweet. Now, did the log make the waters sweet? If so why? If not what was the point of the log?
A chemistry lesson, an another lesson in obedience , invention of Root Beer ? Why ask? You have already declared I am unfit to have an valid opinion.
Ponder that for a while before you make simplistic statements about God.
I just question what kind God would inflict a grisly death on children as justice, not that He does not exist. And whether ethically if it would be acceptable to worship such a God?
Velikovsky,
DeleteChildren die grisly deaths everyday. Why? That is the million dollar question. If your god is so loving and nothing else how could this happen. How could he take a powder? Or is there something fundamental you're missing? The creature/Creator distinction. I couldn't worship some supposedly loving god who took a powder and left his creation with so much pointless evil. Your view of god is a kid with an ant farm. Children die, but what happens to them after death is up to God. He doesn't say because scripture wasn't written for children. But I know that however He deals with the situation it will be just. Where you ere is in not seeing the fact it is not pointless. There is not so much as a raindrop that falls that does not fall according to God's plan. Now before you make the robot argument understand there are two wills involved in every action. Ours and God's. We do what we willed to do, but it all falls out according to God's will. He is intimately involved in every aspect of His creation. That's Christian theology and always was. Where the people that tried to distance God from his creation made their mistake is that God didn't need the to save His honor. He didn't need their help at all. So they strayed from sound doctrine. This was the culmination of a long period of abject corruption in the church which led to the Reformation. But as is the observable case in history the pendulum swung from unbiblical superstitious nonsense to the unbiblical exaltation of man. It's not either/or, they are both wrong. As to the conundrum I posed about the waters I was making a point. You speak of a literal reading. Yes, where it's literal it's literal. You can't make it all literal, like some fundamentalist I know, nor can you make it all allegorical like so many theological liberals I know. You must read it a the literature it is. Some is narrative, like the almost all of Genesis. Some is poetical, like the Psalms. Some is apocryphal like Revelation. Some is historical like Acts. I was not trying to be unkind by accusing you of ignorance, I was trying to get you to actually come to grips with the issue. Because what you keep claiming is not Christian theology as it has been understood by the church for practically two millennia. If you want an argument over whether they have sometimes erred then I'm not your guy. But scripture is there, it's easy to understand once you actually stop reading into it your own biases and traditions. The cry of the reformers was always reforming. As to the puzzle, you are correct. It was a lesson in obedience, because Moses had been arguing with God from the start. That was the point of the log.
eklektos
DeleteChildren die grisly deaths everyday. Why? That is the million dollar question. If your god is so loving and nothing else how could this happen.
You missed my point again,I am not arguing in favor of a different anthropomorphic God. Just questioning the One who is claimed to be justified in drowning two year olds. Now if you wish to add every child who is suffering as punishment for original sin go ahead.
How could he take a powder? Or is there something fundamental you're missing? The creature/Creator distinction
Or He is as impassive as gravity,or countless other scenarios to explain why things are how they are and what happens when we die.
I couldn't worship some supposedly loving god who took a powder and left his creation with so much pointless evil.
There would certainly not be much point in worshipping Him.
Your view of god is a kid with an ant farm.
Not really at all. Any depiction of God with human attributes seems wrong, merely our projecting our needs on a blank canvas.
Children die, but what happens to them after death is up to God.
The Flood God caused them to die for a specific reason, are children with cancer likewise being punished?
He doesn't say because scripture wasn't written for children. But I know that however He deals with the situation it will be just.
That is a comforting thought, I see the appeal. Uncertainty is so uncertain.
I was trying to get you to actually come to grips with the issue. Because what you keep claiming is not Christian theology as it has been understood by the church for practically two millennia
What exactly do you think this claim is? I am assuming that the Bible literally true when it comes to the Flood and what that Flood version of God entails at least to me. Is a literal reading of the Bible incorrect for a Christian?
If you want an argument over whether they have sometimes erred then I'm not your guy.
Me either.
But scripture is there, it's easy to understand once you actually stop reading into it your own biases and traditions.
How about the unknown biases and motivations of the original authors?
As to the puzzle, you are correct. It was a lesson in obedience, because Moses had been arguing with God from the start.
A safe bet.
Velikovsky,
DeleteHow about the unknown biases and motivations of the original authors?
Yeas, that's Derrida's argument. But that way lies madness ;)
That is a comforting thought, I see the appeal. Uncertainty is so uncertain.
Really? You don't think He made it pretty clear in scripture?
What exactly do you think this claim is? I am assuming that the Bible literally true when it comes to the Flood and what that Flood version of God entails at least to me. Is a literal reading of the Bible incorrect for a Christian?
It's a matter of a proper hermeneutic. You can't just allegorize things because you find them unpleasant. God had a purpose in the flood. Just like there was a purpose in Adams fall. They were the only two innocents, but they fell. we fell with them. This is reiterated in the New Testament, both by Christ and Paul. It's been Christian theology for two millennia. I think part of your problem is you simply refuse to believe God would actually use the means of scripture to make Himself known. That's Ehrman's argument basically. But if He did not reveal himself in scripture, and do so clearly, then we have no way of knowing Him. And all this evil really is pointless. You really need to study how scripture came to us. It's fascinating and wholly improbable. I see God's hand in it. People were willing to risk suffering and death just to make a copy of the Gospels, or Paul's letters. Because that was the penalty at certain times for doing so. The romans destroyed whole libraries of Christian scriptures. Men died to translate it into English. There's really no other documents from ancient history better attested. Even Ehrman admits 99% of it is certain. Of the remaining variants, none changes any doctrines. It's entirely unique. Why?
natschuster I don't kill my children or my students. I assumed that the point you were making is that if it is okay for God to kill his creation, then it is okay for people to kill people. My response was that often we say that the job of punishing is for some, not for others
DeleteNo, my point is that if it's wrong for people to kill each other then it should be equally wrong for God to do the same. Actually, it should be more wrong (if that's possible) because God is suppposed to be greater than we are which, amongst other things, means more loving and more moral.
Is it wrong for a judge and jury to punish someone? Can individuals decide to take the law into their own hands? Sometimes, one person or institution is authorized to punish, and someone else isn't. God is the judge and jury, and executioner. We aren't.
DeleteAccording to Torcello, murder of the unborn should be legal but questioning AGW should be illegal because, after all, it demonstrates a “willful disregard for human life.”
ReplyDeleteThe inmates are running the asylums. Torcello is an embarrassment to academia. He's a walking contradiction.
While one would hope that Torcello is an academic anomaly, the fact is he is not alone and his new found interest in criminal justice will likely help to earn him tenure.
ReplyDeleteWhy would anyone be concerned with such outlandish views unless it was suspected, or there is an intention to imply, that he speaks for a large number, perhaps even a majority, of his colleagues. You might as well claim that Pat Robertson speaks for the whole of Christianity.
That is exactly my point. Don't shoot the message because of the messenger.
DeleteIan,
DeleteI would point out that Pat Roberson accepts the millions of years claim. I would also point out that Pat Robertson hardly speaks for anyone anymore, nor does Falwell. you really like to beat the stuffing out of strawmen.
Ian,
DeleteI agree, Torcello doesn't speak for all. But if this is so why is it the only ones raising a rukus about this are for the most part ____.? I'll leave you to fill in the blank.
So, according to the logic of the OP, one cold winter (not anywhere near as cold here in the northeast as the winter of 1977) trumps three decades of anomalously warm winters:
ReplyDeletehttp://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2014/01/another-week-of-sub-zero-weather-here.html
And the fact that the western US is drying out under the longest and hardest drought in a century, while the southern hemisphere bakes and burns (my daughter lives in Australia; they know what’s going on there, even if you don’t).
This is anecdotal bullshit, pure and simple. Not science. I agree that “consensus science” is suspect science (and Torcello isn't a scientist, he's a philosopher, and therefore should STFU), but that doesn’t mean that this means that anecdotal bullshit counts. Start posting links to reputable climate scientists who provide data that global warming isn’t happening. Until you do this, your posts are of no more use than the sound of the snowmelt pattering off my roof.
And, FWIW, Cayuga’s waters are once again virtually ice-free, almost a month ahead of when they were ice-free in the late 19th century and up through the mid-1970s. Again, the so-called “argument” in the OP is anecdotal bullshit, not science.
Allen MacNeill:
DeleteSo, according to the logic of the OP, one cold winter (not anywhere near as cold here in the northeast as the winter of 1977) trumps three decades of anomalously warm winters ...
No, the logic of the OP is that the cold winter is an obvious sign of the more subtle trail of false predictions of AGW, that even AGWers admit to.
I agree that “consensus science” is suspect science (and Torcello isn't a scientist, he's a philosopher, and therefore should STFU),
Torcello is not making a scientific claim. He is merely taking as his premise what the climate scientists are insisting is true; namely, that AGW is without a doubt true and that there is no legitimate skepticism.
Start posting links to reputable climate scientists who provide data that global warming isn’t happening.
This is the "hero scientist" myth from he who accuses of BS. Sorry, there'll be no Dennis Quaid's urgently revealing their new findings that AGW (not GW as you have it) is not indicated. It isn't going to happen regardless of the science. The emails confirm what was already obvious. This is an underdetermined theory with big non scientific pressures to conform. You think there isn't a chilling effect when leadership talks of shutting off all citations of everything ever printed in a journal? Step right up, who wants to be the next pariah?
AGW may be true, false or somewhere in between. I don't know. But this environment of delegitimization and marginalization underwrites the Torcello's of the world and their Inquisitions, which will make the current chilling effect, as bad as it is, appear trivial. Nor would it likely stop at AGW.
CH: No, the logic of the OP is that the cold winter is an obvious sign of the more subtle trail of false predictions of AGW, that even AGWers admit to.
DeleteYour logic is, admitting that it's cold in the winter is admitting that AGW is false?
in the absence of quotes or explanations of data, how is this not naive falsification? How is this not implicitly defining science as prophecy?
CH: AGW may be true, false or somewhere in between. I don't know.
Nor wouldn't expect you to know, as you're a layman in the field. As such, it's unclear how you'd know admitting it's cold in the winter is an admission that AGW is false. IOW, there is some disconnect here, which you keep willfully ignoring, despite having brought it up, over and over again.
Even as a layman, I can conceive of how AGW could result in record snow due to increased precipitation. And latitudinal temperature changes in could result in local or even global airstream changes - shifting cold weather to unusual locations.
Again, observations are theory laden. They are based on explanations about how the world works, in reality, not just what we will experience.
Unless you'd like to follow up with an explanation as to how weather conditions indicate AGW is false, then this appears to be more mud slinging.
In addition, "X might be false" is a bad criticism as it is applicable to all theories. As such, it cannot be used in a critical way.
Scott:
DeleteYour logic is, admitting that it's cold in the winter is admitting that AGW is false?
No, I didn't say it was false.
DrHunter
DeleteNo, the logic of the OP is that the cold winter is an obvious sign of the more subtle trail of false predictions of AGW
There was a prediction that there would never be a cold winter somewhere on the planet? Citation please.
Scott: Your logic is, admitting that it's cold in the winter is admitting that AGW is false?
DeleteCH: No, I didn't say it was false.
I didn’t say *you* did. Nor would I expect an instrumentalist to think observations can tell us anything how the world actually works, in reality. Rather, I’m referring to assumptions you appear to be making based on what people admit to experiencing vs the implications of that experience.
Specifically, you wrote….
CH: No, the logic of the OP is that the cold winter is an obvious sign of the more subtle trail of false predictions of AGW, that even AGWers admit to.
It’s not clear that AGWers actually think the winter we experienced represents a trail of uncooperative predictions that suggest AGW is false. I’m suggesting this assumption is due to your specific view of science.
So, to rephrase…
So, you're logic is that AGWers admitting it's cold is the equilivent of AGWers admitting that the winter we experienced represent false predictions?
I'll let this speak for itself:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html
Interesting article,thanks
DeleteThanks for the article eklektos.
Deleteeklektos,
DeleteDawkins and Dennet in the same room raises an interesting question. Do two negative IQs combine to produce a positive?
Whatever the answer, the presence of Coyne would only serve to revert any resulting positive back to a negative almost instantaneously.
This is rather funny:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo
(Hat tip to BornAgain77)
I'll leave everyone with this, as I have to go over some very technical reading in the next couple of weeks. If you wish to understand something I suggest you actually study it, not get your information from popular websites of books. I am not remotely interested in being right, if I were I wouldn't be here. I'd sit at home in smug self-satisfaction. I want you to challenge your beliefs, and to come to know God. That is my purpose here. I stated that at the beginning. I'm here to proselytize, I'm upfront about it. I've heard it claimed here that others are here out of intellectual curiosity, I don't see much actual curiosity. What I see are a host of logical errors, gross ignorance. and outright dishonesty. I suggest you check it out yourself, where you will spend eternity is dependent on it.
ReplyDeleteeklektos: I want you to challenge your beliefs, and to come to know God.
DeleteWhich God might that be? I should challenge my unbelief in other possible Gods, except one?
eklektos: I've heard it claimed here that others are here out of intellectual curiosity, I don't see much actual curiosity.
You’ve confused rejecting the idea that knowledge comes from authorities sources, which would be a step backwards, with a lack of curiosity. We’ve made progress since then.
eklektos: What I see are a host of logical errors, gross ignorance. and outright dishonesty.
References? Examples?
eklektos: I suggest you check it out yourself, where you will spend eternity is dependent on it.
Again, I’d ask which God?
For example, the idea that God put his stamp of approval on genocide could be grounds for eternal separation. At which point, where you spend eternity would be dependent on which God you happen to believe in.
IOW, what if you’re the one who is wrong about God?
eklektos
Deleteit. I've heard it claimed here that others are here out of intellectual curiosity, I don't see much actual curiosity.
We are not all like you, who considers curiosity as rebellion against your God,
What I see are a host of logical errors, gross ignorance. and outright dishonesty.
Ah,sweet projection.The mother's milk of conservatives.
I suggest you check it out yourself, where you will spend eternity is dependent on it.
I suggest you confess your heresy and convert to Catholicism ,your eternity is dependent on it.
Velikovsky,
DeleteYou don't even seem to believe Catholic dogma, so why are you claiming I should swim the Tiber? My grandmother was always trying to convert me to Rome. But it didn't take. Nor did my liberal PCUSA upbringing. You may think such games actually accomplish something, or make a point. I'm afraid they don't. If you actually believed Catholic dogma I might argue with you why it's incorrect. Instead you seem to be a cafeteria catholic. Not much point discussing what you don't believe is there?
eklektos
DeleteYou don't even seem to believe Catholic dogma, so why are you claiming I should swim the Tiber
Which is why I am not a practicing Catholic, but I believe you wanted verification of some familiarity with the rudiments of theology.
Just pointing out that belief in the wrong version of God is just as risky soul wise as belief in none. Which bring me back to my lame question,how do know that my Catholic brethren are not correct( actually I believe they have soften that absolute stance)?
My grandmother was always trying to convert me to Rome. But it didn't take.
The Jesuits it seems had a problem keeping me in the flock
If you actually believed Catholic dogma I might argue with you why it's incorrect
If I was a believer I would dismiss your claims as erroneous just as I suppose you would the counter claims, after all ,ones soul is at risk
Instead you seem to be a cafeteria catholic. Not much point discussing what you don't believe is there?
Not a Catholic of any flavor except ex.
What I believe is their is no evidence that your version of God is more correct than a Catholics , that the answer to my question is faith
Velikovsky,
DeleteI can prove it's more biblical.;) But that saves us a lot of wasted bandwidth. I will say one of my problems was if you need an infallible interpreter, who's going infallibly interpret the interpreter?
eklektos
DeleteI can prove it's more biblical.;)
For instance?
I will say one of my problems was if you need an infallible interpreter, who's going infallibly interpret the interpreter?
So in other words, " we have competing claims, how does one determine the true God? ". Your answer seems to be interpretation of a book written by other fallible men.
Is that my definition? Thanks for telling me. This is exactly what I mean, you set up strawman definitions that aren't Christian, then you beat the stuffing out of them. What do Christians say about the text? Was it just written by fallible men? As to Catholicism, the Marian dogmas are not found in scripture and don't appear until about the ninth or tenth century. Transsubstatiation about the same period, despite trying to link it to "Real Presence". There was no pope in Rome until late in the second century. In fact the early church in Rome was comprised of several churches which was not under one titular head. This why cardinal Newman came up with the development hypothesis, because historical studies disproved Romes claims on a host of issues. Those are a few. But you don't believe it anyway so I see no point discussing it with you. You want to run down rabbit trails to escape your culpability. I know Jesus personally. That's not arrogance that's Christian belief and always was. You apparently don't. I hope you will come to know Him. :)
DeleteScott,
ReplyDeleteWhich view of God is internally consistent? Which one provides a way of solving mankind's dilemma? Which one provides a way to solve the internal problem rather than demanding submission without solving the problem? Which one doesn't expect you to not be you and to give up everything that makes you what you are. Which one doesn't demand you don't adopt a culture that is not your culture? Which one actually offers you salvation and adoption? You might examine these. You can dismiss Thor, Zeus, et al out of hand. They're just humans with superpowers, like a comic book. I can't see Thor creating anything ex nihlo. Though he could give you a bad headache. ;)
Scott: Which God might that be? I should challenge my unbelief in other possible Gods, except one?
Deleteeklektos: Which view of God is internally consistent?
I can think of a number of God’s that are less internally inconsistent that Yahweh. Should I adopt those God’s instead?
Eklektos: Which one provides a way of solving mankind's dilemma? Which one provides a way to solve the internal problem rather than demanding submission without solving the problem?
You seem to be putting the cart before the horse. What is mankind’s dilemma? Let me guess, the Bible informs us of said dilemma?
eklektos: Which one doesn't expect you to not be you and to give up everything that makes you what you are. Which one doesn't demand you don't adopt a culture that is not your culture?
The specific God I should come to know depends on everything *I* am and what *my* culture is? So, should my culture differ from yours, so should the God I should get to know?
eklektos: Which one actually offers you salvation and adoption?
The idea of eternal punishment assumes that people can never change their preferences after they die. Ever. For eternity. But what happens when we change our preferences? We adopt new ideas about how the world works, in reality. It’s unclear why we would not adopt new ideas about how the world works after death,
For example, if we take the idea of life after death seriously, as if it were true in reality, I would find myself alive, after supposedly having died. In my case, that would be a significantly new idea which would very likely result in changing my preferences. Yet, supposedly, after I die, there is some magical boundary by which my preferences would not change. IOW, the whole idea seems to assume that everyone already believes in life after death, so finding one self alive wouldn’t actually be a significantly new idea, or that people’s preferences are magic, so they would somehow be immune to adopting new ideas about how the world works, in reality.
It’s magical thinking.
Apparently, if we haven’t changed our minds by the time die, then we never will. But some people die between the age of 18 and 20 years old, which means they have significantly less time to make up their minds. Does God only allow people that make up their minds faster, to die young, while people who take significantly more time to make up their minds, to live significantly longer?
Not to mention the problem of unborn children that never choose. Do they go to heaven despite not having made up their minds at all? If so, what are they missing, that the people who lived on earth needed to gain? If whatever is missing can simply be given to these children in heaven, it’s unclear why it’s necessary for us to have a material existence at all. IOW, it’s unclear why creating a material world would be necessary for anyone to choose or reject God. Satan supposedly did it, despite knowing quite well who God was.
eklektos: You might examine these.
I have. Monotheism sounds like the kind of idea that people who know virtually nothing and lacked the tools to criticize the results, would conjecture to explain their world. I mean, that’s what people do. We’re universal explainers. Explanations start out as guesses, so none of this surprises me in the least. Nor do I think we could have somehow avoided it. Human knowledge grows when we conjecture explanations, then criticize them.
Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths. -Karl Popper
eklektos: You can dismiss Thor, Zeus, et al out of hand. They're just humans with superpowers, like a comic book. I can't see Thor creating anything ex nihlo. Though he could give you a bad headache. ;)
DeleteWhat about a biosphere designed by God and his just as powerful, but perfectly evil, twin brother who are locked in an infinite battle over the outcome? What about a collection of non-material gods who designed the biosphere by committee? In both cases, no one got what they wanted, despite the biosphere being designed.
I'm guessing you would reject these design scenarios because what you really mean by “design” is the result of an intentional, authoritative order. Things are they way they are because some authoritative source wanted them that way. The role of knowledge in such a scenario is highly underestimated.
On the other end of the spectrum, what about a God who sits on the sidelines, cheering us on, as the world, and human beings, formed naturally? And what about all the possible gods in between?
And that's just what I can think of of the top of my head.
Scott,
DeleteSeriously, you want to argue in favor of Norse mythology? Or is it a convenient rhetorical trick? Like a silly argument about moving planets? Or a God who took a powder so he could watch us suffer pointlessly and "cheer us on"? If that's what you wish to believe I can't stop you. But I notice it always come back to authority. You think you have some, you're wrong. You're just another sinner in rebellion, you have no authority, or freedom. Your sin rides you like a horse. And in those quiet moments of reflection, assuming you actually allow yourself to think of such things, when all your failings as a person come crashing in, you know this. There is however hope, but you won't find it in Thor, Loki, Zeus, or any other such nonsense.
Scott,
DeleteThe specific God I should come to know depends on everything *I* am and what *my* culture is? So, should my culture differ from yours, so should the God I should get to know?
That's just flat out false. Christianity is not culture dependent. Christians come from all cultures, and becoming a Christian doesn't require you to give up your culture in most cases. If your culture was into sacrificing babies there might be a problem. But you don't have to adopt a particular language, dress, or change the food you eat. You do have to give up sin. But then again if you're truly a new creation that would inevitably be your desire. As to your claim about Yahweh I doubt you have enough information to judge. You certainly haven't demonstrated it to this point. What God did in his dealings with Israel was to bring forth the new covenant which finds it's fulfillment in Christ. It's a continuous strand which goes from the old to the new. It's also context specific. I doubt you've read enough to figure that out.
eklektos: You can dismiss Thor, Zeus, et al out of hand.
DeleteScott: What about a biosphere designed by God and his just as powerful, but perfectly evil, twin brother who are locked in an infinite battle over the outcome? What about a collection of non-material gods who designed the biosphere by committee?
eklektos: Seriously, you want to argue in favor of Norse mythology?
This is a straw man.
Is there anything in Norse mythology about an omnipotent, omniscient God, essentially on par with the Christian God, who has a just as powerful, yet perfectly evil twin brother? Is there anything in Norse mythology about a collection of non-material gods who design by committee?
eklektos: If that's what you wish to believe I can't stop you.
Again: strawman. I discard all of those Gods because they represent bad explanations. Taking them seriously for the purpose of criticism is not faith or personal belief.
eklektos: But I notice it always come back to authority. You think you have some, you're wrong. You're just another sinner in rebellion, you have no authority.
It comes back to criticizing the idea that knowledge comes from authoritative sources. That’s the fallacy. If you think I’m authoritative then, apparently, you’re not paying attention. What we want from ideas is their content, not their providence.
eklektos: I want you to challenge your beliefs, and to come to know God.
DeleteScott: Which God might that be? I should challenge my unbelief in other possible Gods, except one?
eklektos: Which one doesn't expect you to not be you and to give up everything that makes you what you are. Which one doesn't demand you don't adopt a culture that is not your culture?
Scott: The specific God I should come to know depends on everything *I* am and what *my* culture is? So, should my culture differ from yours, so should the God I should get to know?
ekelktos: That's just flat out false. Christianity is not culture dependent.
Ahh…So, you really meant was…
eklektos: I want you to challenge your beliefs, and to come to know [the] God [of Christianity]
Why didn’t you come out and say that in the first place?
eklektos: Christians come from all cultures, and becoming a Christian doesn't require you to give up your culture in most cases. If your culture was into sacrificing babies there might be a problem. But you don't have to adopt a particular language, dress, or change the food you eat. You do have to give up sin.
The Christian God is the only possible one that doesn’t require one to give up their culture?
eklektos: But you don't have to adopt a particular language, dress, or change the food you eat. You do have to give up sin. But then again if you're truly a new creation that would inevitably be your desire.
It’s unclear what you mean by “entirely new creation”. We change our preferences when we adopt new ideas about how the world works. Choosing to call this an “entirely new creation” doesn’t seem to be helpful and even obfuscates what’s going on.
eklektos: As to your claim about Yahweh I doubt you have enough information to judge.
Unless you’re suggesting that Yahweh isn’t a supernatural authoritative source of knowledge, what other information do I need to know?
Scott,
DeleteIt’s unclear what you mean by “entirely new creation”. We change our preferences when we adopt new ideas about how the world works. Choosing to call this an “entirely new creation” doesn’t seem to be helpful and even obfuscates what’s going on.
It's a pretty biblical concept. But you don't seem to know much scripture, such as any OT beyond a few favorite passages to bash God with. I'm simply telling you to actually study it. How many times have I stated my purpose here??? Of course I want you to come to know Christ. Do I have to write Jesus on a bat and whack you with it? :) You are wasting huge sections of verbiage stating the obvious. There are only really three contenders. So I suggest you examine those. They are the three monotheistic religions. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.
eklektos
ReplyDeleteYou can dismiss Thor, Zeus, et al out of hand. They're just humans with superpowers, like a comic book. I can't see Thor creating anything ex nihlo.
Strawman,Thor is Odin's son, he obviously diid not create the world.Perhaps you should take your own advice and learn the theology before dismissing it.
Thank God It's Wife of WĂ³den Day!!!
Deletehttp://zachriel.blogspot.com/2006/03/thank-god-its-wife-of-wden-day_31.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteVelikovsky,
ReplyDeleteYou brought up Thor, not I. Odin doesn't fit the bill either. You don't think of God in those terms anyway, so why bring it up? I'm really not interested in rhetorical games. I'm not trying to denigrate you, I'm trying to get you to actually read scripture and leave your preconceptions behind. But it takes hard work. I know, I was far more hardheaded than you, to my eternal shame. But when God changed my heart it was a real change. A lot of people think that avoiding overt sin is all they need. Overt sin is easy compared to dealing with the real issues that underlie it. We are judged for the intentions of our hearts, the outward acts are just manifestations of inward rebellion. Conquering that is the real challenge. It's a life long struggle. Paul certainly knew this.
CH,
ReplyDeleteYour books have been very helpful, write more..soon. :)
Peer reviewed article by crazy creationist:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020
$36 for complete article.
But crazy creationist can't be real scientist, just ask anyone at talkorigins
For those interested in genetics and real science I offer this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.icr.org/article/human-mutation-clock-confirms-creation/
Also ICR just made predictions based on the known mutation rates in mtDNA for four species including humans and compared them to evolutionary predictions. I shouldn't have to tell you which one is correct. The calculation is straightforward. d=2*r*t where d=DNA differences between two individuals, r=The measured mutation rate in the species (actual published observational science) , and t= time of origin derived from both models. The results for humans? Allowing a 10ky time for creation range 7-16. Allowing a 180ky time for evolution 124-290. Actual 0-32, average 10. The other critters rates were within the MOE for YEC, out by several orders of magnitude for evolution. But hey, creationist don't do real science. Not to worry, we needn't concern ourselves about it, mutations will kill us long before we lose our atmosphere due to solar winds.
We're not evolving, we're devolving. That's to be expected, as we live in a world that groans under sin. How could it be otherwise? I'm sure us crazy religious folks will be blamed for holding science back and hatred of mankind. How could it be otherwise? ;)
eklektos: For those interested in genetics and real science I offer this: http://www.icr.org/article/human-mutation-clock-confirms-creation/
DeleteThe human population has expanded rapidly, so there has been relaxed selection for some characteristics, but selection is not non-existence. For instance, male Vikings and male Mongols have far more representation in the human population than can be expected from drift alone. Also, some mutations, for various reasons, lead to severely reduced reproduction. Before modern times, healthy people tended to have far more children. Also, sexual selection remains an important factor.
Yea, more just so stories. Actual rates were measured, you know, what we observe, not what we hypothesize. This is exactly why evolutionist inevitably run off to historical science. Because when confronted with actual facts they wish to explain it away. And this is exactly why Darwinism is a religion and not science. It's so ill defined it can absorb anything.
Deleteeklektos: Yea, more just so stories.
DeleteDon't think the Viking and Mongol invasions are "just so stories", nor their representation in modern human populations.
The argument is based on a number of false premises, including lack of selection. But there is selection, even in the rapidly expanding human population—especially in the rapidly expanding human population. Those that reproduced fastest have left the most descendants, while those susceptible to disease and malnutrition left fewer descendants.
For those interested in the data, and the objections to it anticipated and answered, I suggest you get the April 2014 edition of Acts & Facts from ICR. Hopefully an online paper will be forthcoming.
DeleteWe waited with bated breath. Meanwhile, the claim remains unsupported and contrary to evidence.
DeleteZachriel,
DeleteI don't find your answer remotely plausible when evolution is off by orders of magnitude. You have a known mutation rate from a peer-reviewed study in a secular journal. And those mutation rates were applied across multiple species. Were the fruit flies Vikings? The roundworms? The water fleas? You are just trying to wiggle out of the data with just so stories, period. Every one of these lame objections is answered in the article because they were anticipated. You can' explain away the difference by appealing homoplasy, mutational saturation, or any other circular argument. There is no peer-reviewed refutation of this data. If you wish to assert otherwise then I suggest you publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal, otherwise you're just blowing smoke. I'll go with the science thank you very much.
eklektos: You have a known mutation rate from a peer-reviewed study in a secular journal.
DeleteYes, all humans are mutants.
eklektos: Were the fruit flies Vikings?
The argument presented depends upon lack of selection.
eklektos: Every one of these lame objections is answered in the article because they were anticipated.
Selection is mentioned twice. The first points out that there is relaxed selection in humans, which is not the same as no selection, is only true for certain traits, and largely applies only in modern times. The second is a reference to Sanford, who published a flawed mutational simulator. What the paper does is mix valid science with the invalid, leading to fallacious conclusions.
eklektos: There is no peer-reviewed refutation of this data.
The paper you cited was published by a Christian apologetics institute.
So again we see the evolutionist appeal to mystery. The mutation rate is miraculously higher because of evidence we don't have due to natural selection. A totally ad hoc argument. It's a miracle. Just like the q2q13 fusion site. We have a totally novel fusion not seen in any other mammal, it's a miracle! 26mb disappears, it's a miracle! Thousands of repeats disappear, it's a miracle! The satDNA which would actually prove a fusion disappeared, it's a miracle! The repeats aren't actually repeats because of degeneration, it's a miracle! Two highly co-expressed RNA sequences which read across the fusion site providentially appear, it's a miracle! The cryptic centromere doesn't look like a centromere and is the wrong place vis a vis chimp 2A, It's a miracle! This is science, it's a miracle!
DeleteZachriel,
DeleteThe mutation rates came from a secular paper. And besides, that's just more of your ad hominem. It doesn't matter who made the argument. Your argument is the one that's fallacious, as in ad hoc. No more miracles.
eklektos: So again we see the evolutionist appeal to mystery. The mutation rate is miraculously higher because of evidence we don't have due to natural selection.
DeleteWe have evidence of natural selection.
eklektos: The mutation rates came from a secular paper.
We didn't dispute the mutation rates. We disputed the argument.
Zachriel,
Deleteyou have no evidence the mutation rate was ever different and you know it.
The mutations were lost, it's a miracle! Does anyone still believe this about science?
Deleteeklektos: you have no evidence the mutation rate was ever different and you know it.
DeleteNo, it's reasonable to assume it was similar in the past.
eklektos: The mutations were lost, it's a miracle!
It's not a miracle, but basic selection. Those individuals with deleterious mutations tend to leave fewer offspring. Those with beneficial mutations (e.g. CCR5-delta 32), tend to leave more offspring.
Evolutionary prediction for mtDNA differences=36,364 Creationist=2020 Actual=1244-2915
DeleteAverage differences present= avg 10 creationist prediction after 10ky 7-16 evolutionist after 180ky 124-290 We're apes, it's a miracle. The DNA differences were selected out, it's a miracle. The molecular clock and actual data lie, it's a miracle!
eklektos: Evolutionary prediction for mtDNA differences=36,364 Creationist=2020 Actual=1244-2915
DeleteThe article you linked at ICR doesn't mention mtDNA.
eklektos: The DNA differences were selected out, it's a miracle.
No, just stabilizing selection.
It was the second article I spoke of. As to the first you can't prove what was and what wasn't selected out, nor what was and what wasn't deleterious. In short you have no evidence of anything, just an ad hoc argument. But hey, it was a miracle!
Deleteeklektos: It was the second article I spoke of.
DeleteThe unpublished article.
eklektos: In short you have no evidence of anything, just an ad hoc argument.
You keep saying that, but we have evidence of selection, and how it works.
zachriel,
DeleteYou can't get around the numbers. Selection doesn't help. Our DNA is being mutated at a rate that if we'd been around 180ky we'd all be dead. Genetic diseases are going to get worse, not better. Change one molecule in the ganglion of neurons that transmit visual data and you're blind. These mutations are accumulating at a steady rate. Even selecting out the ones that are lethal doesn't help. Because at that rate so many will accumulate in the population we'll be dead or crippled. If the Malthusian's get their way you will shrink the population and things will get worse. And it certainly couldn't be going on at that rate for 180ky. Stop using words like parsimony and selection as if they are magic words that explain things away. Evolution is being buried by genetics, just like the ptolemaics. It's already dead, they're just propping up the corpse through sheer exercise of power, and people are getting sick of it. If the beneficial mutations are 1/100 as argued by the evolutionist, then for every one beneficial mutation there are 99 neutral, near neutral, or destructive mutations passed on every generation. Do actually want to argue that after six generations the 6 beneficial mutations are going to outweigh the 591 neutral, near neutral, and destructive ones. And that's using evolutionary numbers. I've yet to see one "beneficial" mutation in the human genome that didn't cost it somewhere else. Information is not increasing, it's decreasing.
eklektos
DeleteYou can't get around the numbers. Selection doesn't help. Our DNA is being mutated at a rate that if we'd been around 180ky we'd all be dead.
I have been feeling a little sick lately
Velikovsky,
DeleteHere, have a Nyquil on me ;)
eklektos: You can't get around the numbers. Selection doesn't help.
DeleteThat's your claim, but you have yet to support it, much less provide sufficient support to overturn the body of evidence that shows humans have an ancient lineage.
Zachriel,
DeleteThe data is the refutation. You have not presented the first bit of contrary evidence, beyond saying the mutations were selected out, on the basis of...crickets chirping. oh yea, Vikings were hardy as were the mongols. Wow, that's really evidence. We are passing down 100-200 mutations per generation. that's over 1 million mutations per person given a 180ky timeframe, any one of which could be fatal. So until you actually present some evidence besides throwing a few terms around you're just doing what you always do, avoiding the facts.
eklektos: The data is the refutation.
DeleteOf what? In science, data is only meaningful when entailed to a hypothesis. We read the article you cited. Did you?
http://www.icr.org/article/human-mutation-clock-confirms-creation/
The argument is that there are critical genetic regions of the genomes, and the rate of mutation means that inevitably some of those mutations will hit those critical genetic regions. That is certainly the case. The argument also assumes that selection is so relaxed as to be irrelevant. But that is not the case. Over history, some humans have had more children due to heritable characteristics, including general health, attractiveness, and resistance to disease and malnutrition (e.g. CCR5-delta 32).
I want to address a statement made by the savant Dawkins. He said words to the effect, I can't remember exactly, that if He was face to face with God he would ask Him "why did you take such pains to conceal yourself"? Now two things, God didn't conceal Himself, He revealed Himself in scripture. Second people demand proof. Now scripture tells us that Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, stone cold stinking dead. Yet many still didn't believe. So If God were to perform an overt miracle, why could we possibly expect Dawkins to believe, or any other sinner for that matter? The problem is not proof, it's unbelief. Miracles in scripture were a sign of the authenticity of the messenger, not something that was done for the sake of doing them. But evolution demands more miracles than are recorded in all of scripture. Who's living on blind faith?
ReplyDeleteI'm not following you.
DeleteAre you suggesting that unbelief is a problem that cannot be solved?
Scott,
Deletenot by men.
eklektos: So If God were to perform an overt miracle, why could we possibly expect Dawkins to believe, or any other sinner for that matter? The problem is not proof, it's unbelief.
DeleteScott: I’m not following you. Are you suggesting that unbelief is a problem that cannot be solved?
eklektos: not by men.
I’m still not following you, as you just said the problem is not proof. So, if not by a miracle by God, then how is the problem solved?
Furthermore, following this same “logic”, wouldn’t same apply in regards to evolutionary theory? I mean, if the problem is unbelief, rather than proof, then why the demand something you apparently think is irrelevant?
IOW, you seem to imply that belief in evolution boils down to rebellion/sin. (Cornelius has expressed this very same belief.) And the flip side of this would imply unbelief in evolution represents submission to authority.
This perspective implicitly claims human knowledge in specific spheres comes from authoritative sources. But that’s a false dichotomy.
The absence of foundation, whether infallible or probable, is no loss to anyone except tyrants and charlatans, because what the rest of us want from ideas is their content, not their provenance: If your disease has been cured by medical science, and you then become aware that science never proves anything but only disproves theories (and then only tentatively), you do not respond “oh dear, I’ll just have to die, then.”
http://nautil.us/issue/2/uncertainty/why-its-good-to-be-wrong
Ernst Mayer quote:
ReplyDeleteFor example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.
And Dr Carol Cleland of the Department of Philosophy and Center for Astrobiology at the University of Colorado in Boulder wrote in her 2001 paper "Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method,"
DeleteMany scientists believe that there is a uniform, interdisciplinary method for the practice of good science. The paradigmatic examples, however, are drawn from classical experimental science. Insofar as historical hypotheses cannot be tested in controlled laboratory settings, historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided. First, the reputed superiority of experimental research is based upon accounts of scientific methodology (Baconian inductivism or falsificationism) that are deeply flawed, both logically and as accounts of the actual practices of scientists. Second, although there are fundamental differences in methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists, they are keyed to a pervasive feature of nature, a time asymmetry of causation. As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained.
Second, although there are fundamental differences in methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists, they are keyed to a pervasive feature of nature, a time asymmetry of causation. As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained.
DeleteUh yea. The problem of course is that you cannot recreate the conditions to test them. Nor can you isolate all the pertinent factors, you must assume them. Assumptions are made on the basis of presuppositions and not any testable criteria. Whenever I examine one of the supposed "rational" assumptions they are not unbiased or even the only plausible explanation. They have been in my experience not proof of anything, but like this paper mere assertions of assumed facts. So I find her statement totally fallacious, and really not an argument at all. It's an assertion. And there's not a chance I'd pay for a paper that has the sole purpose of trying to deny the obvious.
eklektos: They have been in my experience not proof of anything, but like this paper mere assertions of assumed facts.
DeleteSo you're saying we can't know whether or not dinosaurs once roamed the Earth?
Zachriel,,
DeleteI'm saying that the data is too limited to ascertain much beyond the animals lived and a few facts about how they lived. There is certainly not any evidence of macroevolution and every single claim you've made has failed. Your futile attempt to bait and switch once again fails.
eklektos: I'm saying that the data is too limited to ascertain much beyond the animals lived and a few facts about how they lived.
DeleteYour argument seemed to suggest we couldn't reach any firm conclusions about the past.
eklektos: There is certainly not any evidence of macroevolution and every single claim you've made has failed.
There is substantial evidence that life diversified from common ancestors; the nested hierarchy, and the succession of fossils. For instance, here's a cladogram of dinosauria:
http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/Cladogram/CladogramComplete.jpg
eklektos Uh yea. The problem of course is that you cannot recreate the conditions to test them. Nor can you isolate all the pertinent factors, you must assume them. Assumptions are made on the basis of presuppositions and not any testable criteria. Whenever I examine one of the supposed "rational" assumptions they are not unbiased or even the only plausible explanation. They have been in my experience not proof of anything, but like this paper mere assertions of assumed facts. So I find her statement totally fallacious, and really not an argument at all. It's an assertion. And there's not a chance I'd pay for a paper that has the sole purpose of trying to deny the obvious.
DeleteSo unless you can fit it on to a glass slide and slip it under a microscope or, at least, dump it on a laboratory bench it's not science? Out go much of biology, paleontology, archaeology, meteorology, cosmology, astronomy, anthropology, botany, you name it?
What's to prevent field researchers following the same principles of gathering observational data, constructing tentative explanations that might account for the data and looking for evidence that might support one of the hypotheses?
When Penzias and Wilson inadvertently detected the cosmic microwave background which is consistent with the Big Bang theory in cosmology, was that not science?
Ian,
DeleteAre you seriously arguing for unfalsifiable science? Because that's what evolution is. It's so loosely defined that it can absorb anything, just like your lame definition "change over time" which is so ill-defined it can mean anything. Paleontology might be a fine science if it weren't for things like claiming bones are what they aren't because of your evolutionary assumptions. Naming fossils of modern animals different species and genus so you can get your name in a paper. Breaking hip bones and reworking them because they don't fit together the way you want and calling it science. (I refer to Lovejoy here). Their shenanigans are legendary. So spare me your secularist reverence. If I weren't paying to support all this nonsense I'd laugh.
David Raup quote:
ReplyDeleteA large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the over-simplification inevitable in secondary sources.... Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found—yet the optimist has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks
And he also wrote:
DeleteNow with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change too place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent.
We see differences. Change is based on assumptions. ie This changed to this. Same old story same old song and dance my friend.
DeleteDifference over time is change. It's not controversial. It's been known about for centuries. Its's born out by plenty of observational evidence.
DeleteIan,
Deletedespite the bait and switch what we see are species, and not macro-evolution. From now on I will use the term evolution, because I reject the evolutionist attempt to use a bait and switch tactic. We see variation within species. We do not see dinosaurs becoming birds, dogs becoming cats, ect. Those species have limits to their variations. They do not become another animal. We see this with Darwins Finches, they are one species with a lot of inherent variability. We see there is a lot of variability within Mexican tetras, they can go blind in a cave. But they did not become anything other than a Mexican tetra. When they are removed from the cave and bred with non-cave tetras their atrophied eyes come back. This is what we actually observe. So evolutionist have to go running off to past events to try and prove their fairy tales. Because what we actually see doesn't fit with what they claim. Then they can get away with their non-verifiable just so stories and unfalsifiable pseudo-science.
eklektos: We do not see dinosaurs becoming birds
DeleteIf we did, it would falsify evolutionary theory, which posits longer periods of time (not that there are any non-avian dinosaurs left to turn into birds).
eklektos: dogs becoming cats, ect.
If we did, it would falsify evolutionary theory, which posits longer periods of time (not that cats descended from dogs, but share a common ancestor).
eklektos: We see this with Darwins Finches, they are one species with a lot of inherent variability.
So much variation that Darwin didn't even recognize they were all finches. That was only determined much later.
Birds are now believed to be contemporaneous with dinosaurs by a great many scientist. Of course I never had a problem with the idea. And yea, you need millions of years that weren't observed, again, how convenient.
DeleteEdiacaran now believed to be a land lichen..wow, Darwin's tree just fell over.
Deletehttp://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nature11777
eklektos: Birds are now believed to be contemporaneous with dinosaurs by a great many scientist.
DeleteOf course. Birds are members of dinosauria. The question is at what point they diverged.
eklektos: Ediacaran now believed to be a land lichen..wow, Darwin's tree just fell over.
Um, no. The paper just suggests a different tree, however, the paper doesn't seem consistent with the evidence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe first is an assertion which hasn't been proven. The second, of course not, you think their going to go down without a fight. It doesn't surprise me in the least. I've known that most of these claims were more wishful thinking than science from the beginning. You may not like it, but if true you now have a gaping hole in your tree. And when I read the reasoning behind calling it a marine animal in the first place I had to laugh. It was thrown up on a tidal plain. Of course another just so story. But thanks for making my point that evolution is unfalsifiable. BTW, the whole paper is here:
Deletehttp://scholar.princeton.edu/ehjc/files/Retallack_2013_EdiacaranLifeOnLand.pdf
What Did Karl Popper
DeleteReally Say About Evolution?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution
There are scientists who are unfamiliar with or misinterpret Popper. For example, Colin Patterson holds that, if we accept Popper's distinction between science and nonscience, evolution is not science because it deals with unique historical events. Popper, however, doesn't agree with this.
It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested. [Popper, 1981, p. 611]
In an earlier work, Popper discussed the historical sciences in which the scientific method of theoretical sciences is used:
This view is perfectly compatible with the analysis of scientific method, and especially of causal explanation given in the preceding section. The situation is simply this: while the theoretical sciences are mainly interested in finding and testing universal laws, the historical sciences take all kinds of universal laws for granted and are mainly interested in finding and testing singular statements. [Popper, 1957, p. 143ff]
What Popper calls the historical sciences do not make predictions about long past unique events (postdictions), which obviously would not be testable. (Several recent authors—including Stephen Jay Gould in Discover, July 1982—make this mistake.) These sciences make hypotheses involving past events which must predict (that is, have logical consequences) for the present state of the system in question. Here the testing procedure takes for granted the general laws and theories and is testing the specific conditions (or initial conditions, as Popper usually calls them) that held for the system.
A scientist, on the basis of much comparative anatomy and physiology, might hypothesize that, in the distant past, mammals evolved from reptiles. This would have testable consequences for the present state of the system (earth's surface with the geological strata in it and the animal and plant species living on it) in the form of reptile-mammal transition fossils that should exist, in addition to other necessary features of the DNA, developmental systems, and so forth, of the present-day reptiles and mammals.
Despite having referenced this over and over again, AFAIK, no one has actually addressed or genuinely criticized it.
eklektos: The first is an assertion which hasn't been proven.
DeleteScience doesn't "prove", but supports. There is strong scientific support for the common ancestry of birds and therapods.
eklektos: The second, of course not, you think their going to go down without a fight.
Most experts reject Retallack's position. However, it doesn't mean "Darwin's tree just fell over." It would just mean that some leaves are on different branches than previously believed.
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteDoesn't punctuated equilibrium say that evolution happens kinda fast, so fast that it doesn't get caught in the fossil record. But it happens too slow for us to see in human time spans. Didn't Cuvier say that there has been no evolution since the time of the Pharoahs, after studying mummified animals?
Zachriel:
Doesn't punctuated equilibrium say that evolution happens kinda fast? Too fast to be caught in the fossil record? And didn't Cuvier, after studying the mummified animals that there has been no evolution since the Pharaohs? SO evolution is kinda like goldilocks thing, too fast to be caugh tin the fossil record, too slow to be seen druing human timespans, even millennia.
natschuster: Doesn't punctuated equilibrium say that evolution happens kinda fast?
DeleteRapid on a geological timescale, but still over long periods of time, resulting in cladogenesis.
natschuster: And didn't Cuvier, after studying the mummified animals that there has been no evolution since the Pharaohs?
The Pharaohs are not that long ago in terms of evolution. It's hard for people to even imagine millions of years, much less hundreds of millions.
natchuster,
DeleteEvolution is unfalsifiable. Because it's based on unproven claims about what happened when we couldn't observe it. It'll absorb anything. That's the whole point.
eklektos: Evolution is unfalsifiable.
DeleteOf course it's falsifiable, such as a rabbit in the Precambrian.
eklektos: Because it's based on unproven claims about what happened when we couldn't observe it.
Yet dinosaurs once roamed the Earth.
Ad hoc again. Dinosaurs roaming the earth doesn't make them turn into birds.
ReplyDeleteeklektos: Ad hoc again.
DeleteDon't think you know what that means.
eklektos: Dinosaurs roaming the earth doesn't make them turn into birds.
No, but your position is that we can't provide valid scientific support for "claims about what happened when we couldn't observe it." Every time you say that, we point out that we can, indeed, support claims about what happened when we couldn't observe it. Such claims have to be evaluated on their merits, and that means looking at the data.
No, my claim is that such data is limited. And I said it before, we can barely make inferences about how the animal functioned, much less trying to make grand claims about it's origin. But you want to retreat into the past and make unfounded claims because you know the data is limited and you know you can't make the claims from what is actually observed.
ReplyDeleteeklektos: No, my claim is that such data is limited.
DeleteThen don't keep suggesting its a problem of direct observation. We can infer many things about the past from observations in the present.
The basic argument is that if life diversified from common ancestors via bifurcating descent, then organisms would tend to group into nested hierarchies. Furthermore, we would have a pattern of fossil succession, and predictions of transitional forms. These are all observed.
Did you know that some dinosaurs nested in colonies, like birds, even feeding their young in the nest? How can we determine these sorts of complex behaviors from fossils?
bait and switch. What did I say??? That we barely have enough evidence to determine a few things about the nature of the animal. There is no evidence of lineage beyond a lot of just so stories.
Delete