tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post1256334054616948334..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Evolutionists Are Now Going Wild With “Lateral” Evolution And One Evolutionist Said “There is Nothing to Criticize”Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61361207720213400532012-03-22T10:31:09.949-07:002012-03-22T10:31:09.949-07:00Velikovskys: While I appreciate the shorter versio...Velikovskys: While I appreciate the shorter version ,a question? If I looked into the box and found five vanilla cupcakes would it be comparable in your example?<br /><br />I specifically choose simplified this to avoid this sort of problem. <br /><br /><br />The question is, which assumption did the observation falsify?<br /><br />Was the assumption addition? Or would you think that the assumption that the box represented an accurate model of addition?<br /><br />Which would you question first, and why?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27183732297003836102012-03-22T10:25:26.534-07:002012-03-22T10:25:26.534-07:00Louis: The whole point of having a prediction is t...Louis: The whole point of having a prediction is to provide a falsifiable test. Evolution fails falsifiability 101. It fails every single one of its predictions. It's a religion of cretins, i.e., created by cretins for cretins.<br /><br />Are you suggesting there is no difference between prophecy and a scientific prediction?<br /><br />Perhaps you can explain how it would be possible for a scientific theory to account for an infinite number of unrelated, yet parallel events that could change what we'll experience in the future?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49782606642087934662012-03-22T09:44:37.699-07:002012-03-22T09:44:37.699-07:00Louis: It's like, "hey guys, let's bu...Louis: It's like, "hey guys, let's build an all-powerful, all-knowing god and show that such a god cannot exist and could not have created life on earth; so therefore, creation did not happen." Lame.<br /><br />Which is a blatant misrepresentation of my position. <br /><br />It's logically possible that creation might be true. However we certainty shouldn't conclude it actually *is* true based on a theory that has been shown to be in error by observations.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37916400792187138772012-03-21T00:33:51.276-07:002012-03-21T00:33:51.276-07:00I must have struck a sensitive nerve. Cool.I must have struck a sensitive nerve. Cool.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22701184999756881662012-03-19T20:07:02.547-07:002012-03-19T20:07:02.547-07:00Louis,
You seem to be sort of an unpleasant fello...Louis, <br />You seem to be sort of an unpleasant fellow, quick to denigrate others to cover up a sense of inferiority. Just sayinvelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54185662863705076242012-03-19T19:56:48.242-07:002012-03-19T19:56:48.242-07:00Valid or not, they will continue to be used. OT, d...Valid or not, they will continue to be used. OT, do you understand the point of Scott's cupcake illustration?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-980496590933404742012-03-19T19:06:48.566-07:002012-03-19T19:06:48.566-07:00nacho flavored popcornnacho flavored popcornSmithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00216381429665486830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25686542105563289432012-03-18T19:06:40.605-07:002012-03-18T19:06:40.605-07:00PaV Lino
Thorton: "What PaV ignores either t...<i>PaV Lino<br /><br />Thorton: "What PaV ignores either through ignorance or stupidity is that he's arguing his Designer deliberately created a mutation that causes Ravine encephalopathy. Ravine encephalopathy is a 100% fatal genetic disease that kills babies by destroying their brain matter.<br /><br />This is just as bad as Behe, who argued that the Designer deliberately causes mutations in the Malaria parasite which gave it resistance to anti-malarial drugs. The Designer was thus responsible for untold millions of deaths caused by the disease."<br /><br />These are the ravings of mad man.</i><br /><br />You made the claim that the mutation was designed PaV, not me.<br /><br />Please tell us: who was the Designer that deliberately designed this mutation which kills babies? You said you know, so speak up.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75461487974030284322012-03-18T17:41:40.831-07:002012-03-18T17:41:40.831-07:00Thorton:
What PaV ignores either through ignoranc...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>What PaV ignores either through ignorance or stupidity is that he's arguing his Designer deliberately created a mutation that causes Ravine encephalopathy. Ravine encephalopathy is a 100% fatal genetic disease that kills babies by destroying their brain matter.<br /><br />This is just as bad as Behe, who argued that the Designer deliberately causes mutations in the Malaria parasite which gave it resistance to anti-malarial drugs. The Designer was thus responsible for untold millions of deaths caused by the disease.</i><br /><br />These are the ravings of mad man. <br /><br />(I didn't know you were so interested in theology. But, then again, so was your Papa, Darwin.)Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21118265458293061332012-03-18T14:52:58.261-07:002012-03-18T14:52:58.261-07:00My comment was not to support a theory. It was to ...My comment was not to support a theory. It was to show the moronic nature of the argument against creation that is continually being promoted by brain-dead evolutionists like you. It's like, "hey guys, let's build an all-powerful, all-knowing god and show that such a god cannot exist and could not have created life on earth; so therefore, creation did not happen." Lame.<br /><br />It's one of those arguments that are so stupid, it boggles the mind that you people think you are clever and want to be seen by others as superior intellectuals. You are not. You are stupid as sh!t.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84784239151369583202012-03-18T14:11:44.285-07:002012-03-18T14:11:44.285-07:00Neither is very tenable.Neither is very tenable.Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00216381429665486830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79992862743897513282012-03-18T10:08:51.423-07:002012-03-18T10:08:51.423-07:00Louis,
Popcorn and nachos? And who is a cretin?Louis,<br />Popcorn and nachos? And who is a cretin?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84910000562103478132012-03-18T10:04:42.187-07:002012-03-18T10:04:42.187-07:00Scott,
While I appreciate the shorter version ,a q...Scott,<br />While I appreciate the shorter version ,a question? If I looked into the box and found five vanilla cupcakes would it be comparable in your example?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75672517340906546302012-03-18T10:01:41.452-07:002012-03-18T10:01:41.452-07:00Specially, that God cannot create evil or good bei...Specially, that God cannot create evil or good beings in the moral sense is simply built into the theory, rather than representing an independent conclusion argued for elsewhere.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44482626293576447032012-03-18T09:49:11.343-07:002012-03-18T09:49:11.343-07:00Sure you wouldn't be the first. In fact that i...Sure you wouldn't be the first. In fact that is one of the main proofs of ID.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25922280559381771342012-03-18T09:25:52.114-07:002012-03-18T09:25:52.114-07:00I wrote: Rather, you'd need to include additio...I wrote: Rather, you'd need to include additional assumptions about this designer, which will likely be of the shallow and easily varied type. Furthermore, it will be an assumption which is get's built into the theory itself, rather than based on an independent conclusion, which is part of some other independent theory.<br /><br />Louis Savain: Second, the Christian God cannot create either evil or good beings in the moral sense of the words good and evil. Good and evil are spiritual concepts that have nothing to do with physical matter. Only spirits can be good or evil. The Christian God never claimed to have created spirits. Spirits are neither created nor destroyed. They just are. God only coded and built the body's DNA. Your spirit is your own. So, you have nobody to blame but yourself.<br /><br />Here, Louis just provided just such an example.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38040888245348917552012-03-18T07:14:53.642-07:002012-03-18T07:14:53.642-07:00They really don't know how HGT happens in euka...They really don't know how HGT happens in eukaryotes. They also talk about deep homology and incomplete lineage sorting. They just keep on adding epicycles on epicycles. It looks like evolution isn't falsifiable if they are allowed to call in unknwn mechanisms to explain away a problem. Isn't unknown mechanism another name for miracle? Oh well, I really envy evolutionists their faith.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26507392421270921582012-03-18T00:08:49.089-07:002012-03-18T00:08:49.089-07:00Ian H Spedding: Perhaps it isn't. Perhaps the ...Ian H Spedding: <i>Perhaps it isn't. Perhaps the Problem of Evil is irreconcilable with the existence of an perfect all-knowing, all-powerful Christian God.</i><br /><br />This is all nonsense, of course. But then again, only nonsense comes out the mouths of evolutionists.<br /><br />First of all, the Christian God never claimed that what he (Elohim or the Lords) created was perfect. After they finished their creation work, the Elohim looked at all that they made and said "it is very good". They did not say it was perfect. The omnipotent, omniscient God that evolutionists love to attack is a cheesy metaphysical strawman of their own making. Perfectionism is an evil concept and it does not surprise me that it's the backbone of the evolutionist's non-argument against creation.<br /><br />Second, the Christian God cannot create either evil or good beings in the moral sense of the words good and evil. Good and evil are spiritual concepts that have nothing to do with physical matter. Only spirits can be good or evil. The Christian God never claimed to have created spirits. Spirits are neither created nor destroyed. They just are. God only coded and built the body's DNA. Your spirit is your own. So, you have nobody to blame but yourself.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60226970684653550122012-03-17T23:49:43.635-07:002012-03-17T23:49:43.635-07:00Scott: Except, in the Popperian sense, you're ...Scott: <i>Except, in the Popperian sense, you're assuming that the predictions of evolutionary theory are prophecy. As such, it seems you have a very weak understanding of Popper.</i><br /><br />The whole point of having a prediction is to provide a falsifiable test. Evolution fails falsifiability 101. It fails every single one of its predictions. It's a religion of cretins, i.e., created by cretins for cretins.<br /><br />But I perfectly understand the chicken sh!t games you morons play: demand falsifiability from your opponent's theory but cleverly decline to do the same from your own brain-dead cretinous theory.<br /><br />The nice thing is though, nothing last forever, especially crappy theories. When you people finally fall, you will fall hard. And I'll be eating popcorn and nachos in a front row seat. LOL.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72206229493489543632012-03-17T22:23:57.782-07:002012-03-17T22:23:57.782-07:00Perhaps it isn't. Perhaps the Problem of Evil...Perhaps it isn't. Perhaps the Problem of Evil is irreconcilable with the existence of an perfect all-knowing, all-powerful Christian God.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24937638797006538732012-03-17T22:19:39.485-07:002012-03-17T22:19:39.485-07:00According to the Bible we're made in God's...According to the Bible we're made in God's image. We all die, so he must haveAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51974028712309089092012-03-17T20:57:26.143-07:002012-03-17T20:57:26.143-07:00As Karl Popper put it, "The objectivity of sc...As Karl Popper put it, "The objectivity of scientific statements lies in the fact that they can be inter-subjectively tested". <br /><br />So, what we do is take conjectured theories seriously <b>for the purpose of criticizing them</b>. This also includes testing them for errors of self-inconsistency. <br /><br />As such, it would seem a theory of an all-knowing, all powerful being which is also incompetent is found in error as it's self-contradictory. While this doesn't rule out that biosphere wasn't designed, we certainly should conclude it *was* designed based on this theory, as it's been found in error. As such, we discard it. <br /><br />In the same sense, we can also take the theory of an all-powerful, all-knowing being that is vindictive seriously for criticism as well. <br /><br />However, if we objectively attempt to assume such a being exists, in reality, and that all of our observations should conform to it, it becomes unclear what anyone could possibility do to a non-material, all-powerful, all-knowing being that would merit vengeance in the first place. <br /><br />Rather, you'd need to include additional assumptions about this designer, which will likely be of the shallow and easily varied type. Furthermore, it will be an assumption which is get's built into the theory itself, rather than based on an independent conclusion, which is part of some other independent theory.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56452730663506230592012-03-17T20:33:01.885-07:002012-03-17T20:33:01.885-07:00LOL. They never see it even though they are up to ...LOL. They never see it even though they are up to their necks in it.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63650685475332051062012-03-17T20:20:50.110-07:002012-03-17T20:20:50.110-07:00Ok, to summarize....
I wrote: You have a box tha...Ok, to summarize.... <br /><br />I wrote: <i>You have a box that contains two items. You add two more items, close the box, then open it again and find three items. Since you assumed you would find four, one of your assumptions are wrong. <br /><br />Which assumption would you question first? Why would you start with this particular assumption, rather than some other assumption?</i><br /><br />Specifically, what you just observed represents a falsification of one of your assumptions. The question is, which assumption? How do you decide?<br /><br />So, first, ask yourself which assumption you would question first. <br /><br />Second, the question becomes, why did you pick that assumption, rather than some other assumption that this observation could also represent a falsification of? <br /><br />Was it random? What was your underlying criteria? Can you even put your finger on what that criteria is?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32106833225184940052012-03-17T19:59:21.829-07:002012-03-17T19:59:21.829-07:00Hmmm. Should we apply supposedly to the other opti...Hmmm. Should we apply supposedly to the other option as well? <br /><br />..."'supposedly' some messy, haphazard, erratic, undirected process like evolution."Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00216381429665486830noreply@blogger.com