tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post1314367601966941506..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Podcast: The Inexorable Rise of Serendipity in Evolutionary TheoryUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50345135480914592572013-09-13T05:42:06.279-07:002013-09-13T05:42:06.279-07:00bpragmatic,
few years ago I thought atheists are ...bpragmatic,<br /><br />few years ago I thought atheists are satanists. Doesn't seem like that but it would be nice to bring them to our side of the fence.<br />OK maybe just Thorton is a satanist.<br />:D<br />Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5433998702651345982013-09-12T18:31:58.635-07:002013-09-12T18:31:58.635-07:00Eugen,
Ha Ha Ha!
The blurb above to Ian is a bit...Eugen,<br /><br />Ha Ha Ha!<br /><br />The blurb above to Ian is a bit rough. The image of a "stupid farting clown" is hilarious. <br /><br />Would bet the lad doesn't take the name calling too seriously. Atleast I hope not. <br /><br />bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52137683339225941502013-09-11T20:03:21.595-07:002013-09-11T20:03:21.595-07:00Spedding farted:
"If we're going to have ...Spedding farted:<br />"If we're going to have religious jokes I've always been partial to this one:"<br /><br /><br /><br />Spedding. Gotta admit, might of missed a "religious joke" you referred to above. Can you please point the religious joke out?<br /><br />On the other hand, and correct me if wrong, seems you are referring to the analogy presented above regarding the drunk looking for a solution to being able to open a car door and start the engine of the vehicle, allowing him to navigate the automobile to the desired destination.<br /><br />That was a simple metaphor to help some people to understand, as far as a real scientist can tell, the "science of the day" can't "find" anywhere near the required evidence that a reasonable individual would consider sufficient empirical evidence to make the proclamations made regarding the "origins" and "progressions" to living systems observed today, via nde processes. <br /><br />You are a hyper assertive, psuedo-intellectual clown, who has some sort of "hair up your ass" regarding "religion" with severely insufficient evidence to make a case for nde, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE RELIGION YOU HATE IS CORRECT OR NOT!!!!<br /><br />Look, I am sure you can find mental physicians who might be able to help you work out your personal problems through counselling and therapy. But, please, stop mixing your personal metaphysics with what actual science needs to demonstrate to make a legitimate claim for nde as an explanation for what it purports to explain.<br /><br /><br />Other than that, you are one stupid ass. bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39613011403533950742013-09-11T19:27:21.409-07:002013-09-11T19:27:21.409-07:00Scott: So, we start out knowing all of our ideas s...Scott: So, we start out knowing all of our ideas start out as essentially educated guesss. Check. <br /><br />J: Uh, not by your view, Scott. By your view, education doesn't exist.<br /><br />Scott: No one has actually formulated a "principle" of induction" that actually works in practice.<br /><br />J: First, why are you not arguing against Ian, Scott? He agrees that induction is used in science. Are you just a pathetic bigot such that fellow atheists are great merely because they're atheists, no matter how radically you disagree with them about all else? I can't think of another explanation for that, Scott. Can you help me?<br /><br />Second, what would it mean, to YOU, for induction to WORK?<br /><br />Scott: Furthermore, what you just described is compatible with conjecture and criticism. You just keep calling it induction as a means to defend it. <br /><br />J: No, Scott. LOGIC BOOKS call it induction. Why don't you read one.<br /><br />Scott: Can you point out what definition of science requires all explanations be reductionist in nature?<br /><br />J: What do you mean by a "reductionist" explanation? And give examples of both subclasses so I'll no what you're talking about.<br /><br />Scott: Nor can we observe causes.<br /><br />J: You really DON'T remember! You've already said that we don't know we observe. So what possible difference could it make? You REALLY don't get that claiming all propositions are equally a-probable is just what sane people MEAN by radical skepticism.<br /><br />Scott: Furthermore, parsimony falls under the umbrella of a good explanation.<br /><br />J: That is certainly not knowable if all propositions are equally a-probable. You really DON'T remember!<br /><br />Scott: That is, a good explanations are hard to vary without significantly reducing its ability to explain the phenomena in question.<br /><br />J: Scott, I know you can't remember, but you have already said MULTIPLE times now that any proposition you assert is NO MORE probable than any proposition that contradicts it. Thus, I can say parsimony is a criteria of the worst explanations, and you couldn't know I was more likely wrong than you.<br /><br />Scott: On the other hand, bad explanations can be easily varied without significantly impacting their ability to explain the phenomena in question. <br /><br />J: No, Scott. If you don't have a clue whether you remember, you CERTAINLY don't have a clue about whether any KIND of explanation has ever been conceived of, much less evaluated normatively. You are UTTERLY confused!<br /><br />Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3187073121469664692013-09-08T12:51:05.387-07:002013-09-08T12:51:05.387-07:00Jeff: The problem is that there are too many conce...Jeff: The problem is that there are too many conceivable ways that what we think we know about "where we find ourselves" could be radically wrong. <br /><br />So, we start out knowing all of our ideas start out as essentially educated guesss. Check. <br /><br />Jeff: We are CONSTANTLY voluntarily imposing inductive criteria, conditioned by our categories, on our raw, subjective, conscious experience. <br /><br />No one has actually formulated a "principle" of induction" that actually works in practice. So, the idea that we actually use induction, which includes the idea that we can get theories from data, doesn't withstand rational criticism. <br /><br />Jeff: The only way we can call this imposition objective and be accurate is if induction just IS valid.<br /><br />We're mistaken, Jeff. it's that simple. I don't deny that you have the subjective experience of using induction. However, as you just pointed out, there are many ways that what we think we find ourselves doing, including using induction, can be wrong. <br /><br />Furthermore, what you just described is compatible with conjecture and criticism. You just keep calling it induction as a means to defend it. <br /><br />Jeff: Parsimony, as a criteria, has no conceivable relevance if either of the following are true<br /><br />Jeff: 1) We have no idea whether events are caused or not (this would be the case if the principle of causality is false QUA a principle),<br /><br />Jeff: 2) Events are caused, but no events are libertarianly-caused, rendering all explanations void of finality.<br /><br />Can you point out what definition of science requires all explanations be reductionist in nature? Nor can we observe causes. <br /><br />Furthermore, parsimony falls under the umbrella of a good explanation. That is, a good explanations are hard to vary without significantly reducing its ability to explain the phenomena in question. On the other hand, bad explanations can be easily varied without significantly impacting their ability to explain the phenomena in question. <br /><br />Jeff: This is why Scott is where he's at. He wants to be part of a consensi that isn't committed to either the principle of causality or the reality of libertarian causality.<br /><br />Of course, what Jeff has left out is the option of having discarded justificationism all together and replacing it with trial and error, which is what I've explained over and over again. The thing is, Jeff keeps reframing the issue as if he cannot recognize his conception of knowledge as being an idea that would be subject to criticism.<br /><br />Why do you think that might be, Jeff? Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50047785922073295892013-09-08T05:10:30.236-07:002013-09-08T05:10:30.236-07:00If we're going to have religious jokes I'v...If we're going to have religious jokes I've always been partial to this one:<br /><br /><i>God looks down and notices that Adam is all alone while all the animals have companions, so he decides to create a companion for man as well. He comes to see Adam and says to him, "Adam, you are my greatest creation and therefore, I am going to create for you the ultimate companion. She will worship the very ground you walk on, she will long for you and no other, she will be highly intelligent, she will wait on you hand and foot and obey your every command, she will be beautiful, and all it will cost you is an arm and a leg." Thinking for a few moments, Adam replies, "What could I get for a rib?"</i>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12322662071624229372013-09-06T21:25:19.748-07:002013-09-06T21:25:19.748-07:00The whole thruth says:
"The most "foul ...The whole thruth says:<br /><br />"The most "foul language" isn't coming from people that you god pushers label as 'Darwinists'. It's coming from your fellow thumpers bpragmatic and joe g."<br /><br /><br />Bpragmatic responds:<br /><br />So what. where it (foul language} comes from? Also, please define what a "god pusher" is. It has already been pointed out that nde nazis have a "hair up their asses" regarding some kind of "religion". Personally, (no offense to the multitude of alethinon61's friends and family who are surely looking in on this discussion with huge interest and likely to be damaged phsycologically because they chose to view this instead of the pop-culture shit they are probably looking at anyway) I believe there are many "thinking" people who see the irrelevance of twt's make believe dichotomy that he puports to define the argument. That is his imagined argument he thinks is between "religion" and nde.<br /><br />What a fucking jack-ass. bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14740571874551412262013-09-06T19:55:23.645-07:002013-09-06T19:55:23.645-07:00Alethinon61 says:
"Although Cornelius has in...Alethinon61 says:<br /><br />"Although Cornelius has interesting things to say, I can't recommend this site to friends and family because it is frequented by some of the most foul-mouthed, uncivil people on the planet." <br /><br />Bpragmatic responds:<br /><br />First of all, what do you mean by "uncivil people"? What are your standards and where do the standards come from?<br /><br />Then,<br />I suggest you recommend to your "friends and family" they read Dr. Hunters articles and strongly consider avoiding the comments section. If they insist on reading the comments section, explain to them that there has been decades of speculation passed of as "science" in the form of nde. It has had MURDEROUS consequences in it's application to culture. And their is virtually NO REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support the conjecture of nde. And some people are pissed off enough to use strong language.<br /><br />As an alternative, suggest they watch the popular TV shows. Or maybe take in a movie or five. Out of hollywood. Or turn on their favorite Rap station. Or maybe watch a football game and learn how important it is to dominate the other guy. Yea, that's it. Then they can more easily be called to arms, with that attitude, to blow the brains out of a fellow human being in the name of "justice".<br /><br />I think I smell hypocrisy, therefore I am.bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46996785293184770382013-09-05T22:32:05.776-07:002013-09-05T22:32:05.776-07:00"If not natural evolutionary processes, then ..."If not natural evolutionary processes, then what? Creation/intervention/front-loading/magic-spells or something else by allah-vishnu-yhwh-satan-odin-jesus-shiva-holy-ghost-angels-demons or...?"<br /><br /><br />Don't know. Maybe the flying lasagna monster? About as likely as nde.<br /><br /><br />Your comment is a reminder of a joke you all may have heard.<br /><br />A man is walking down a street late at night. Across the street and under a street light he observes a drunk guy walking around zig zagging and in circles under the street light staring at the ground. This continues for some time. So, being curious, he goes across the street and asks the drunk guy what he is doing. The drunk guy tells him he is looking for his keys. The man says "well, you have been looking in the same place for a long time now. Are you sure you lost your keys in this area?" The drunk replies, "no, I lost them about a quarter of a mile from here." Astonished, the man asks, "well why do you keep looking around here when it is obvious the keys are nowhere around here?" The drunk guy replies, "because there is a street light here, and it is dark where I lost the keys." bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88312303145784386642013-09-05T08:55:21.296-07:002013-09-05T08:55:21.296-07:00@TWT: I guess you haven't read many of Thorton...@TWT: I guess you haven't read many of Thorton's posts. I'd ban him and bpragmatic from my own blog, if they were ever to make an appearance there. Alethinon61https://www.blogger.com/profile/09826280552590911315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57666443844038933622013-09-05T07:30:42.436-07:002013-09-05T07:30:42.436-07:00Clueless teenage Creationist bpragmatic back to be...Clueless teenage Creationist bpragmatic back to being drunk and stupid again, instead of just stupid.<br /><br />Oh well.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88214862309086626412013-09-05T06:36:55.649-07:002013-09-05T06:36:55.649-07:00The most "foul language" isn't comin...The most "foul language" isn't coming from people that you god pushers label as 'Darwinists'. It's coming from your fellow thumpers bpragmatic and joe g. The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56995442540241975752013-09-05T06:27:36.027-07:002013-09-05T06:27:36.027-07:00bp, you keep saying "nde" as though it e...bp, you keep saying "nde" as though it encompasses all of evolutionary theory and as though everyone who accepts and/or studies evolution considers themselves a neo-Darwinist.<br /><br />You also said: <br /><br />"Well, ok, similar morpholgies are observed. So how does that demonstrate the assertion that these morphologies have "evolved" via nde processes, etc."<br /><br />If not natural evolutionary processes, then <b>what</b>? Creation/intervention/front-loading/magic-spells or something else by allah-vishnu-yhwh-satan-odin-jesus-shiva-holy-ghost-angels-demons or...?<br /> <br />What are the ID-creationism processes that brought about morphologies and "similar morphologies" in cave dwelling critters? Don't skimp on the evidence and details.<br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60846903517146354602013-09-05T06:25:51.483-07:002013-09-05T06:25:51.483-07:00I'd like to know why Cornelius allows people t...I'd like to know why Cornelius allows people to use such foul language on his blog. Although Cornelius has interesting things to say, I can't recommend this site to friends and family because it is frequented by some of the most foul-mouthed, uncivil people on the planet. <br /><br />What is it about Darwinism that brings out the worst in people? Alethinon61https://www.blogger.com/profile/09826280552590911315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15627095852943365542013-09-04T23:28:42.731-07:002013-09-04T23:28:42.731-07:00Ok. Now I will focus a bit on KICKING THORTONS AS...Ok. Now I will focus a bit on KICKING THORTONS ASS. (which is in the proverbial scense, of course, too easy. I mean it is like taking candy from a shelf that mom left open to anyone who can see.} <br /><br /><br />Thorton cites an alledged "scientific" study: <br /><br />"Adaptations to the cave environment, particularly for species living in the dark zone e.g. lengthening of appendages; loss of pigment; modification of eyes; modified olfactory sensory organs (for "sniffing" out prey and mates etc.); extra sensory structures e.g. elongated legs used as feelers and sometimes modified chelicerae (the grasping organs used to hold prey foods etc.; and reduced metabolic rate are all considered adaptations to the dark zone of caves.<br /><br />...so he turns to his usual class clown act to hide the embarrassment."<br /><br /><br /><br />Bpragmatic responds:<br /><br />So how do these "scientists" demonstrate they have isolated the relevant sequential progressions of related organisms they cite as evidence for claiming alledged nde caused progressions in structure?<br /><br />Thornty cant say. Maybe there is some bullshit extrapolation expressed is the "study" he is so sure demonstrates, beyond question that nde can expain it all. HA HA HA HA! <br /><br />How do the "scientists" in the "study" that Thornty cites explain the actual development of appendages that, apparently have been observed to merely "lengthen" apparently from a shorter appendage to the same appendage that is merely longer.<br /><br />Then there is talk about "loss of pigment". Fine. But this merely begs the question:How the fuck did did the "pigment" come about in the first place to be eventually lost? Well of course Thornties answer is nde did it. Sure, asshole. Other than conjecture based multitudes of assumptions, show how that it has been demostrated "scientifically" to have occured. Of course no way in hell you can.<br /><br />Then you cite the "modification" of something that "real science" has no fucking clue as to how it came about, from an nde approach. The prospect of the required systems involved being developed by nde mechanisms totally "scientifically" undemonstrated. But what the fuck. The fuckers in hollywood have told us it is the truth, in the "movies" and <br />"tv" (as shown on tv) HA HA HA! So, obviously, unsupported conjecture surely becomes "truth" when that happens. HA HA HA HA!<br /><br /><br />bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33556133292960674962013-09-04T22:19:45.909-07:002013-09-04T22:19:45.909-07:00My friend Thorton. {Before I commence kicking yo...My friend Thorton. {Before I commence kicking your ass) Let me complete a process of historical thoughts that tie into the modern sythesis, of dawkinian conjecture. <br /><br />First of all, I just gotta say that, I believe that R Dawkins was hugely influenced by the Troggs and their song that was posted above. From what I understand, Dawkins, the self proclaimed "<br />master of universal understanding has said that free will does not exist. Well, in my opinion he has leached off of the original idea of the Troggs, who, as far as I can tell, came up with the original concept of "I can't control myself". I think the asshole needs to come forth and give credit where credit is due, and admit the Troggs were ahead of their time and contributed to the philosophy that the son of a bitch has cashed in on. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13807292122458826102013-09-04T21:44:59.907-07:002013-09-04T21:44:59.907-07:00The willfully ignorant teenaged Creationist can...The willfully ignorant teenaged Creationist can't be bothered to read or learn about the scientific terminology...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cancaver.ca/docs/glossary.htm#T" rel="nofollow">TROGLOMORPHIC ADAPTATIONS</a><br /><br />Adaptations to the cave environment, particularly for species living in the dark zone e.g. lengthening of appendages; loss of pigment; modification of eyes; modified olfactory sensory organs (for "sniffing" out prey and mates etc.); extra sensory structures e.g. elongated legs used as feelers and sometimes modified chelicerae (the grasping organs used to hold prey foods etc.; and reduced metabolic rate are all considered adaptations to the dark zone of caves.<br /><br />...so he turns to his usual class clown act to hide the embarrassment.<br /><br />He'll go far in life with that approach I'm sure.<br /><br />Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37905145895627283902013-09-04T21:12:53.207-07:002013-09-04T21:12:53.207-07:00"Troglomorphism"
Man, that reminds me o..."Troglomorphism"<br /><br />Man, that reminds me of a type of something "trog" like from the music world. Some of you old farts might enjoy this blast from the past. Musical conjecture on parallel with philosophical conjecture. But it makes a lot more sense. HA HA HA HA! <br /><br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzHpGjvRgTc<br /><br />bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56870269742205927572013-09-04T21:01:55.917-07:002013-09-04T21:01:55.917-07:00Thorton quotes a "study":
" Many c...Thorton quotes a "study":<br /><br />" Many cave-dwelling animal species display similar morphologies (troglomorphism) that have evolved convergent within and among lineages under the similar selective pressures imposed by cave habitats."<br /><br />Well, ok, similar morpholgies are observed. So how does that demonstrate the assertion that these morphologies have "evolved" via nde processes, etc.<br /><br />Again, this is nothing more than unsubsantiated conjecture.<br /><br />It is hilarious: look at the term <br />"troglomorphism".<br /><br />Another attempt to coin some kind of term that can be later used as "evidence" entirely based upon the term, to be an alledged support that nde has been demonstrated as to have occured.<br /><br />What a pathetic and destructive philosophy. <br /> bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68306366797920923502013-09-04T19:49:28.964-07:002013-09-04T19:49:28.964-07:00bpragmatic
(plugs his ears, squeezes shut his eye...<i>bpragmatic<br /><br />(plugs his ears, squeezes shut his eyes and goes LA! LA! LA!)</i><br /><br />I see you didn't have the intelligence or the sack to read the papers you asked for.<br /><br />I can link to some Flintstones cartoons or Chick tracks if they're more your speed.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40946104663215198622013-09-04T19:11:36.197-07:002013-09-04T19:11:36.197-07:00Thorton says:
"BP, if you plug your ears and...Thorton says:<br /><br />"BP, if you plug your ears and squeeze shut your eyes and go LA! LA! LA! I bet you can make all those millions of studies on biology and genetics and paleontology, all those college, university, and professional research labs, all those natural history museums just go away!"<br /><br /><br />Bpragmatic responds:<br /><br />Thorton, consider this. "Millions of studies......" really is not the issue.<br /><br />I mean, a majestic castle can be built upon sand. But when the innevitable shift of tide occurs {additional evidence to the contrary} that particular structure comes tumbling down. Doesn't matter how tall or how many inhabitants dwell within. It just falls over regardless of wishing it doesn't. And regardless of rhetorical efforts to prop it up.<br /><br />This is, what one might claim, reality.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00669603447496013312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45426750901710439002013-09-04T17:39:12.016-07:002013-09-04T17:39:12.016-07:00J: ... live in total harmony and bliss.
M: On the...J: ... live in total harmony and bliss.<br /><br />M: On the other hand, this I doubt. I think it would be boring<br /><br />J: You say you're a Christian universalist. The Christian tradition claims that Jesus existed with God prior to creation. Presumably, that social existence was characterized by harmony and bliss, right? And if so, was it therefore boring? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're getting at.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26814619114310204982013-09-04T10:03:19.953-07:002013-09-04T10:03:19.953-07:00Exposing your ignorance makes me happy. And that m...Exposing your ignorance makes me happy. And that means I am one very happy dude.<br /><br />Thank youJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20298315568913265792013-09-04T09:15:58.018-07:002013-09-04T09:15:58.018-07:00Chubby Joke Gallien has splooge all over his many ...Chubby Joke Gallien has splooge all over his many chins? What a surprise.<br /><br />Whatever makes you happy Chubs.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75787813520816963002013-09-04T08:05:26.435-07:002013-09-04T08:05:26.435-07:00LoL! thorton gets handed his ass once again and ca...LoL! thorton gets handed his ass once again and can only sit by the keyboard and drool.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.com