tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post6561172789536868996..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Neil deGrasse Tyson: No engineer would design that, at all. Ever!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger182125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3813096191111497932016-02-12T08:47:40.626-08:002016-02-12T08:47:40.626-08:00Satan you nitwit. We are given free choice who to ...Satan you nitwit. We are given free choice who to serve..Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03436011580213142095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44786253811361951872015-05-01T08:16:23.476-07:002015-05-01T08:16:23.476-07:00It is you that have developed the new folk lore......It is you that have developed the new folk lore.... just because you can't comprehend reasons why is a very shallow argument indeed. And as far as stuff out in space that is killer - how often has Man had to worry about such things? The argument that kills me is the Sun is inefficient!!! FOR WHOM is it inefficient... The heavens declare the glory of God. Not the heavens declare doom and gloom - it is you that revive this pagan religion.tommyboy1965https://www.blogger.com/profile/09437110351854752814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78839915352149277442015-05-01T08:11:07.476-07:002015-05-01T08:11:07.476-07:00Ever notice how evolutionary thinkers mock the cre...Ever notice how evolutionary thinkers mock the creation. JUNK DNA, Degenerate DNA (all now found to have incredible purpose no matter how they try and play it down), They constantly take an aggressive stance against good design. For them to sit back in a comfortable chair and ridicule how things are designed, they show their ignorance and small-mindedness. How arrogant to make such claims, that their was no creator because they don't like it - its Darwinism of the Gaps, yeah there is design, but its no perfect - and after time we find out it is the way it is for a purpose beyond our puny little minds to fathom. I cringe at how these high priest of scientism are rubbing their ugly ideas about nature and the magnificence of it all on our young people. It is said that he will bring them strong delusion, and he sure has.. Even their so-called refutations are angry and just as passionate as a southern Baptist preacher on a Sunday morning - yet they don't get it.. MIND is primary, the mind of God, and for us, made in his image, not made GOD, to sit back and trash all the gifts we have been given, is the reason we see all the pain and suffering - its our fault, not GOD's!!!! How many miracles do you need? How many wonders and beautiful things, and optimized systems does it require to satisfy these folks - they would say that to have a God would mean we were robots, with no free will, that live forever, that know no suffering - they simply can't grasp that their are reasons beyond understanding - they won't admit it because their very relevance is at stake. If you don't want GOD you better have a multiverse - the choice is purely philosophical, So Neil DT (such a foolish man) can dream of unicorns and rivers that flow with chocolate, and I will believe in a creator beyond time and space that has a reason for everything he does, and yet lets us make our own decisions..... how hard is that to accept?tommyboy1965https://www.blogger.com/profile/09437110351854752814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42379932095236163862014-11-03T17:13:34.433-08:002014-11-03T17:13:34.433-08:00"Evolutionist Neil deGrasse Tyson has pointed..."Evolutionist Neil deGrasse Tyson has pointed out that ... the universe, and most of the things in it would never have been designed." The very statement assumes that they were. Most argue that the universe and its contents are evidence against a benevolent god. OK, then, live with a malevolent one, if you prefer. In fact, that is what the philosophical materialist assumes in attributing godlike foresight to nature in the self-production of a universe that works.<br /><br />Good luck with that!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02889632337470646214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2510098195514235732014-11-02T18:49:55.613-08:002014-11-02T18:49:55.613-08:00God created humans "out of love" to fulf...God created humans "out of love" to fulfill "His eternal plan" that we live our lives "with all our heart, soul and strength". At its core, it can only be concluded, God's creation has moral purpose.<br /><br />It begs the question, therefore, what MORAL PURPOSE meteors serve by pulverizing themselves on distant moons. What MORAL PURPOSE do pulsars, gravity and the speed of light serve? And what, therefore, of our bodies, made in his image? Why does a moral entity require nutrition? What MORAL PURPOSE do mucus, body odor and flatulence serve? What MORAL PURPOSE does the diversity in our flora and fauna serve? Why fish we cannot eat or see or plants that are toxic only to some of us?<br /><br />Why Australian flora and fauna? Does that SEEM like a god's creation, or something more like evolution in isolation?<br /><br />Ah, so much bullshit. So many incoherent rationalizations of folklore.Emlynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05998505131014678669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-92189392147396342652014-02-20T14:49:36.775-08:002014-02-20T14:49:36.775-08:00This guy is one of the most irrational clowns I ha...This guy is one of the most irrational clowns I have ever heard.<br /><br />Its simply astonishing how bad his arguments are..its like the same tripe a heroin addict or pron mogul would use.<br /><br />How does a human being with high intelligence allow himself to become this confused?<br /><br />Premise<br />1 Tyson would create a universe where people could breathe in space<br />2 You cant breathe in space<br />Conclusion<br />3 Tyson is Not God<br /><br />You can apply this childish reasoning to everything he said...Tyson is not God...<br /><br />This is what he uses to back up his belief? John Burgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06021462296956618398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20554123318296800732012-02-04T22:22:51.481-08:002012-02-04T22:22:51.481-08:00laugh out loud: Things like the recursive laryngia...laugh out loud: Things like the recursive laryngial nerve are sited as examples of bad design because no good designer would do it that way, so it looks like the criterion is human design. <br /><br />Regardless if this is true or not, I'm criticizing the suggestion that human beings should be the criteria for "very good design"<br /><br />Merely pointing to someone who assumes human designers are the criteria is not the same as explaining why human designer should be should be the criteria. <br /><br />Here's a hint. Your response should include an explanation as to the origin of the knowledge human beings use to design things, as the accuracy of this knowledge would have an impact on the resulting designs.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73734411613960508562012-02-03T12:34:41.412-08:002012-02-03T12:34:41.412-08:00Then what is the point? If you have to figure out ...Then what is the point? If you have to figure out if someone is an exemption then the whole advantage of stereotyping (judging the whole of a person from one fact.) is lost.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24909314961893272632012-02-02T20:46:39.541-08:002012-02-02T20:46:39.541-08:00Things like the recursive laryngial nerve are site...Things like the recursive laryngial nerve are sited as examples of bad design because no good designer would do it that way, so it looks like the criterion is human design.laugh out loudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10625004850193376526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78598658746122457132012-02-02T15:43:43.927-08:002012-02-02T15:43:43.927-08:00T. Cook
Here's the happy ending; two year...<i>T. Cook<br /><br /> Here's the happy ending; two years later Lakshmi Tatma is walking to school. In all seriousness, it was an acceptance of naturalism which led to the surgery which helped this girl. By looking for the mechanisms (i.e. causal, naturalistic) of reality we have cured sicknesses and enabled life giving technologies. We have to take responsibility for our own collective well being. Prayer is ineffective.</i><br /><br />That's great to hear.<br /><br />Now we need our self-appointed board conscience Smith here to start screaming about how the <i>DailyMail</i> is exploiting children just to sell more newspapers.<br /><br />Wouldn't want to seem like just another mouthy hypocrite, would you Smith?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62477565104395214722012-02-02T15:35:50.873-08:002012-02-02T15:35:50.873-08:00Smith
Clearly, my impression (and that of oth...<i>Smith<br /><br /> Clearly, my impression (and that of others) is that children should not have been exploited. You, though, feel that exploiting children is ok.</i><br /><br />No children were exploited anywhere. But keep up the lying and trolling if it makes you feel better about yourself.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60868293868388555772012-02-02T15:01:46.817-08:002012-02-02T15:01:46.817-08:00Again, Thorton, nobody was arguing your attempt to...Again, Thorton, nobody was arguing your attempt to make a point. They were simply suggesting how it could have been done in a different manner and to greater effect. <br /><br />Clearly, my impression (and that of others) is that children should not have been exploited. You, though, feel that exploiting children is ok. You then clarified your feelings even more by implying that someone who may disagree with you on certain methods is a “holier-than-though troll.” <br /><br />That seems a bit (to quote Mr. Hitchens) “capricious,” and, to me, unstable.<br /><br />And thank you T. Cook for the link to the happy ending. That was nice to see.Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00216381429665486830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65670327129756774822012-02-02T13:46:45.735-08:002012-02-02T13:46:45.735-08:00Nat,
Why don't you start out by explaining w...Nat, <br /><br />Why don't you start out by explaining why human designs ought to be the criteria for determining if something is a "very good design"?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64804370880933357602012-02-02T13:45:03.825-08:002012-02-02T13:45:03.825-08:00Correction: Again, we do not universally observe r...Correction: Again, we do not universally observe really good designs. Nor have you provided an explanation as to why human designs ought to our criteria for what is a really good design. <b>That's like asking how the sky being green implies we live in a virtual reality simulation, despite not observing the sky being green.</b>Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30393157772874962962012-02-02T13:40:25.511-08:002012-02-02T13:40:25.511-08:00natschuster: Did I say optimal? I thought I said r...natschuster: Did I say optimal? I thought I said really good. The reason I picked that terminology is because people on this thread are talking about bad design. They say it implies no designer, or at best a bad one. <br /><br />Again, you seem to be confused. <br /><br />A designer could intentionally create bad or inefficient designs. For example if I wanted to increase my sales, I might create design my product in such a way that it would break a year earlier, which means people would end up buying them more often. Or I might just enjoy making things, yet not have the knowledge of how to design something "good". So, we cannot disprove ID via "bad design". <br /><br />However, Tyson isn't doing this. Rather, he is criticizing the argument make by ID proponents that good design proves ID. What he's illustrated is that the argument contains an error. Specifically, we do not universally observe good designs. <br /><br />In other words, it's logically possible that the biosphere could have been designed, but we shouldn't assume this is the case based on the argument of very good design because one of the assumptions of the argument - very good designs - isn't universally observed. As such we can discard it before we bother asking the question "how do very good designs imply intelligent designer was involved."<br /><br />To use an example, say I claimed we live in a virtual reality simulation because the sky is green. While it's logically possible that we do live in a virtual reality simulation, we shouldn't assume this is the cause based on an argument that includes the sky being green because we do not observe green skies. My argument has been shown to be in error by observation. This is before we even bother asking how the sky being greed implies we live in a virtual reality simulation. <br /><br />Second, whether a design is "good" depends on your measurement criteria, which in your case, appears to be human designs. But, again, its unclear why good designs should be compared to human designs.<br /><br />natschuster: So what does really good design imply? <br /><br />Again, we do not universally observe really good designs. Nor have you provided an explanation as to why human designs ought to our criteria for what is a really good design. That's like asking why the sky is free means we live in a virtual reality simulation, despite not observing the sky being green. <br /><br />Perhaps, what you meant to ask was, what are the implications of sometimes observing designs that are very good in comparison to human designs?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74673532509857222662012-02-02T13:27:25.648-08:002012-02-02T13:27:25.648-08:00Here's the happy ending; two years later Laks...Here's the happy ending; two years later <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246431/Lakshmi-Tatma-The-little-girl-limbs-worshipped-deity-starts-school.html" rel="nofollow"> Lakshmi Tatma </a> is walking to school. In all seriousness, it was an acceptance of naturalism which led to the surgery which helped this girl. By looking for the mechanisms (i.e. causal, naturalistic) of reality we have cured sicknesses and enabled life giving technologies. We have to take responsibility for our own collective well being. Prayer is ineffective.T. Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18062068766512116726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76531179190304367692012-02-02T12:33:58.534-08:002012-02-02T12:33:58.534-08:00Ritchie:
Our spine has to do more than support ou...Ritchie:<br /><br />Our spine has to do more than support our weight. It has to allow us to move, bend etc. Would a four column support allow us to do all that as well as our spine? I don't know.<br /><br />Scott:<br /><br />Did I say optimal? I thought I said really good. The reason I picked that terminology is because people on this thread are talking about bad design. They say it implies no designer, or at best a bad one. So what does really good design imply?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13938714450322269562012-02-02T11:12:17.411-08:002012-02-02T11:12:17.411-08:00Good news, priests prayed for her and now she shou...Good news, priests prayed for her and now she should be able to walk like a normal girl.T. Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18062068766512116726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88085026719397536492012-02-02T10:50:57.244-08:002012-02-02T10:50:57.244-08:00Smith
You seem quite hostile not just to thos...<i>Smith<br /><br /> You seem quite hostile not just to those who agree with you, but to those who are trying to help you.</i><br /><br />Except 1) no help is needed and 2) you aren't trying to help, you're just trying to troll. <br /><br />Please give me a good reason why I should feel guilt or shame for posting a photo from a story that was widely published in the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1568528/Operation-begins-on-Indian-girl-with-eight-limbs.html" rel="nofollow">international news.</a><br /><br />Go ahead Mr. holier-than-thou troll, I'm listening.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59698262333651833882012-02-02T10:25:39.214-08:002012-02-02T10:25:39.214-08:00You seem quite hostile not just to those who agree...You seem quite hostile not just to those who agree with you, but to those who are trying to help you. There have been several attempts by both parties to understand your statements, yet you wave them all away as being at fault for not correctly interpreting the perceived salience of your post. <br /><br />Isn’t this the precise hypocrisy that you accuse others of? Is it that you don’t want the help or that you believe you don’t need it?Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00216381429665486830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10286242570221569542012-02-02T09:18:57.201-08:002012-02-02T09:18:57.201-08:00Smith
Indeed. You attempted to make a point, ...<i>Smith<br /><br /> Indeed. You attempted to make a point, Thorton. You did so very poorly by using the weak and innocent as your weapon of choice. </i><br /><br />Actually the examples made my point very well, as did your over-the-top reaction. If you're another one of those delicate flowers who can't handle reality then I suggest you lock yourself in your room and draw the blinds. The rest of us will be out here in the real world, warts and all, dealing with its problems.<br /><br /><i>It will be difficult to take any of your responses as useful from now on.</i><br /><br />I'll take my chances. Feel free to stay hidden under your rock if that's where you feel the safest.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7754310596814244962012-02-02T08:39:10.308-08:002012-02-02T08:39:10.308-08:00From the Wikipedia entry on Turning Completeness. ...From the Wikipedia entry on Turning Completeness. <br /><br /><i>Turing completeness is significant in that every real-world design for a computing device can be simulated by a universal Turing machine. The Church–Turing thesis states that this is a law of mathematics—that a universal Turing machine can, in principle, perform any calculation that any other programmable computer can. <b>Obviously, this says nothing about the effort needed to write the program, or the time it may take for the machine to perform the calculation, or any abilities the machine may possess that have nothing to do with computation.</b></i><br /><br />Universality isn't the same as optimally efficient and performant at performing calculations or that it's optimal to operate and program.<br /><br /><i>Charles Babbage's analytical engine (1830s) would have been the first Turing-complete machine if it had been built at the time it was designed. Babbage appreciated that the machine was capable of great feats of calculation, including primitive logical reasoning, but he did not appreciate that no other machine could do better. From the 1830s until the 1940s, mechanical calculating machines such as adders and multipliers were built and improved, but they could not perform an "if/goto" and therefore are not true computers.</i><br /><br />Modern day computers are not optimal, but they would be significantly faster than Babbage's analytical engine. Both, however, represent the jump to universality, in that they are universal turning machines. <br /><br />In the same way, the means used to store knowledge of how to build organisms in primitive cells eventually evolved to make the jump to universality (DNA). It's not optimal, but it's universal. This is why it was widely adopted and has remained essentially unchanged since then.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81404035626160088152012-02-02T08:14:22.283-08:002012-02-02T08:14:22.283-08:00Natschuster: Engineers study organism to get ideas...Natschuster: Engineers study organism to get ideas for really good designs. <br /><br />Engineers are human beings. Why are human designs a good criteria? See above. <br /><br />Natschuster: There is even talk about DNA computing, since DNA seems to be a really good information processing machine.<br /><br />What features of DNA make it good information processing machine? It exhibits universality. <br /><br />The first number systems designed by human beings could only represent relatively small numbers. These were "good enough designs" because the people how designed them only needed to work with a small number of items. It was only until what we now call Arabic numerals were designed in India that we created a number system that exhibited universality, in that could represent any number. <br /><br />The Arabic number system is much better at representing numbers, compared to earlier number systems, because it exhibits universality. So, the criteria isn't that it's optimal but that it's universal. <br /><br />Information processing systems designed by human beings also started out primitive, only to eventually gain universality. At which point they were known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine" rel="nofollow">Universal Turning Machines</a>. Computers we've designed are good at information processing not because they are optimal but because they are universal. <br /><br />We can say the same in regards to DNA. it's universal, not optimal. For example, there are only a limited number of computational problems that can be solved using DNA faster than computers we have today. These are usually parallel in nature. However, other computational problems can be computed faster than DNA using modern day computers.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14360243911233012562012-02-02T08:12:51.126-08:002012-02-02T08:12:51.126-08:00Natchuster: But sometimes we see really good desig...Natchuster: But sometimes we see really good designs.<br /><br />As compared to what? Designs by human beings? If so, why is this your criteria? <br /><br />First, unless a particular design is forbidden by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent a designer from implementing it is knowing how. Right? If not, this would imply a belief that some things are simply magic in that they are inexplicable and incomprehensible. <br /><br />Second, you seem to assume that "optimal designs" are something we can mechanically induce from our environment based on observations alone. Therefore, optimal designs should be obvious to human beings, which makes us a criteria for good designs. However, this isn't the case. <br /><br />Human beings create knowledge via conjecture and refutation. We make educated guesses, then use observations to test them for errors. This is how we create knowledge. So, rather than designs being something obvious and optimal form the start, our designs start out crude and inefficient - only making gradual improvements over time though an iterative process. As such, it's unclear why you'd expect human designs to be a good measuring stick for optimal designs. <br /><br />If the designer of the biosphere "just was", complete with all of the knowledge to build the biosphere, it would not need to create knowledge over time. No iterative process would be necessary. It could create optimal design not forbidden by the laws of physics from the start. And if this same designer also designed the laws of physics, then it could have "tuned" them with optimal designs in mind. <br /><br />Assuming the designer couldn't do any better because he is limited by laws of physics, while also assuming the same designer intentionally and intelligently fine-tuned these same laws of physics is yet another parochial view. Designing both would allow the designer to make optimizations that would not be possible had they been designed separately.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87022060601059398452012-02-02T08:06:18.572-08:002012-02-02T08:06:18.572-08:00Stereotype or being stereotyped has no problem whe...Stereotype or being stereotyped has no problem when you do not forget that always there are many exceptions. I do not forget that.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.com