tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post2951436518576308932..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Here’s the Tip of the Iceberg on Cellular Regulation and it Has Evolutionists Drinking Alone AgainUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44096439302706418542012-06-14T16:14:30.349-07:002012-06-14T16:14:30.349-07:00You asked for something you thought couldn't h...You asked for something you thought couldn't happen. It's a novel protein. It has a new function while retaining the old function. Your response is to wave your hands.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-493863468579632722012-06-14T13:43:49.811-07:002012-06-14T13:43:49.811-07:00Oh goody a single point mutation finally did somet...Oh goody a single point mutation finally did something. Hmmm, and I click on and off my computer with a single button, there my computer evolved :)bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77618536193262486162012-06-11T06:42:20.120-07:002012-06-11T06:42:20.120-07:00bornagain77: since you are making a drastic claim ...<b>bornagain77</b>: <i>since you are making a drastic claim for instant polyfunctional complexity for novel proteins, </i><br /><br />It's incremental, no instantaneous. We have discussed luciferase on a previous thread, and you may want to consider that a single mutation of a protoluciferases can cause bioluminescence while still preserving its previous synthetase function.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7646499479993091372012-06-10T18:12:36.573-07:002012-06-10T18:12:36.573-07:00So, if I understand you correctly, God used a rule...So, if I understand you correctly, God used a rule of thumb because, "That's just what God must have wanted", right?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10752936500399055382012-06-10T14:38:01.225-07:002012-06-10T14:38:01.225-07:00Needless to say Scott, the fuzziness as to exactly...Needless to say Scott, the fuzziness as to exactly how the sequence was arrived at, (random entropic noise or 'natural genetic engineering), between the many instances of intelligent intervention, is not cleared up one iota by your heavy dose of philosophy.bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74390267652681054222012-06-10T14:36:18.144-07:002012-06-10T14:36:18.144-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44354877393057571122012-06-10T12:45:15.667-07:002012-06-10T12:45:15.667-07:00To use another example, imagine I had a genetic di...To use another example, imagine I had a genetic disease. One option would be to develop a treatment based on the non-explanatory knowledge that randomly mutating some sequence of my DNA might end up having a positive effect on my symptoms. Again, this would represent a treatment based merely on a useful rule of thumb. <br /><br />Another option would be to develop a treatment based on a conjectured explanatory theory of exactly which genes to mutate, exactly how to mutate them resulting in a specific physiological change in my symptoms. This would represent explanatory knowledge. <br /><br />Assuming both your doctor had both forms of knowledge available to him, which form of treatment do you think he would use? Which form of treatment would you prefer? <br /><br />In other words, you seem to think that God, who is supposedly a significantly more intelligent person, deigned the biosphere. And he did it using a useful rule of thumb, rather than employing explanatory knowledge. <br /><br />This suggest that, as designers, we know more about how to make progress than God would. <br /><br />How do you explain this discrepancy?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57261323087190382642012-06-10T12:44:49.400-07:002012-06-10T12:44:49.400-07:00BA: Scott, I know how you love all things Darwinia...BA: Scott, I know how you love all things Darwinian and such love is blind and can see no faults in the beloved, but can you please show me JUST ONE functional protein being generated by PURELY neo-Darwinian processes that did not require intelligent intervention???<br /><br />It seems you're confused as to what particular aspect of evolutionary theory this experiment represents. <br /><br />The goal of the research was to allow marine sponges to build new proteins for the purpose of creating semiconductors. However, they didn't have an explanatory theory as to exactly which way to mutate the genome of a marine sponge to get the proteins they wanted. In fact, they didn't know exactly which kinds of proteins a marine sponge could build. All they knew is that they wanted proteins related to creating semiconductors and thought that a marine sponge could build them based on the background knowledge that they currently build other minerals. <br /><br />So, in the absence of an explanatory theory, they employed a useful rule of thumb: randomly mutating a strand of DNA could result in a sequence that builds some form of new protein that, when synthesized, could be useful in building semiconductors. Since the researchers wouldn't have know exactly why mutating those particular aspects of the DNA strand in that particular way ended up with that particular protein, this would represent non-explanatory knowledge. <br /> <br />If we do X, we get Y. But we lack an explanatory theory as to why specifically doing X results specifically in Y. It's simply a useful rule of thumb, since we can plug this sequence into a marine sponge and get semiconductor related proteins. <br /><br />Again, this is in contrast to conjecturing exactly which aspects of a strand of DNA to mutate to build a preselected, specific protein for use in a specific aspect of building semiconductors. If these researchers had an explanatory theory of how to build the particular protein that they wanted, they wouldn't have used a rule of thumb based on background knowledge. Rather, they would have tested that particular theory because it would have represented an explanatory theory about how specific genes results in specific proteins. Had they ended up with the exact protein they wanted, the results would have been much more significant than merely employing a rule of thumb. <br /><br />So, not only can we create non-explanatory knowledge, but we can create explanatory knowledge. On the other hand, evolutionary processes are not people. They can only create non-explanatory knowledge. <br /><br />Specifically, what makes <b>people</b> unique is that we're universal explainers, which is how we explain our relatedly recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge. <br /><br />So, the experiment represents an example of creating a protein as a form of non-explantory knowledge, rather than explanatory knowledge.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17119963320597585942012-06-10T06:23:47.627-07:002012-06-10T06:23:47.627-07:00So Thorton instead of honestly addressing the ques...So Thorton instead of honestly addressing the questions I put forth and trying to get at the truth of the matter (i.e. exactly how was 'natural genetic engineering' involved? i.e. exactly how much was random entropic noise involved?) You resort to a ad hominem attack once again?<br /><br />Argument Ad Hominem ? (William Lane Craig) - video<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX3beh6g1Qg<br /><br />William Lane Craig and the Meaning of Ad Hominem Attacks - William Lane Craig - video<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrVGuUsL2PM<br /><br />Thorton, needless to say, ad hominem does not reflect honest scientific inquiry on your part, but reflects instead that you can't honestly defend the question raised! As well Thorton, is your view of neo-Darwinian science that it is not even allowed to be questioned that neo-Darwinism was the mechanism? If you truly believe this is so, please tell me any other discipline of science where the results are not subject to rigid scrutiny. Frankly science is all about finding out exactly what is going on and not accepting fuzzy explanations such as the explanations presented in this article referenced by Scott! As well Thorton, despite neo-Darwinists refusal to even question the boundaries for what neo-Darwinian processes can actually be shown to do in reality, Dr. Behe points out, in this following video, that it is very advantageous to know exactly what the limits of neo-Darwinian evolution actually are. (Limits that turned out to be far more severe than even what Dr. Behe had first thought for Darwinian processes).<br /><br />The Edge Of Evolution - Michael Behe - Video Lecture<br />http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/199326-1 <br /><br />The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism<br />"The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have "invented" little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). - M. Behebornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12752681727907845712012-06-10T05:49:14.710-07:002012-06-10T05:49:14.710-07:00Thorton:
"Cue the clueless Creationist usua...Thorton: <br /><br /><i>"Cue the clueless Creationist usual pathetic hand-wave:<br /><br />"But the experiment was intelligently designed by the scientists! That proves the Intelligent Designer created the whole world!!!"<br /><br />They're all thinking it, and you <b>know</b> at least one of them will be dumb enough to say it."</i><br /><br />batspit77, right on cue : <br /><br /><i>"If 'natural genetic engineering' by the proteins generated the new sequences, then this certainly is very antagonistic to the 'central dogma' of neo-Darwinism, and indicates that more information was put into the initial conditions of the experiment than they realized. i.e. exactly how much information did they put into the experiment at the beginning?"</i><br /><br /><b>Q.E.D.</b><br /><br />I know, I know - predicting that a Creationist will say something stupid is like predicting the sun will rise in the East. ;)Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43574679587594184322012-06-10T04:34:15.574-07:002012-06-10T04:34:15.574-07:00as to:
"Not surprisingly, the researchers fo...as to:<br /><br />"Not surprisingly, the researchers found sequences common to the two original silicateins. But in each group, they also found a gene completely different from the starting proteins."<br /><br />Exactly how were the new sequences arrived at? did the proteins use 'natural genetic engineering' (Shapiro) to modify the DNA sequences? or did the 'random entropic noise' of the environment generate the new sequences? If 'natural genetic engineering' by the proteins generated the new sequences, then this certainly is very antagonistic to the 'central dogma' of neo-Darwinism, and indicates that more information was put into the initial conditions of the experiment than they realized. i.e. exactly how much information did they put into the experiment at the beginning? and how do they know??? Genes are certainly far more complex, and are loaded with far more functional information, than was originally envisioned by neo-Darwinian thought. (i.e. Central Dogma)<br /><br />The Extreme Complexity Of Genes - Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin - video<br />http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8593991/ <br /><br />as to: "The scientists synthesized the proteins coded for by these new genes"<br /><br />even the final step of generating a novel functional protein had to be accomplished by Intelligence??? Scott, I know how you love all things Darwinian and such love is blind and can see no faults in the beloved, but can you please show me JUST ONE functional protein being generated by PURELY neo-Darwinian processes that did not require intelligent intervention???<br /><br />Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video<br />http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681<br /><br />of somewhat related note:<br /><br />The Mysterious Epigenome. What lies beyond DNA - video<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpXs8uShFMobornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10916048375932571522012-06-10T03:51:39.740-07:002012-06-10T03:51:39.740-07:00Perhaps Thorton and Scott, since you guys are so c...Perhaps Thorton and Scott, since you guys are so convinced that new functional genes/proteins (functional Information) can be formed without any intelligent intervention whatsoever, you would be kind enough to show us novel functional proteins being formed by purely material, neo-Darwinian, processes??? without any intelligent intervention??? i.e. If neo-Darwinism is as well established a fact as Gravity, as you guys dogmatically claim it is, exactly why are you guys forced to use this example, where intelligent intervention was clearly used throughout the experiment from beginning to end to get a desired result??? This is certainly very embarrassing for you guys since, after years of debate, you guys still cannot even point to a single example of a novel protein being formed by purely neo-Darwinian processes!! and that you guys are forced by such a stunning lack of evidence for neo-Darwinism to use this example from biomimetics, where the evolution was 'directed' by intelligent agents, to try to prove your point that purely material neo-Darwinian processes are capable of generating novel functional proteins is certainly, no matter how 'dumb' Thorton may claim it to be, begging the question!<br /><br />notes:<br /><br />Intelligent Design Implications Disclaimed as Biomimicry Are Increasingly Discussed in Scientific Literature - Casey Luskin<br />http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/08/intelligent_design_implication024431.html<br /><br />Also of note: There is a fairly substantial economic payoff to be had for presupposing superior 'Intelligent Design' in life, as is testified to by the burgeoning field of Biomimicry:<br /><br />"Biomimetics and the Positive Implications for Intelligent Design" - Podcast - September 2011<br />http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-09-23T15_43_04-07_00<br /><br />Biomimicry - Superior Designs That Were Found In Life<br />http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfNDBkZ3Nwcnd0Yw&hl=enbornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25256183873205677712012-06-09T22:52:15.643-07:002012-06-09T22:52:15.643-07:00Cue the clueless Creationist usual pathetic hand-w...Cue the clueless Creationist usual pathetic hand-wave:<br /><br />"But the experiment was <b>intelligently designed</b> by the scientists! That proves the <b>Intelligent Designer</b> created the whole world!!!"<br /><br />They're all thinking it, and you <i>know</i> at least one of them will be dumb enough to say it.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68824359120224008712012-06-09T22:11:03.468-07:002012-06-09T22:11:03.468-07:00CH: Well first there is the problem of how random ...CH: Well first there is the problem of how random change could create a protein of any kind, let alone one that performs a needed function. <br /><br />From the article located <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/06/artificial-cells-evolve-proteins-to-structure-semiconductors/?comments=1#comments-bar" rel="nofollow">here</a>...<br /><br /><i>Scientists have applied genetic engineering to create proteins that can be used to create electronics. They've used the tools of molecular biology and principles of evolution to find proteins that can make new structures of silicon dioxide, commonly found in computer chips, and titanium dioxide, often used in solar cells.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />... Daniel Morse, of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and his colleagues looked to another protein making strategy: synthetic cells with a tiny plastic bead nucleus surrounded by a bubble of oil that acts as a cell membrane.<br /><br />The scientists attached a piece of DNA to each of the beads, encoding a unique silica-forming protein, or silicatein. <b>This DNA is a random combination of genes from two related silicateins, interspersed with random mutations.</b><br /><br />[...]<br /><br />From the cells that survived the selection process, the scientists randomly picked 30 genes from either the silicon or titanium dioxide-forming proteins and sequenced them. Not surprisingly, the researchers found sequences common to the two original silicateins. <b>But in each group, they also found a gene completely different from the starting proteins.<br /><br />The scientists synthesized the proteins coded for by these new genes and studied the minerals produced by each one. The standard protein, silicatein α, makes clumps of silica particles. Both new proteins, however, produced dispersed nanoparticles containing the metal oxides. And the new silica-forming protein, named silicatein X1, could even make folded sheets of silica-protein fibers.</b></i><br /><br />So, while it's not starting complexly from scratch, new proteins were found that were completely different from either of the two starting proteins. Nor does evolutionary theory suggest any modern day protein was formed from scratch.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75873758770439006082012-06-09T15:34:59.291-07:002012-06-09T15:34:59.291-07:00'No. I do not think my own consciousness is an...'No. I do not think my own consciousness is an illusion.' <br /><br />So you hold, contrary to neo-Darwinian thought, that consciousness/mind does not 'emerge' from a material basis, and is thus merely a illusion, but you hold that mind is its own independent entity that lives past the death of your brain? Well then Scott you are in radical departure from basic neo-Darwinian, materialistic, thought. In fact you are very close to mainline Theistic thinking. (Better hope Thorton doesn't catch wind of this!)<br /><br />Before you backpedal to materialistic rationalizations, I remind you that mind/consciousness is something you experience first hand, and indeed the fact that you have a mind is the most solid thing that you can know for sure about reality:<br /><br />"Descartes remarks that he can continue to doubt whether he has a body; after all, he only believes he has a body as a result of his perceptual experiences, and so the demon could be deceiving him about this. But he cannot doubt that he has a mind, i.e. that he thinks. So he knows he exists even though he doesn’t know whether or not he has a body."<br /><br />notes:<br /><br />Neuroscientist: “The Most Seamless Illusions Ever Created” - April 2012<br />Excerpt: We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.<br />Matthew D. Lieberman - neuroscientist - materialist - UCLA professor<br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/neuroscientist-most-seamless-illusions.html <br /><br />God Versus Science: A Futile Struggle By J Roy Singham - May 2012<br />Excerpt: Materialists believe that matter is unconscious, a tenable opinion. But they also believe that consciousness is an illusion. That belief is absurd, almost madness.<br />http://ezinearticles.com/?God-Versus-Science:-A-Futile-Struggle&id=6940055<br /><br />"Descartes said 'I think, therefore I am.' My bet is that God replied, 'I am, therefore think.'"<br />Art Battson - Access Research Groupbornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23531170390999191092012-06-09T14:16:10.619-07:002012-06-09T14:16:10.619-07:00BA: Scott, you say I misrepresent your position. B...BA: Scott, you say I misrepresent your position. But I beg to differ. Are you or are you not a materialist who holds that your mind, all 10^500 versions of your mind, is not really real but is merely an illusion. <br /><br />No. I do not think my own consciousness is an illusion. Rather we do not agree on what consciousness is, the level in which it's expressed and the role is plays in quantum mechanics. <br /><br />Again, you're simply making my point for me. <br /><br />Here's a hit: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29921397724241354822012-06-09T13:30:36.500-07:002012-06-09T13:30:36.500-07:00Scott, you say I misrepresent your position. But I...Scott, you say I misrepresent your position. But I beg to differ. Are you or are you not a materialist who holds that your mind, all 10^500 versions of your mind, is not really real but is merely an illusion. An illusion that somehow 'emerges' from a material base in your brain? Thus, unless you deny you are a materialist, I have faithfully represented your position to say that you have 'lost your mind' somewhere in your beliefs of atheistic materialism.,, Moreover, you have bought into this absurd notion that consciousness/mind emerges from a material basis without one shred of substantiating evidence it is even possible:<br /><br />Darwinian Psychologist David Barash Admits the Seeming Insolubility of Science's "Hardest Problem"<br />Excerpt: 'But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can't even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don't even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.'<br />David Barash - Materialist/Atheist Darwinian Psychologist<br />http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/post_33052491.html<br /><br />And you have also ignored many lines of evidence to the contrary pointing to the fact that you have a mind,,,<br /><br />Do Conscious Thoughts Cause Behavior? -Roy F. Baumeister, E. J. Masicampo, and Kathleen D. Vohs - 2010<br />Excerpt: The evidence for conscious causation of behavior is profound, extensive, adaptive, multifaceted, and empirically strong.<br />http://carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/165663.pdf<br /><br />But Scott don't be so offended at me pointing out that you have 'lost your mind', far smarter people than you have bought into this delusion that mind/consciousness, something they experience first hand, is not really real:<br /><br />A neurosurgeon confronts the non-material nature of consciousness - December 2011<br /> Excerpted quote: To me one thing that has emerged from my experience and from very rigorous analysis of that experience over several years, talking it over with others that I respect in neuroscience, and really trying to come up with an answer, is that consciousness outside of the brain is a fact. It’s an established fact. And of course, that was a hard place for me to get, coming from being a card-toting reductive materialist over decades. It was very difficult to get to knowing that consciousness, that there’s a soul of us that is not dependent on the brain.<br /> http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/he-said-it-a-neurosurgeon-confronts-the-non-material-nature-of-consciousness/<br /><br />Neurosurgeon Dr. Eben Alexander’s Near-Death Experience Defies Medical Model of Consciousness - audio interview<br />http://www.skeptiko.com/upload/skeptiko-154-eben-alexander.mp3<br /><br />Near death, explained - By Dr. Mario Beauregard research professor Neuroscience Research Center at the University of Montreal. - April 2012<br />Excerpt: These findings strongly challenge the mainstream neuroscientific view that mind and consciousness result solely from brain activity. As we have seen, such a view fails to account for how NDErs can experience—while their hearts are stopped—vivid and complex thoughts and acquire veridical information about objects or events remote from their bodies.<br />NDE studies also suggest that after physical death, mind and consciousness may continue in a transcendent level of reality that normally is not accessible to our senses and awareness. Needless to say, this view is utterly incompatible with the belief of many materialists that the material world is the only reality.<br />http://www.salon.com/2012/04/21/near_death_explained/singleton/bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14033084950829159462012-06-09T10:06:21.314-07:002012-06-09T10:06:21.314-07:00That's a pretty tall claim coming from someone...That's a pretty tall claim coming from someone who cannot even acknowledge or recognize when they habitually misrepresent what other people write, don't you think?<br /><br />For example, your continued implication that I've lost my mind is based on misrepresenting my position on the MWT itself, as you keep omitting the details of the theory and the reasons why I accept it.<br /><br />So, if anyone's in denial here, it appears to be you, not me. <br /><br />But, by all mean, go ahead and deny this as well. You'll only be making my point for me.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8852221629638876262012-06-09T10:04:51.663-07:002012-06-09T10:04:51.663-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63014923103863530092012-06-09T02:25:54.784-07:002012-06-09T02:25:54.784-07:00"That's just what God must have wanted&qu..."That's just what God must have wanted"<br /><br />Psalm 115:2-3<br />Why should the nations say, “Where is their God?” Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.<br /><br />Note:<br /><br />What Properties Must the Cause of the Universe Have? - William Lane Craig - video<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI<br /><br />George Strait - I Saw God Today -<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q06AvQF5NOwbornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75594440209913575342012-06-09T02:18:41.712-07:002012-06-09T02:18:41.712-07:00Scott, you are the one who is denying the reality ...Scott, you are the one who is denying the reality of your own mind. I am merely trying to be figure out exactly when you 'lost your mind'. Please be specific.bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8179274540134346002012-06-09T00:34:34.641-07:002012-06-09T00:34:34.641-07:00BA: Like I said Scott, you have 'lost your min...BA: Like I said Scott, you have 'lost your mind' in order to believe in 10^500 versions of yourself. <br /><br />Then I guess it must be true, right? I mean, if you said it... then surely that's the case. <br /><br />What on earth was I thinking? <br /><br />BA: But to be more precise as to the timing when you lost your mind,, You actually lost your mind when you first started believing in atheistic materialism.<br /><br />And this is crazy, how exactly? <br /><br />Let me guess, you cannot recognize your authoritative, pre-enligtenment conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. As such, anyone who thinks it is an idea that would be subject to criticism must be crazy?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40381268879511265652012-06-08T23:24:26.236-07:002012-06-08T23:24:26.236-07:00So, returning to my original question, any combina...So, returning to my original question, any combination of natural forces would supposedly be more complex then "That's just what God must have wanted", since there's supposedly no need to add the complication of a complex material nervous system. There is no need to explain the means by with God created the knowledge of how to build complex proteins, etc. Right?<br /><br />And, given that you claim "That's just what God must have wanted" really is a "good" explanation, and that it's so much simpler than the supposed "epicycles" of evolutionary processes, such as HGT, hybridization, etc., then why isn't "That's just what God must have wanted" the best expansion for absolutely everything and everything? <br /><br />Or maybe I've got it wrong, in that you think God is complex, not simple? Or maybe you don't actually think "That's just what God must have wanted", is a good explanation after all? <br /><br />Or perhaps "That's just what God must have wanted" is the explanation for the biosphere because you think the Bible is authoritative because it represents God's word. God said he did it, so he must have. <br /><br />But we're back to where we started, as this represents, a pre-enlightenment, authoritative, justificationist conception of human knowledge.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70873029686748566052012-06-08T23:19:59.237-07:002012-06-08T23:19:59.237-07:00Asking me to explain everything all the way down i...Asking me to explain everything all the way down is your problem not mine. I'm a critical rationalist. <br /><br />From the essay found <a href="http://www.the-rathouse.com/Bartley/Leeson-vol.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>…. <br /><br /><i><b>Responses to the dilemma of the infinite regress versus dogmatism</b><br /><br />In the light of the dilemma of the infinite regress versus dogmatism, we can discern three attitudes towards positions: relativism, <b>“true belief</b> and critical rationalism <br /><br />Relativists tend to be disappointed justificationists who realise that positive justification cannot be achieved. From this premise they proceed to the conclusion that all positions are pretty much the same and none can really claim to be better than any other. There is no such thing as the truth, no way to get nearer to the truth and there is no such thing as a rational position.<br /><br /><b>True believers embrace justificationism. They insist that some positions are better than others though they accept that there is no logical way to establish a positive justification for an belief. They accept that we make our choice regardless of reason: "Here I stand!". Most forms of rationalism up to date have, at rock bottom, shared this attitude with the irrationalists and other dogmatists because they share the theory of justificationism.</b><br /><br />According to the critical rationalists, the exponents of critical preference, no position can be positively justified but it is quite likely that one (or more) will turn out to be better than others in the light of critical discussion and tests. This type of rationality holds all its positions and propositions open to criticism and a standard objection to this stance is that it is empty; just holding our positions open to criticism provides no guidance as to what position we should adopt in any particular situation. This criticism misses its mark for two reasons. <b>First, critical rationalism is not a position. It is not directed at solving the kind of problems that are solved by fixing on a position. It is concerned with the way that such positions are adopted, criticized, defended and relinquished. </b> Second, Bartley did provide guidance on adopting positions; we may adopt the position that to this moment has stood up to criticism most effectively. <b>Of course this is no help for people who seek stronger reasons for belief, but that is a problem for them, and it does not undermine the logic of critical preference.</b></i><br /><br />In other words, we're not concerned with the same thing. I'm concerned with the way that positions are adopted, criticized, defended and relinquished. You, on the other hand, want to fix on a particular position because you hold a static conception of human knowledge. <br /><br />To quote you, <i>As to the "inexplicable," the "Logos" became "Flesh". But, outside of the created order, the "Logos" eternally existed as Uncreated Rationality.</i><br /><br />God has always had the knowledge of how to build anything logically possible. This includes things he decided not to make. This choice is inexplicable beyond "That's just what God must have wanted" As such, there can be be no better explanation for the adaptations we observe in the biosphere other than "That's what God must have wanted".Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22844965242460077342012-06-08T23:16:59.013-07:002012-06-08T23:16:59.013-07:00Lino: Lino: Where did the Kitty Hawk come from? Di...Lino: Lino: Where did the Kitty Hawk come from? Did a tornado rip through a junkyard and it just appeared? <br /><br />The Kitty Hawk represents transformations of raw materials that were marginally well adapted to the purpose of flight. These transformations take place when the requisite knowledge of how to perform them is present. Human beings created the explanatory knowledge of how to build the Kitty Hawk though the error correcting process of conjecture and refutation. <br /><br />See Popper's <i>The logic of scientific discovery</i><br /><br />Lino: IOW, what are the material antecedents to the Kitty Hawk, and are those material antecedents "explicable"?<br /><br />But this is precisely the problem I'm referring to. You cannot see your authoritative, justificationist conception of human knowledge as an idea that is subject to criticism. As such, you're projecting your conception of knowledge on me as if your problem is somehow my problem. But it's not.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.com