tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post5527987364144338182..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Without Evolution, Life Itself Would Be ImpossibleUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74592639409797548802016-05-04T01:22:28.389-07:002016-05-04T01:22:28.389-07:00This information is very useful... thanks for shar...This information is very useful... thanks for sharing......<br /><a href="http://www.vinhomes.in/vinhomess/" rel="nofollow">low budget flats for sale in Chennai</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16018742027336678977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37951649709075309512014-09-28T13:00:06.273-07:002014-09-28T13:00:06.273-07:00Lance Peckinpah: What I am finding more and more i...<b>Lance Peckinpah</b>: <i>What I am finding more and more is that these philosophical takes on evolution are not so much from the Biologists themselves </i><br /><br />Let's see if we can further the discussion another way. What do you mean by "philosophical take"? And can you justify your generalization? <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75817188376912776152014-09-28T11:45:42.732-07:002014-09-28T11:45:42.732-07:00Lance Peckinpah: Yes i agree it was silly and juve...<b>Lance Peckinpah</b>: <i>Yes i agree it was silly and juvenile </i><br /><br />Angels pushing planets on celestial spheres is a historical example, not something we made up. Because they didn't have a physical explanation, and because the movements were very complicated, they assumed some intelligence was directly involved. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70004530499598027532014-09-28T11:42:00.770-07:002014-09-28T11:42:00.770-07:00Lance Peckinpah: Ouch
Again, we are responding d...<b>Lance Peckinpah</b>: <i>Ouch </i><br /><br />Again, we are responding directly to your comment that evolution is essentially a philosophical take, not one taken by working biologists. Referring to journals is entirely appropriate. <br /><br />Neither point did you bother to rebut. <br /><br /><b>Lance Peckinpah</b>: <i>just how you believe your god Jesus started the entire evolutionary experience </i><br /><br />We never made such a claim. Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4669614943372673372014-09-28T11:29:19.564-07:002014-09-28T11:29:19.564-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16573092776407010052014-09-28T10:55:49.111-07:002014-09-28T10:55:49.111-07:00Darel Rex Finley,
"Hmm.. The idea of intelli...Darel Rex Finley,<br /><br />"Hmm.. The idea of intelligent entities continuously pushing the planets around strikes us as awkward and silly, because why wouldn't they just make technology to do it automatically?"<br /><br />Yes i agree it was silly and juvenile, but not surprising as I seem to remember this sort of strategy and unwillingness on his part in the Yahoo Discussion forums to deal with any reality there. His response to you there was characteristic of his behavior for over a decade now and was meant as the modern day intellectual put down as it was originally purposed and intended. For example, here is another example which never comes close to addressing what I wrote:<br /><br />"The world is flat. The celestial spheres make music as they turn. The Earth is only as old as human memory."<br /><br />Zach, <br /><br />"Um, you might want to actually read a scientific journal or two. A quick search of the literature finds thousands of articles on evolution in the journals Genetics, Nature, or Science. There are entire journals just on Evolution. Indeed, there are entire journals just on Cladistics"<br /><br />Ouch, I'm sensing that same hostility as previous in experiences of attempting to have a serious discussion in this world where we reside. Your answer doesn't even remotely come close to what I said regarding the majority of Biologists, but I understand the purpose was never intended to address what I wrote. The closest biologists that I work with come to Darwinism is merely giving evolution honorary credit for some small real or imagined change. I have never experienced them tripping off into eastern religious philosophy in attempts at making events real which most educated people cannot observe in real life, other than the Seer or Mystic from the past. Now if I recall correctly, in that yahoo site, we all were identified by our email handles, your's was <br /><br />lcroteau@yahoo.com - which I later came to realize was Lee Croteau and you eventually morphed over to Zachriel, of which your dot come website also use to contain that same name [ lcroteau ] as registered owner till you apparently sometime back went anonymous registration. <br /><br />That's not important. What is important and you have yet to ever address this important back then to the present is just how you believe your god Jesus started the entire evolutionary experience. Would it be too much to request that now ? Don't be intimidated, you're among other religious folk here, both atheist and conventional religious. We're all curious now.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03846750950515109492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26490007222662191142014-09-28T08:01:44.003-07:002014-09-28T08:01:44.003-07:00Lance Peckinpah: Well of course this is reasonable...<b>Lance Peckinpah</b>: <i>Well of course this is reasonable. This is how we humans make perfect logical sense of the natural world and more so by making practical applications in everyday life in the real world. </i><br /><br />Science has far outstripped common intuition. The world is flat. The celestial spheres make music as they turn. The Earth is only as old as human memory. <br /><br /><b>Lance Peckinpah</b>: <i>What I am finding more and more is that these philosophical takes on evolution are not so much from the Biologists themselves </i><br /><br />Um, you might want to actually read a scientific journal or two. A quick search of the literature finds thousands of articles on evolution in the journals Genetics, Nature, or Science. There are entire journals just on Evolution. Indeed, there are entire journals just on Cladistics. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57546491656178822222014-09-28T07:21:41.647-07:002014-09-28T07:21:41.647-07:00Darel Rex Finley,
"However, in the meantime,...Darel Rex Finley,<br /><br />"However, in the meantime, I think it perfectly reasonable to compare what we see in biology to the products of human design"<br /><br />Well of course this is reasonable. This is how we humans make perfect logical sense of the natural world and more so by making practical applications in everyday life in the real world. What I am finding more and more is that these philosophical takes on evolution are not so much from the Biologists themselves, but these regular armchair philosophers who seem to incorporate many of the eastern religious concepts into their explanations or take on life. It's interesting to say the least because while they are very down on anything biblical or Christian, they are fully opened to Hinduism and Buddhism which appear to receive a free passing grade.<br /><br />Again, without such comparison to human creativity and technological innovation, there are no reasons to make practical application with what we observe in Nature. I am finding many of their arguments actually harming Nature itself which becomes evident in the mismanagement of the natural world.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03846750950515109492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39430931135351352682014-09-28T07:11:09.934-07:002014-09-28T07:11:09.934-07:00Zach,
"Just to be clear, we're not an at...Zach,<br /><br />"Just to be clear, we're not an atheist."<br /><br />Yes I'm well aware of that. I believe I stated your theistic evolutionary stance, but I don't remember you explaining how your god Jesus got the evolutionary ball rolling back in those older early 2000s Yahoo or Google discussion groups. It's been so long I've forgotten.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03846750950515109492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63617878246504677102014-09-28T06:50:10.218-07:002014-09-28T06:50:10.218-07:00Lance Peckinpah: At least unlike other atheists......<b>Lance Peckinpah</b>: <i>At least unlike other atheists... </i><br /><br />Just to be clear, we're not an atheist. <br /><br /><b>Lance Peckinpah</b>: <i>He appears motivated by his hatred ... </i><br /><br />Nor do we harbor hatred. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84004892878737061752014-09-28T06:38:57.594-07:002014-09-28T06:38:57.594-07:00Darel Rex Finley,
"Angels? Handwaving? Perh...Darel Rex Finley, <br /><br />"Angels? Handwaving? Perhaps we have reached the limit of our ability to argue productively. It was fun; over and out."<br /><br />Well, I wouldn't take it personal. At least unlike other atheists, he generally doesn't use outright vulgar or derogatory name calling when he is backed into a corner or has nothing of value to add to the conversation as you say. His tactic appears to be intellectual game playing from what I've been told by others. Cornelius blog and a few websites are simply having entertainment value and nothing more. He appears motivated by his hatred of anything right-wing or conservative, which makes no matter for me anyway since I don't involve myself in such squabbles. In one discussion group site I believe someone mentioned he was a Theistic Evolutionist, but I've never understood that position. Anyway it was a long time back and doesn't matter now. Like you said, just move on.<br />.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03846750950515109492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30151760590044883632014-09-28T06:27:46.706-07:002014-09-28T06:27:46.706-07:00Darel Rex Finley: The idea of intelligent entities...<b>Darel Rex Finley</b>: <i>The idea of intelligent entities continuously pushing the planets around strikes us as awkward and silly, because why wouldn't they just make technology to do it automatically? </i><br /><br />Because the technological model didn't exist at the time angels were thought to push planets on celestial spheres. Someone had to turn the cranks. <br />http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Angelic_movers.jpg<br /><br /><b>Darel Rex Finley</b>: <i>But back before Newton, there was a lot more manual tedium in life, and so this idea may have seemed reasonable then. </i><br /><br />The complex movements would obviously require intelligence. Try to get the conjunctions or retrogressions to occur in sync with victories in war. It's not as easy as it seems! <br /><br /><b>Darel Rex Finley</b>: <i>What this suggests to me is that inference-to-the-best explanation is indeed weak, and can change over time as human experience changes. </i><br /><br />For it to have scientific validity, there has to be an explicit hypothesis with specific and distinguishing empirical implications. <br /><br /><b>Darel Rex Finley</b>: <i>1. If there exist multiple lines of strong evidence that mutation-selection evolution can't/didn't produce a great deal of what we see in biology, </i><br /><br />False. <br /><br /><b>Darel Rex Finley</b>: <i>2. If there exists strong mathematical reason to think that certain kinds of information cannot be generated by iteration of simple laws, then </i><br /><br />False. <br /><br /><b>Darel Rex Finley</b>: <i>3. Whatever did produce these biological adaptations must in some way be equivalent to human (or higher) intelligence.</i><br /><br />Where did that come from? You kinda just jumped there. <br /><br /><b>Darel Rex Finley</b>: <i>But it might be very difficult for us to know very much about such intelligence.</i><br /><br />A good scientific theory will generate new hypotheses as a guide to future research. A great theory will generate whole new fields of study. ID is scientifically sterile. It leads to no new insights, no new hypotheses, no new research. It's a scientific dead-end, so unlike the Theory of Evolution, which has spawned new research in everything from the content of rocks to the structure of molecules. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18122399968278262572014-09-28T06:16:34.947-07:002014-09-28T06:16:34.947-07:00Hmm.. The idea of intelligent entities continuousl...Hmm.. The idea of intelligent entities continuously pushing the planets around strikes us as awkward and silly, because why wouldn't they just make technology to do it automatically? But back before Newton, there was a lot more manual tedium in life, and so this idea may have seemed reasonable then.<br /><br />What this suggests to me is that inference-to-the-best explanation is indeed weak, and can change over time as human experience changes. Just as the idea of manually designing a new device (e.g. the iPhone) seems perfectly reasonable to us now, might it seem absurdly cumbersome to humans of the far future, who will then see some much more interesting inference than do IDists today?<br /><br />Perhaps ID is at its best when defined very carefully, as I shall attempt here:<br /><br />1. If there exist multiple lines of strong evidence that mutation-selection evolution can't/didn't produce a great deal of what we see in biology, and<br /><br />2. If there exists strong mathematical reason to think that certain kinds of information cannot be generated by iteration of simple laws, then <br /><br />3. Whatever did produce these biological adaptations must in some way be <i>equivalent</i> to human (or higher) intelligence.<br /><br />But it might be very difficult for us to know very much about such intelligence. Small improvements in our understanding may come very slowly, over thousands of years. (Sigh.)<br /><br />However, in the meantime, I think it perfectly reasonable to compare what we see in biology to the products of human design, when attempting to assess the plausibility of the general ID concept, and eminently <i>unreasonable</i> to compare biology to Sunday School stories, then hand Darwin a victory by default.Darel Rex Finleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02497837565842454125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15553033297757518812014-09-28T05:16:06.624-07:002014-09-28T05:16:06.624-07:00Darel Rex Finley: Angels?
Sure, that was the inc...<b>Darel Rex Finley</b>: <i>Angels? </i><br /><br />Sure, that was the incarnation of the stopgap explanation when there was no sufficient physical explanation of planetary motions. <br /><br /><b>Cornelius Hunter</b>: <i>You see it always comes back to religion for evolutionists.</i><br /><br />Or in the current incarnation, "Just because gravity doesn't account for planetary motions doesn't mean an unspecified agent does." So, no Darel Rex Finley, an unspecified agent is not the default explanation when we can't provide a physical explanation. To make that claim requires independent evidence, which means a clearly articulated hypothesis with specific and distinguishing entailments. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1123337600175803542014-09-27T20:43:35.582-07:002014-09-27T20:43:35.582-07:00I didn't see a single religious reference in t...I didn't see a single religious reference in that comment. How do <i>you</i> define religion?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35731584186772246052014-09-27T19:39:35.226-07:002014-09-27T19:39:35.226-07:00Cognosium, you whole post is a religious statement...Cognosium, you whole post is a religious statement of faith.Glenn Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05974895763468680337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4864055375296840162014-09-27T19:37:47.405-07:002014-09-27T19:37:47.405-07:00Darel, thank you for your comments. Good and thou...Darel, thank you for your comments. Good and thoughtful points. I hope you post here again. <br /> May I suggest that arguing with Z. and the rest is a huge waste of time. It's like wrestling with a pig: you can wrestle all day and the pig will never leave its sty. Moreover, the pig likes wallowing in the mud and likes it even more if you will wallow there with it.Glenn Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05974895763468680337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30288682388750929212014-09-27T16:14:19.274-07:002014-09-27T16:14:19.274-07:00Um, no. Just because gravity doesn't account f...<i>Um, no. Just because gravity doesn't account for planetary motions doesn't mean angels do.</i><br /><br />You see it always comes back to religion for evolutionists.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29578580126407055632014-09-27T15:26:42.764-07:002014-09-27T15:26:42.764-07:00Angels? Handwaving? Perhaps we have reached the li...Angels? Handwaving? Perhaps we have reached the limit of our ability to argue productively. It was fun; over and out.Darel Rex Finleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02497837565842454125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79623154603850459202014-09-27T14:57:08.039-07:002014-09-27T14:57:08.039-07:00Darel Rex Finley: In science, naysaying can be mig...<b>Darel Rex Finley</b>: <i>In science, naysaying can be mighty important. </i><br /><br />Yes, but it takes more than handwaving. <br /><br /><b>Darel Rex Finley</b>: <i>And if the naysayers are correct, then that leaves ID as the inference to the best explanation.</i><br /><br />Um, no. Just because gravity doesn't account for planetary motions doesn't mean angels do. It takes a specific testable hypothesis. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82077150670587598412014-09-27T14:25:53.290-07:002014-09-27T14:25:53.290-07:00You're welcome! :)You're welcome! :)Darel Rex Finleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02497837565842454125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85300706133478140342014-09-27T14:24:25.054-07:002014-09-27T14:24:25.054-07:00In science, naysaying can be mighty important. And...In science, naysaying can be mighty important. And if the naysayers are correct, then that leaves ID as the inference to the best explanation. As satisfying as meeting the designers? No, I admit. But perhaps our most scientific option with the information available to us.Darel Rex Finleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02497837565842454125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55485691999622470982014-09-27T13:38:14.405-07:002014-09-27T13:38:14.405-07:00So we should go there for an even more casual trea...So we should go there for an even more casual treatment? Take my money now!Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91404542471998469442014-09-27T13:37:46.206-07:002014-09-27T13:37:46.206-07:00So we should go there for an even more casual trea...So we should go there for an even more casual treatment? Take my money now!Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73325807461387220662014-09-27T13:34:53.067-07:002014-09-27T13:34:53.067-07:00Darel Rex Finley: I guess if the Bible says it, it...<b>Darel Rex Finley</b>: <i>I guess if the Bible says it, it must be so. </i><br /><br />At least the Bible posits artisan and art, which is something ID refuses to even attempt. <br /><br /><b>Darel Rex Finley</b>: <i>I consider the arguments against evolutionary theory to be the strongest thing about ID, and certainly the most scientific. </i><br /><br />Then it's not ID, but just naysaying evolution. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.com