tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4458512275094245431..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: The Pew Forum Poll Reveals More IgnoranceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43223104534473218962014-01-04T10:31:39.375-08:002014-01-04T10:31:39.375-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-280598683578786612014-01-04T07:07:01.365-08:002014-01-04T07:07:01.365-08:00Scott, your confusion is utter. By your view, you ...Scott, your confusion is utter. By your view, you can't even know there IS a problem, much less whether one has been solved!!! MIND-BOGGLING!!!Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41908419414792203412014-01-04T07:05:34.889-08:002014-01-04T07:05:34.889-08:00You're missing the point, V. To even SAY there...You're missing the point, V. To even SAY there is warranted belief is to say that the instantiation (which is an event) of warranted belief is distinguishable from the instantiation of non-warranted belief. IOW, once you distinguish events/beliefs thus, it is moronic to say that explaining the distinguishable property of the events/beliefs isn't necessary to account for the non-arbitrariness of the distinction. <br /><br />On the other hand, if you're good with saying all belief is blind/a-plausible, then how do you demarcate science in a way that indicates science has any knowable relationship to utility of any kind? Well, you can't, of course. That's the point. You simply can't be taken seriously by sane people.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87009232223212121352014-01-02T07:32:41.421-08:002014-01-02T07:32:41.421-08:00Jeff,
Big "d" ID explains the existence ...Jeff,<br /><b>Big "d" ID explains the existence of positive evidence and warranted belief. Only THEN can it serve as an explanation of more specific inferred events.</b><br /><br />Only with assumed knowledge of the big D. Without objective knowledge of the big D, your warranted beliefs rest on an assumption. Much as science rests on the assumptions. velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16134220748760817362014-01-02T07:00:59.791-08:002014-01-02T07:00:59.791-08:00Dr,
No-one honestly thinks God created both Poodle...Dr,<br /><b>No-one honestly thinks God created both Poodles and Saint Bernards as-is since the beginning of time - 33% of respondents refused to bow to the ridiculous wording of the poll to make it look like they believe in evolution. It's a stupid, meaningless number.</b><br /><br />Your second option seems very close to the answer that 33% answered yes to. After all both are still dogs, no evolution necessary. It seems to me someone with a literal belief in Bible could easily believe # 2. <br /><br />Finally isn't it more probable that it you disagree with the wording of a question you give no opinion rather than an opinion which you don't believe?<br />velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36050168931670784182014-01-01T10:23:07.832-08:002014-01-01T10:23:07.832-08:00Jeff: One can only marvel at the insanity.
I'...Jeff: One can only marvel at the insanity.<br /><br />I'll ask again, what problem does foundationaism actually solve? Please be specific. <br /><br />In the absence of actually solving a problem, what good is foundationism? Why should I even bother? <br /><br />Clinging to foundationism in the absence of such a solution because you can't imagine knowing anything without it is incredulity. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49277367890873577802014-01-01T05:42:59.293-08:002014-01-01T05:42:59.293-08:00CH: Friedman begins with this quote from our taxpa...CH: Friedman begins with this quote from our taxpayer funded Public Broadcasting Service (PBS): “The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago.”<br /><br />J: One can only marvel at the insanity. Big "d" ID has withstood the test of time as well by THAT pathetically low bar. But big "d" ID isn't a designer of the gaps approach as is the naturalism of the gaps approach for Darwinists. Big "d" ID explains the existence of positive evidence and warranted belief. Only THEN can it serve as an explanation of more specific inferred events. Naturalism of the gaps, on the other hand, explains nothing plausibly since it can't even explain the existence of positive evidence or warranted belief.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86293805431762320882013-12-31T18:54:54.474-08:002013-12-31T18:54:54.474-08:00"It's difficult to imagine who could beli..."It's difficult to imagine who could believe such things when faced with the mountain of evidence supporting evolution."<br /><br />The argument from incredulity?!<br /><br />(from Rational Wiki)<br /><br />The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.<br /><br />The general form of the argument is as follows.<br /><br />Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.<br /><br />Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.<br /><br />Conclusion: Not-P. Ron Van Wegenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181898839992597105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47280955433965169382013-12-31T18:53:05.047-08:002013-12-31T18:53:05.047-08:00I wonder what is "wacky" about these obs...I wonder what is "wacky" about these observations?<br /><br />1. <i>The quality and scope of published documentation and verification of morphological features suggests there is very little in morphology to support a unique common ancestor for humans and chimpanzees. A close relationship between humans and African apes is currently supported by only eight unproblematic characters. The orangutan relationship is supported by about 28 well-supported characters, and it is also corroborated by the presence of orangutan-related features in early hominids. The uniquely shared morphology of humans and orangutans raises doubts about the almost universal belief that DNA sequence similarities necessarily demonstrate a closer evolutionary relationship between humans and chimpanzees.</i><br /><br />2. <i>our morphology and physiology have very little, if anything, uniquely in common with chimpanzees to corroborate a unique common ancestor. Most of the characters we do share with chimpanzees also occur in other primates, and in sexual biology and reproduction we could hardly be more different.</i><br /><br />3. <i>revisiting the red ape is a useful reminder that not everything to do with morphology can be attributed to the closeness of a genetic relationship. We can evolve likenesses even to our more distant cousins if both sets of ancestors faced similar problems.</i>Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50444278911540046482013-12-31T16:51:40.212-08:002013-12-31T16:51:40.212-08:00So you have found a couple of contrarians who thin...So you have found a couple of contrarians who think orangutans are closer to humans than chimps. Other anthropologists don't seem impressed and dismiss their story as "wacky." <br /><br />Oh well.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76720316241021843292013-12-31T15:50:00.040-08:002013-12-31T15:50:00.040-08:00Siting by a fire, good whiskey and rumor has it a ...Siting by a fire, good whiskey and rumor has it a prime rib dinner. .... Planning on making stuffed grape leaves tomorrow while I watch football , heaven. Have a good safe evening , and you as well Dr Hunter.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72363119131465427482013-12-31T14:48:21.914-08:002013-12-31T14:48:21.914-08:00Velik
nice to see you are commenting again.
*Int...Velik<br /><br />nice to see you are commenting again.<br /><br />*Interesting theory, any data?*<br /><br />Nada, except the SNL skit.<br />:)<br /><br />Unscientific barometer would be that Radio Shack hardly sells any electronic components. My local astronomy shop closed. People sit in front of monitors watching Twitter feeds of what JayZ has to say.<br /><br />Anyway, have a drink to welcome a New Year tonight!Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74507185658234792712013-12-31T11:37:07.500-08:002013-12-31T11:37:07.500-08:00Here's the "vague and less meaningful&quo...Here's the "vague and less meaningful" false dichotomy - there are (at least) 3 possible beliefs about how life has changed:<br />1) Evolutionist: Humans and other living things have evolved over billions of years via common descent from a simple initial life form.<br />2) Creationist: Humans and other livings things were created thousands of years ago, and have since then evolved over time within the limits of genetic variation of the original created kind.<br />3) Noone in particular: Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.<br /><br />No-one honestly thinks God created both Poodles and Saint Bernards as-is since the beginning of time - 33% of respondents refused to bow to the ridiculous wording of the poll to make it look like they believe in evolution. It's a stupid, meaningless number.drc466https://www.blogger.com/profile/12703572769688525659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53371507752736553532013-12-31T11:13:33.136-08:002013-12-31T11:13:33.136-08:00Eugen,
Society architects succeeded but new non be...Eugen,<br /><b>Society architects succeeded but new non believers are most likely no-clue-dumb consumers.</b><br /><br />Interesting theory, any data? <br /><br />Here is some, the "However, a new survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted jointly with the PBS television program Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, finds that many of the country’s 46 million unaffiliated adults are religious or spiritual in some way. Two-thirds of them say they believe in God (68%). More than half say they often feel a deep connection with nature and the earth (58%), while more than a third classify themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious” (37%), and one-in-five (21%) say they pray every day. In addition, most religiously unaffiliated Americans think that churches and other religious institutions benefit society by strengthening community bonds and aiding the poor.<br /><br />With few exceptions, though, the unaffiliated say they are not looking for a religion that would be right for them. Overwhelmingly, they think that religious organizations are too concerned with money and power, too focused on rules and too involved in politics."<br /><br />Would you like to know which states have the highest church attendance and how it correlates with academic achievement? velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71239543485405551252013-12-31T08:32:24.001-08:002013-12-31T08:32:24.001-08:00Link now inserted.Link now inserted.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25860648677970048962013-12-31T07:04:42.511-08:002013-12-31T07:04:42.511-08:00Harris poll reports absolute certainty that there ...Harris poll reports absolute certainty that there is a God down vs. 10 years ago. Society architects succeeded but new non believers are most likely no-clue-dumb consumers. I imagine them as <a href="http://screen.yahoo.com/two-holes-live-nativity-scene-000000558.html" rel="nofollow">two a-holes in nativity scene</a><br /><br /><br />They are worried about their image on Facebook and follow what some dumb pop singer has to say on Twitter. They don't have a clue about science, religion, evolution, history...etc They sit at the computer on Christmas day waiting for online Boxing day sales to start at 8PM.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81803955448393816242013-12-31T05:54:51.611-08:002013-12-31T05:54:51.611-08:00Dr Hunter,
the Pew Forum poll presents participan...Dr Hunter, <br /><b>the Pew Forum poll presents participants with the vague and less meaningful choice between “humans and other living things have evolved over time” versus “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.”</b><br /><br />Seems pretty straight forward to me, living things change thru some undefined process, teleological or not, and living things have the same form for all time. <br /><br /><b> Most creationists would have no problem with the first choice </b><br /><br />Only if 66% of Americans were " creationists", since 47% of Americans believe life arose spontaneously, according to your definition , your math seems a bit off. <br /><br /><b>and not surprisingly 7% of the people gave up on the false dichotomy.</b><br /><br />But not necessarily because they believed it to be a false dichotomy. That would be an unfounded assumption, we cannot know why they choose not to offer an opinion. velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74204402895125651542013-12-31T05:12:50.939-08:002013-12-31T05:12:50.939-08:00Hunter: For instance, humans are more similar to t...Hunter: <i>For instance, humans are more similar to the orangutan than to the chimpanzee</i> <br /><br />Go on, please. oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.com