tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post3494233187905193693..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Four Biology Professors at Emory University Wrote This Letter Full of Misrepresentations (And More Than a Hundred Other Faculty Signed On)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19880755969902930752012-05-12T07:56:42.935-07:002012-05-12T07:56:42.935-07:00Gifted Hands - The Story of Ben Carson - video
htt...Gifted Hands - The Story of Ben Carson - video<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAlIA_eGoh4bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52674650639103549752012-05-11T05:26:36.100-07:002012-05-11T05:26:36.100-07:00If God is God, He has an objective way to communic...If God is God, He has an objective way to communicate with us.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11504245321847328332012-05-11T03:25:01.030-07:002012-05-11T03:25:01.030-07:00F/N: It seems that some objectors could do with a ...F/N: It seems that some objectors could do with a 101 primer on founding a worldview, in light of the turtles all the way down, vs turtles in a circle vs the last turtle has to stand somewhere problem. And in particular, they need to understand warrant on first plausibles and in light of comparative difficulties; leading to the conclusions that (i) reason and belief-commitments are inextricably intertwined in the roots of all worldviews, (ii) that theism is a reasonable faith, and (iii) by contrast -- through reduction to self-refuting incoherence (despite its vaunted "scientific" credentials and boasts of being the view of the truly intelligent and rational) -- evolutionary materialism is actually an UNreasonable faith. <a href="http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_bld_wvu" rel="nofollow">This may help</a>, if some are at least willing to learn, and <a href="http://iose-gen.blogspot.com/2010/06/origin-of-mind-man-morals-etc.html#slf_ref" rel="nofollow">this</a> will suffice to show why (iii) is correct -- particularly note Haldane and what that implies by extension. KFGEM of The Kairos Initiativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10622199013789009422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58570908829630569232012-05-11T03:11:30.610-07:002012-05-11T03:11:30.610-07:00VelikovskyS:
It seems that instead of responding ...VelikovskyS:<br /><br />It seems that instead of responding on the merits to my illustration to Thorton on just how evolutionary materialist scientism harms science, science education and society, you have chosen to label and dismiss.<br /><br />That failure to address matters on the merits in a case where manifest abuse of institutional power by the US NSTA ans NAS is on the table speaks volumes.<br /><br />I guess I can take your silence on the actual merits of fact and logic and resort to the rhetoric of polarisation and dismissal as plainly implying absence of a sound case on the merits.<br /><br />Quite similar to the resounding silence in response to my pointing out critical flaws in the letter of the 4 + 496, at the beginning of the thread. <br /><br />BA: Thanks, again, for watching my 6:00.<br /><br />KFGEM of The Kairos Initiativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10622199013789009422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65178621906801742652012-05-11T03:00:35.368-07:002012-05-11T03:00:35.368-07:00Ian, it is impossible to draw a circle around God....Ian, it is impossible to draw a circle around God.<br /><br />Psalm 139:7-14<br />Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.<br /><br />Indescribable - Chris Tomlin - music (Lyrics) <br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpLqAUJcUbo<br /><br /> i.e. “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume to be true but cannot prove "mathematically" to be true.”<br />http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/<br /><br />Incompleteness is a principle that applies to all material entities. Please note that this principle also applies to the continued existence of material particles within space-time. i.e. Any material particle you can draw a circle around cannot explain its own continued existence within space-time. This incompleteness principle for material particles has now been born out on the empirical level:<br /><br />Quantum Mechanics has now been extended by Anton Zeilinger, and team, to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it:<br /><br /> ‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011<br /> Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically.<br /> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm<br /><br />i.e. Material particles cannot explain their own continued existence within space-time without referring to a 'non-local', beyond space and time, cause to explain their continued existence within space-time. <br /><br />Of note, Theists have always maintained that God, who is beyond space and time, sustains and upholds this universe in its continued existence, whereas materialists, ever since the Greeks, held that the 'atom' was the foundation of reality i.e. that the material particle was 'self-sustaining'.<br /><br />Revelation 4:10-11<br />They lay their crowns before the throne and say: "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5515379813363231092012-05-10T21:22:45.750-07:002012-05-10T21:22:45.750-07:00BA77 has implied that Gödel's Incompleteness T...BA77 has implied that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems can be used in argument against the theory of evolution but could they not equally be used as an argument against the Christian idea of God? If BA77's understanding of the theorems is correct then the concept of a necessary god - one that is not contingent on anything outside itself - must be impossible.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15006338859649139862012-05-10T21:03:56.160-07:002012-05-10T21:03:56.160-07:00Cornelius Hunter May 9, 2012 8:16 PM
[...]
No, t...<i><b>Cornelius Hunter</b> May 9, 2012 8:16 PM<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />No, that most definitely is not the way it should be. Science is not "I get to say anything I feel like, no matter how misrepresentative of the science." That is not OK. Legally, of course, the biology professors can say whatever they like. But scientifically, no, they cannot. Blatant misrepresentations are not OK.</i><br /><br />The first point I had intended to make in answer to the above has already been made most effectively by Thorton.<br /><br />The second point is that I'm sure we all agree that blatant misrepresentations of science should be confronted and exposed wherever they are encountered.<br /><br />Thus on one side we have Dr Carson who is acknowledged by the letter to be a world-renowned neurosurgeon, philanthropist and Christian. The first two accomplishments stand to his credit, the third may or may not depending on how he practises his faith. None of them, however, qualify him as an authority on the biological theory of evolution.<br /><br />On the other side, however, we have the authors of the letter who are all members of the Department of Biology. On that basis alone we can assume they are better qualified to comment on Dr Carson's views on evolution than he is to comment on the theory.<br /><br />More to the point, if, as you imply, scientists should speak out against blatant misrepresentations of their work then the authors of that letter not only had a right but a duty to write as they did if they think Dr Carson is misrepresenting the theory of evolution - which is how it most definitely should be.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28499154858117082092012-05-10T20:34:08.794-07:002012-05-10T20:34:08.794-07:00not suprisingnot suprisingvelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54679837132685623432012-05-10T18:14:24.355-07:002012-05-10T18:14:24.355-07:00HMM, seeing that I see nothing of any real substan...HMM, seeing that I see nothing of any real substance in the response you gave, save for personal philosophical prejudice grasping for straws, and seeing no hint of sound reasoning on your part to arrive at a conclusion, save for your wish to 'get lost' in muddle, I'll let what I wrote stand.bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88093415882796310422012-05-10T16:50:01.576-07:002012-05-10T16:50:01.576-07:00BA: Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that ...BA: Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable.<br /><br />This is a perfect example of my earlier comment. <br /><br />BA's entire argument is based on the assumption that God has played a specific role, which we'd need to fill. However, BA does not recognize this as an idea that is subject to criticism. <br /><br />What's ironic is that BA refers to what amounts to a weak version of Popper's problem of induction (Godel's incompleteness theory) which criticizes justificationism. But then he turns around and appeals to justificationism when he quote scripture to justify his claim that God is complete. <br /><br />So, justification is a myth, except when it's not. BA recognizes justificationism as an idea, except when he doesn't.<br /><br />It doesn't get any clearer than this. <br /><br />However, regardless of how difficult he might find this to believe, progress doesn't grind to a halt because be doesn't recognize his particular assumptions as ideas to be criticized.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50334527299157805342012-05-10T16:44:02.392-07:002012-05-10T16:44:02.392-07:00You might have a future as a lawyer yourself ,BA. ...You might have a future as a lawyer yourself ,BA. <br /><br />In our first presuppose, how do we obtain evidence? Would gut feelings outweigh an experiment? In this scenario would proof be required of evidence? This sounds like a return to an earlier version of science.<br /><br />I'll check Godel.<br /><br />Since the cmbr encompasses us,it is not out there, it is everywhere. <br /><br />Proverbs , reading all of the proverbs 8 if the circle is the cmbr, what are the clouds and the fountains?<br /><br />I believe there is evidence that the net energy of the universe is zero, but yes our universe appears to have had a beginning. It would not be accurate to say that nothing outside our universe existed prior to the big bang. <br /><br />We don't know how the universe came about, it may be no more random than gravity. As of now, science can speculate. Only theists claim this knowledge. <br /><br />Again,randomness is not the only explanation.<br /><br />Dr Gordon<br />Premise1 - unknown if true or false<br />Premise 2 - what is a random miracle? If all chances are equal,what determines a miracle?<br />Premise 3- ok,<br />Premise 4- science assume regularities, if premise three is correct,since what is rational to an InfiniteBeing is unknown, no assumption of regularities can be made. This if true, makes science useless.<br /><br />That's it , you need to edit to a manageable length if you wish responsevelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73008843685621795412012-05-10T15:26:52.574-07:002012-05-10T15:26:52.574-07:00Is there an objective way for God to communicate H...Is there an objective way for God to communicate His rules?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23307855341798521402012-05-10T13:53:42.585-07:002012-05-10T13:53:42.585-07:00Moreover, many modern physicists seem to have forg...Moreover, many modern physicists seem to have forgotten the lesson that was clearly born out by Kurt Godel, that you can't have a 'complete' mathematical theory of everything without assuming God as true, for they are vainly trying to unify Quantum Mechanics (QM) and General Relativity (GR), into a mathematical 'theory of everything'. Yet when one allows God into the picture in order to bring 'completeness' to the math, then a very credible, empirically backed, reconciliation between QM and GR emerges:<br /><br />Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics<br />https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US<br /><br />General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin - updated video<br />http://vimeo.com/34084462<br /><br />further notes:<br /><br />The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman<br />Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered by many to be the greatest mathematician of the 20th century)<br />http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians<br /><br />Taking God Out of the Equation - Biblical Worldview - by Ron Tagliapietra - January 1, 2012<br />Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties.<br />1. Validity . . . all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning.<br />2. Consistency . . . no conclusions contradict any other conclusions.<br />3. Completeness . . . all statements made in the system are either true or false.<br />The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem.<br />Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation.<br />Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3).<br />http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation#bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28913816918820793332012-05-10T13:51:30.712-07:002012-05-10T13:51:30.712-07:00Vel, as well please note, from the best scientific...Vel, as well please note, from the best scientific evidence we now have, from multiple intersecting lines of evidence, we have very good reason to believe that the entire universe came instantaneously into origination at the Big Bang. Not only was all mass-energy brought into being, but space-time itself was also instantaneously brought into being at the Big Bang!!!<br /><br />"Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past."<br />(Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970<br />http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html<br /><br />“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” -<br />Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston - January 2012<br />http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/<br /><br />Moreover, atheists assume that 'randomness' is true (outside the circle) for the ultimate explanation for the origination of the universe, whereas Christian Theists presuppose God is true (outside the circle) for the origination of the universe. Yet insisting on randomness as the ultimate explanation for why the universe came into being leads to the epistemological failure of science:<br /><br />The End Of Materialism? - Dr. Bruce Gordon<br />* In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.<br />* In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.<br />* In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.<br />* Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.<br /><br />Moreover, presupposing 'infinite randomness', as atheists do with the multiverse, actually concedes the necessary premise to make the ontological argument, for God's existence, complete;<br /><br />God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig – Page 4<br />The ontological argument. Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue:<br />1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.<br />2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.<br />3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.<br />4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.<br />5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.<br />6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.<br />7. Therefore, God exists.<br />Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God’s existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn’t appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God’s existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.<br />http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=4bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4510796560039364562012-05-10T13:49:33.168-07:002012-05-10T13:49:33.168-07:00Vel, for the sake of argument, let's presuppos...Vel, for the sake of argument, let's presuppose that science is about relentlessly pursuing the truth no matter where it leads, instead of presupposing, like you do, that science is about finding materialistic/naturalistic answers no matter what the evidence says; i.e. methodological naturalism. Moreover, for the sake of argument, let's presuppose that mathematics is the 'purest' avenue for men to pursue the truth in science. With those two presuppositions we find out some interesting things: Kurt Godel has shown, in the number 1 mathematical discovery of the 20th century, that mathematics is incomplete;<br /><br />Kurt Gödel - Incompleteness Theorem - video<br />http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8462821/<br /><br />The incompleteness theorem can, more simply, be stated like this:<br /><br />Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century<br />Excerpt: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says:<br />“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume to be true but cannot prove "mathematically" to be true.”<br />http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/<br /><br />This finding in mathematics is stunning because,,,<br /><br />THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010<br />Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.<br />http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians<br /><br />And please note 'the circle' formed by the Cosmic Background Radiation:<br /><br />Picture of CMBR<br />https://webspace.utexas.edu/reyesr/SolarSystem/cmbr.jpg<br /><br />Proverbs 8:26-27<br />While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42972137511719876732012-05-10T12:37:44.820-07:002012-05-10T12:37:44.820-07:00CH: No, that most definitely is not the way it sho...CH: No, that most definitely is not the way it should be. Science is not "I get to say anything I feel like, no matter how misrepresentative of the science."<br /><br />"The science"?<br /><br />Science is a discipline of problem solving. And, like all problems, it's subject to criticism. That's how we make progress. <br /><br />However, you seem to be just as confused about the role of criticism in regards to the discipline of solving problems as you are in the role of criticism in regards to theories of biological complexity. <br /><br />It's as if you cannot recognize mere empiricism as an idea that should be criticized; just as you cannot recognize creationist, pre-enlightenment conceptions of human knowledge as a idea that would be subject to criticism. <br /><br />The result is that your arguments are parochial, in that they assume science as a discipline cannot make progress at, well, making progress. As such, you assume that no progress has been made and present a straw man of "the science" that is artificially narrow and based on undisclosed presuppositions. Evolution is absurd because pre-enlightenment conceptions of human knowledge are not ideas that are subject to criticism.<br /> <br />However, regardless of how difficult you might find this to believe, science, and progress, doesn't come to a grinding halt because you cannot or refuse to recognize them as such. <br /><br />Of course, if you have a better explanation for how we make progress, then by all means, please enlighten us. <br /><br />Otherwise, do not be surprised that the rest of us will continue to make progress, even though you apparently think it's impossible.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59466942174980573712012-05-10T12:08:06.749-07:002012-05-10T12:08:06.749-07:00velikovskys said
"Even with God subjective m...velikovskys said<br /><br />"Even with God subjective morals are possible"<br /><br />Off course with or without God we can adopt the moral we want.(If there is free will).<br /><br />"unless someone has an objective way to discern God's Rules."<br /><br />The only objective way would be Him telling us the rules.<br /><br /><br />" Whatever they believe is just that,since there is no scientific proof either way for an immaterial realm."<br /><br />So the only possible knoledge is the scientific knoledge, metaphysics do not count as knoledge.<br /><br />"Lately I been wondering if purpose is compatible with free will either. Free will seems to add an element of chance. So even if life has "purpose" it is also at the mercy of chance."<br /><br /><br />I think you have a problem with the definition of "purpose" "chance" and "will".Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57012942197033573512012-05-10T11:04:55.859-07:002012-05-10T11:04:55.859-07:00Ok,a hypothetical ,
Birds have wings,is there any...Ok,a hypothetical ,<br /><br />Birds have wings,is there anything else we can say about them? <br /><br />Does science merely become a descriptive exercise,cataloging observations?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76040930461638763252012-05-10T10:57:36.998-07:002012-05-10T10:57:36.998-07:00It is an interesting interview.
Even with God sub...It is an interesting interview.<br /><br />Even with God subjective morals are possible,unless someone has an objective way to discern God's Rules.<br /><br />Well, even godless atheists have to eat. Whatever they believe is just that,since there is no scientific proof either way for an immaterial realm.Lately I been wondering if purpose is compatible with free will either. Free will seems to add an element of chance. So even if life has "purpose" it is also at the mercy of chance.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11052845111850642132012-05-10T08:20:20.426-07:002012-05-10T08:20:20.426-07:00Watch your language ,BA. Everyone knows what"...Watch your language ,BA. Everyone knows what"blue blazes "is urban lingo for.<br /><br />But since you want to do an actual experiment, go for it. First don't throw any animals off the roof. Start small. Start some lizardish creatures,birds are kinda reptilian. Breed these for about five or six hundred years as a warmup. <br />Now you are ready. Set them loose and monitor them for a few thousand years, you might zap them with cosmic rays or cellphone signals to hurry things along,but remember Godzilla. And see if any develop gliding ability.<br />If not rinse and repeat,remember you have millions of years. <br />Then write a paper,riches will ensuevelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59932943538121942852012-05-10T08:06:45.901-07:002012-05-10T08:06:45.901-07:00velikovskys said
"Just search for Adventist ...velikovskys said<br /><br />"Just search for Adventist Review."<br /><br />No thanks, I just wanted to point that if no God only personal subjective moral or ethics is possible. <br /><br />"Neither of those guy are speaking at the commencement"<br /><br />Yes, you bring the issue of compatibility of science and religion.<br /><br />"and not sure what they believe. I doubt they agree with Carson very much."<br /><br />Well they are making very much money selling his "imagination", and they agree on if no God no free will, no objective moral, no life after dead.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88838009042799072162012-05-10T08:01:47.103-07:002012-05-10T08:01:47.103-07:00How about we let the scientific method speak for i...How about we let the scientific method speak for itself, and lead us where it may, and not impose a-priori that the answer must be a naturalistic/materialistic one???<br /><br />Steps of the Scientific Method<br />http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml<br /><br />,,Or is relentlessly pursuing the truth wherever it may lead out of the domain of the scientific method since truth itself is not reducible to material/natural processes??? Methodological Naturalism is simply ludicrous to impose a-priori on the scientific method, especially in these scientific questions of origins!!<br /><br />Predictions of Materialism compared to Predictions of Theism within the scientific method:<br />http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24072328089831764762012-05-10T07:50:32.318-07:002012-05-10T07:50:32.318-07:00Sorry to upset you,BA. I take it he is not a lawye...Sorry to upset you,BA. I take it he is not a lawyer,then? Shame to waste the talent especially if those were the short versions of his thoughts.<br /><br />I take it he believes the Christian is a besieged soul in our secular atheist society. Only able to control two and a half out of three branches of our government. Persecuted by a science which requires actual science. And something about Athens. <br /><br />Oh yes ,almost forgot,he fact that biologists didn't write a polite letter about something that happened 14 yrs before in a different city, expressing their polite disagreement,therefore forfeiting their right to disagree in perpetuity.<br /><br />I am interested in your thought how the scientific method should be formulated. Unfortunately your links are difficult to access on my present device,would you explain the gist of your argument?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29378723619033281172012-05-10T06:56:52.042-07:002012-05-10T06:56:52.042-07:00vel, since you are so upset that kairos would take...vel, since you are so upset that kairos would take a few short posts to set the record straight on atheists self-serving redefinition of the scientific method, a method which can't even be reduced to 'natural' processes in the first place, to conclude answers that are only 'naturalistic' and therefore atheistic, why aren't you equally upset at the many literature bluffs of Darwinists? At least what Kairos writes is true, whereas the tons written by Darwinists is nothing but unsubstantiated fluff! <br /><br />"A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception": Immunologist Donald Ewert on Dover Trial - audio<br />http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-20T15_01_03-08_00<br /><br />The deception (literature bluff), from neo-Darwinists at Dover, did not stop with immunology;<br /><br />The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information – Casey Luskin – March 2010<br />http://www.discovery.org/a/14251<br /><br />Anybody who has debated Darwinists on the internet has probably been 'bombed' by a TalkOrigins FAQ. This podcast reveals the bankruptcy of the actual evidence behind these FAQs and reveals that they are nothing more than literature bluffs;<br /><br />Talk Origins Speciation FAQ, pt. 2: Lack of Evidence for Big Claims - Casey Luskin - February 2012<br />http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-02-15T14_09_41-08_00 <br /><br />Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines<br />http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/<br /><br /> “The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.”<br /> David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theologybornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62115055138207939202012-05-10T06:21:38.382-07:002012-05-10T06:21:38.382-07:00If Evolutionary theory isn't spontaneous, then...If Evolutionary theory isn't spontaneous, then why in blue blazes can't we test for the evolution of flight by the method Dawkins maintains that it evolved, by 'selecting' survivors of dropping from height? Or is hypocrisy and lying the only test that I get positive results for in evolutionary theory?bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.com