tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post6678880713359899844..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Today’s NRO Shows Again That Evolution Transcends PoliticsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger200125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65687539617584408972013-09-25T04:15:41.535-07:002013-09-25T04:15:41.535-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89315412203644236242013-09-24T05:51:37.565-07:002013-09-24T05:51:37.565-07:00Fussy Baby Steve
Again, we can do this all day,
...<i>Fussy Baby Steve<br /><br />Again, we can do this all day,</i><br /><br />I have no doubt you can make yourself look like an ignorant ass all day. Seems you've had lots of practice. It still won't make one bit of difference to the scientific community or the millions of research papers that have already been published. But go ahead and have a good cry if it makes you feel better.<br /><br />Here's a novel idea! Why don't <b>you</b> supply those links with the details of how the Magic Designer POOFED everything into existence! Don't forget to provide the timeline and the mechanisms that were used.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29869833545564121252013-09-24T04:21:13.462-07:002013-09-24T04:21:13.462-07:00Scott: Furthermore, any solution to a problem that...Scott: Furthermore, any solution to a problem that includes the idea that it is also a non-solution<br /><br />Jeff: What problem would that be, Scott?<br /><br />Scott: That's what I asked what positive evidence you have for your belief that there must be positive evidence, etc. <br /><br />J: What non-positive evidence do you have for the existence of non-positive evidence? None, Scott. NONE! <br /><br /><br />Scott: Again, disagreeing with you on how knowledge grows isn't the same as claiming there is no knowledge.<br /><br />Is there something about this you do not understand?<br /><br />J: Yeah. How do you define "knowledge?" Until you can define it, I sure can't follow you.<br />Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31739253098093661722013-09-23T21:41:13.199-07:002013-09-23T21:41:13.199-07:00Jeff,
V: I don't need to know the origin of al...<b>Jeff,<br />V: I don't need to know the origin of all things to put gas in my truck when it stops and the gauge reads E. <br /><br />J: Actually, Scott is right--if atheism is true, it's no more knowably probable that there are no trucks as that there are. Assuming without evidence is not knowing.</b><br /><br /> While I am sure Scott would be happy to know you agree with an " idiot" ,I think Scott might say , theism isn't a get out of jail free card. The fact you need to assume a god, puts you in the same pickle as the rest of humanity. <br />You assume that there is a benevolent teleological , Christian probably , entity . The only evidence for that assumption requires a comprehensible universe.It seems to me in order to assume a benevolent diety with any evidence at all, you first must assume a coherent universe.<br />After all,<br /><b>Assuming without evidence is not knowing.</b>velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18506305055832344772013-09-23T20:44:46.574-07:002013-09-23T20:44:46.574-07:00Again, we can do this all day, weasel.
Now for th...Again, we can do this all day, weasel.<br /><br />Now for those links supporting selection acting on heritable variation creating cellular systems.<br /><br />Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48804619325614491912013-09-23T20:31:45.691-07:002013-09-23T20:31:45.691-07:00Jeff
J: This is not strictly true for atheism or ...<b>Jeff <br />J: This is not strictly true for atheism or theism. Explanation is about THIS universe. You would say that this universe only involved ONE origin point, right?<br /><br />V: That is the current theory.<br /><br />J: "The" current theory, huh?</b><br /><br />Yes, that is current accepted provisional model of the origin of the universe, based on the available data. It is known as the " Big Bang Theory" not to be confused with a TV show of the same name.<br /><br /><b>So those atheists with distinguished scientific careers who disagree can't have theories?</b><br /><br />It isn't religion,of course anyone can believe whatever they want. But to be the accepted paradigm, first it must an actual theory and second it must a better explanation for the data. <br /><br />Plate Tectonics for instance replacing the previous explanation for mountain building. <br /><br />Now a question ,why is " atheistic" relevant?<br /><br /><b>Why? Because you say so?</b><br /><br />No, because the professionals in the field use the most useful model to study the existing data,as data increases the most useful models can change. Big Bang replacing steady state universe. Better technology increased data which caused a shift in paradigmvelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51144301781656072042013-09-23T17:39:47.199-07:002013-09-23T17:39:47.199-07:00LOL! Poor little fussy baby Steve, still bawling ...LOL! Poor little fussy baby Steve, still bawling for attention. Still with his childish Creationist cry<br /><br />"EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!"<br /><br />I already fold you fussy baby, I can't do anything about your willful ignorance. Why don't you try holding your breath and stomping your feet? Maybe that will have more effect on the scientific community than your current impotent whining.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59725825838608324232013-09-23T16:43:42.961-07:002013-09-23T16:43:42.961-07:00The lying weasel thinks no one can read.
We can d...The lying weasel thinks no one can read.<br /><br />We can do this all day. So lets repeat again. Evolution is mute on the development of cellular systems like defense, sensory, digestive, motility systems, etc <br /><br />Your links show diddly squat about cellular systems being created by selection acting on heritable variation. <br /><br />There is no supporting evidence except conjecture and speculation.<br /><br />The weasel knows this. So he styles himself clever by trying to literature bluff.<br /><br />Ha, the lying weasel can't show any evidence to support selection acting on heritable variation creating cellular systems.<br /><br />Weasel some more, weasel.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68608723772890632302013-09-23T16:39:53.768-07:002013-09-23T16:39:53.768-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91923002988341994912013-09-23T08:37:28.944-07:002013-09-23T08:37:28.944-07:00J: What is rational criticism? Give me some exampl...J: What is rational criticism? Give me some examples that aren't deductive or inductive.<br /><br />You keep providing example of rational criticism, Jeff. You've just chosen to call it inductive reasoning. Since no one has managed to formulate a principle of induction, then you're not actually using induction to provide guidance. That's the myth. What you're using is a limited sense of rational criticism. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65194376697114316852013-09-23T08:37:00.168-07:002013-09-23T08:37:00.168-07:00Jeff: I have no recall of conjecturing a belief. R...Jeff: I have no recall of conjecturing a belief. Regardless, could you define "conjecture?"<br /><br />Again, from Conjectures and Refutations V. <br /><br /><i>The theory of inborn ideas is absurd, I think; but every organism has inborn reactions or responses; and among them, responses adapted to impending events. These responses we may describe as 'expectations' without implying that these 'expectations' are conscious. The new- born baby 'expects', in this sense, to be fed (and, one could even argue, to be protected and loved). In view of the close relation between expectation and knowledge we may even speak in quite a reasonable sense of 'inborn knowledge'. This 'knowledge' is not, however, valid a priori; an inborn expectation, no matter how strong and specific, may be mistaken. (The newborn child may be abandoned, and starve.)<br /><br />Thus we are born with expectations; with 'knowledge' which, although not valid a priori, is psychologically or genetically a priori, i.e. prior to all observational experience. One of the most important of these expectations is the expectation of finding a regularity. It is connected with an inborn propensity to look out for regularities, or with a need to find regularities, as we may see from the pleasure of the child who satisfies this need.<br /><br />This 'instinctive' expectation of finding regularities, which is psychologically a priori, corresponds very closely to the 'law of causality' which Kant believed to be part of our mental outfit and to be a priori valid. One might thus be inclined to say that Kant failed to distinguish between psychologically a priori ways of thinking or responding and a priori valid beliefs. But I do not think that his mistake was quite as crude as that. For the expectation of finding regularities is not only psychologically a priori, but also logically a priori: it is logically prior to all observational experience, for it is prior to any recognition of similarities, as we have seen; and all observation involves the recognition of similarities (or dissimilarities). But in spite of being logically a priori in this sense the expectation is not valid a priori. For it may fail: we can easily construct an environment (it would be a lethal one) which, compared with our ordinary environment, is so chaotic that we completely fail to find regularities. (All natural laws could remain valid: environments of this kind have been used in the animal experiments mentioned in the next section.)</i><br /><br />IOW, they are conjectures because they are not valid a priori. And they are knowledge in the sense that they grow via trial and error. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75813726715978061582013-09-23T08:36:26.952-07:002013-09-23T08:36:26.952-07:00Scott: Again, you are conflating something people ...Scott: Again, you are conflating something people naturally do, conjecture beliefs, with the content of those beliefs being basic or natural. Is there a particular reason you keep ignoring this distinction? <br /><br />Jeff: Conjecturing beliefs is logically equivalent to natural belief-formation? <br /><br />Does the term 'conflating' mean equivalent?<br /><br />Jeff: That's counter-intuitive to me. <br /><br />From Popper's <a href="http://poars1982.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/science-conjectures-and-refutations.pdf" rel="nofollow">Conjectures and Refutations</a> V.<br /><br /><i>The belief that science proceeds from observation to theory is still so widely and so firmly held that my denial of it is often met with incredulity. I have even been suspected of being insincere--of denying what nobody in his senses can doubt.<br /><br />But in fact the belief that we can start with pure observations alone, without anything in the nature of a theory, is absurd; as may be illustrated by the story of the man who dedicated his life to natural science, wrote down everything he could observe, and bequeathed his priceless collection of observations to the Royal Society to be used as inductive evidence. This story should show us that though beetles may profitably be collected, observations may not.</i>Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89715758211688351372013-09-23T06:30:54.847-07:002013-09-23T06:30:54.847-07:00Mouth breather Steve
Link, weasel, link....
The ...<i>Mouth breather Steve<br /><br />Link, weasel, link....</i><br /><br />The links that show you were 100% wrong when claims evolution is "utterly mute" on topics are scattered throughout this thread.<br /><br />You won't read them of course, but your willful ignorance isn't my problem.<br /><br />Now pull your pants up. Don't you get cold with them around your ankles all the time?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21509278835566339122013-09-23T01:00:08.813-07:002013-09-23T01:00:08.813-07:00...More scribbling and scratching from the weasel.......More scribbling and scratching from the weasel.<br /><br />....you can do better than that, weasel...<br /><br />Link, weasel, link....<br /><br />..you've gotton mountains and mountains of 'evidence' to choose from....<br /><br />Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67746496846302278832013-09-23T00:57:03.546-07:002013-09-23T00:57:03.546-07:00Ha, the weasel scribbles and scratches in vain...
...Ha, the weasel scribbles and scratches in vain...<br /><br />...come on weasel, you can do better than that!!!<br /><br />link, weasel, link...<br /><br />...you've got mountains and mountains of 'evidence' to choose from...Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22551095997169720992013-09-22T21:04:43.017-07:002013-09-22T21:04:43.017-07:00Poor ignoramus Creationist Steve. His mouth keeps ...Poor ignoramus Creationist Steve. His mouth keeps running but nothing intelligible comes out.<br /><br />Pulls your pants up Steve. Waddling around with them around your ankles isn't dignified.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79074418625215318562013-09-22T20:52:04.564-07:002013-09-22T20:52:04.564-07:00More graffiti from the weasel.
....so he wants to...More graffiti from the weasel.<br /><br />....so he wants to discuss something.<br /><br />...er, link to that paper which discusses step-wise selection acting on heritable variation creating cellular systems in organisms 1 BYA ....<br /><br />...then we'll discuss (if that's possible with the weasel).Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20901548159470099422013-09-22T20:06:08.779-07:002013-09-22T20:06:08.779-07:00V: Yes,the assumption that nature is comprehensibl...V: Yes,the assumption that nature is comprehensible, that what occurs in the present occurred in the past.<br /><br />J: This is not strictly true for atheism or theism. Explanation is about THIS universe. You would say that this universe only involved ONE origin point, right?<br /><br />V: That is the current theory.<br /><br />J: "The" current theory, huh? So those atheists with distinguished scientific careers who disagree can't have theories? Why? Because you say so?<br /><br />Jeff: There is no uniformity of the past in the absolute sense. Rather, we try to explain a finitely-enduring world/cosmos as ANALOGICALLY as possible.<br /><br />V: That is why it is an assumption. Do have any data which contradicts that assumption?<br /><br />J: The relevant question is whether there's evidence FOR an origin point. <br /><br />V: Then the question would be are the gaps real or an artifact of the nature of fossilization. Which gaps exactly does the theory of SA predict?<br /><br />J: You're confused. No hypothesis predicts the gaps. They can be due to non-biological variables.<br /><br />V: Since we have incomplete knowledge of the initial conditions, any observations are subject to that limitation. But those observations are based on the assumption that nature is comprehensible, which you question.<br /><br />J: You're confused. That reality is comprehensible can't mean we have to have non-tentative answers to all questions.<br /><br />Jeff: He(Ken Ham) accepts all observations. He accepts analogical extrapolations therefrom as legitimate scientific hypotheses<br /><br />V: For instance? What is his scientific hypothesis?<br /><br />J: There is no explanation of biological history derivable from the data set used by biologists. Thus, there are no predictions that are falsifiable. You keep assuming there's science to a non-predictive historical hypothesis. But by what definition of "science?"<br /><br />V: There is physical evidence of change in the present, if the same processes occurred in the past, (assumption) it is plausible that there was change in the past. The same methodology as geology,astronomony , and physics.<br /><br />J: Change is general. You're positing VERY specific change--specific change that is not indicated or implied by anything we know about the initial conditions or ANY initial conditions, for that matter.<br /><br />J: On the contrary. By that view, no one would be trying to find dark matter, etc<br /><br />V: How do you figure?<br /><br />J: Because UCA'ists claim to have a scientific theory without having any observation-based theory that implies the observations. Physicists can't be that moronic and stay employed.<br /><br />Jeff: Those sciences you mention have REAL predictive requirements. The ToE, when applied to evolutionary history, doesn't<br /><br />V: Each have modifications of the existing paradigms with the improvement of our scientific tools.<br /><br />J: Physicist ADMIT they have no evidence of the dark matter, etc, that can explain the failure of our previous gravitational math. Biologists NEVER admit they've never had a theory that implied the observations.<br /><br />V: Provide a scientific theory of SA first and a way to test it, perhaps the UCA was the only SA that survived. Who knows without some specificity?<br /><br />J: V, you don't have such a theory yourself.<br /><br />V: As I said, we see change in organisms in present time, that based on the assumption that organisms likewise changed by the same mechanisms in the past, makes it logically possible.<br /><br />J: There's no evidence it's logically possible. Because there are no patterns to observed variation that can be extrapolated in any meaningful way to imply any particular UCA tree.<br /><br />V: I don't need to know the origin of all things to put gas in my truck when it stops and the gauge reads E. <br /><br />J: Actually, Scott is right--if atheism is true, it's no more knowably probable that there are no trucks as that there are. Assuming without evidence is not knowing.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61429142547611119502013-09-22T19:56:31.917-07:002013-09-22T19:56:31.917-07:00LOL! Poor pitiful mouth-breather Steve. Too igno...LOL! Poor pitiful mouth-breather Steve. Too ignorant to discuss any research in evolutionary biology, but he's got the blustering Creationist dumbass act down cold.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64955096827612848572013-09-22T19:48:44.508-07:002013-09-22T19:48:44.508-07:00Can't squirm outta this one weasel!
All you a...Can't squirm outta this one weasel!<br /><br />All you are here to do is scratch graffiti on Hunter's blog.<br /><br />.besides being an obtuse, dense, lying weasel.<br /><br />Back in the hole you go, weasel.<br /><br />Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63434414886390345162013-09-22T19:44:59.715-07:002013-09-22T19:44:59.715-07:00Scott: Again, you are conflating something people ...Scott: Again, you are conflating something people naturally do, conjecture beliefs, with the content of those beliefs being basic or natural. Is there a particular reason you keep ignoring this distinction? <br /><br />J: Conjecturing beliefs is logically equivalent to natural belief-formation? That's counter-intuitive to me. I have no recall of conjecturing a belief. Regardless, could you define "conjecture?"<br /><br />Scott: Like benevolent/competent theism accounts for inductivism?<br /><br />J: No, it's a necessary condition of the VALIDITY of induction.<br /><br />Scott: But there is knowledge ...<br /><br />J: How could you know that?<br /><br />Scott: What most people mean by proof and inductivism doesn't withstand rational criticism.<br /><br />J: What is rational criticism? Give me some examples that aren't deductive or inductive.<br />Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39913771226179695492013-09-22T17:57:40.779-07:002013-09-22T17:57:40.779-07:00LOL! Poor ignorant mouth-breather Steve. His blu...LOL! Poor ignorant mouth-breather Steve. His bluff was called and now all he can do is waddle around with his pants around his ankles. <br /><br />Try reading the scientific literature sometime dummy. The initial abiogenesis event isn't though to be the evolution of the first complete cell. It is hypothesized that the first organic self-replicators occurred on already available physical niches, possibly clay substrates, that help produce fatty acid vesicles which eventually became cell membranes.<br /><br />Steve the Creationist dummy, always willing to make a fool of himself for a laugh.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82877873124782103112013-09-22T17:25:56.553-07:002013-09-22T17:25:56.553-07:00Ha, now an obtuse and dense weasel....
After havi...Ha, now an obtuse and dense weasel....<br /><br />After having spotted the weasel the initial abiogenesis event which resulted in the first proto-cells....what does he do??? He pasted an article 'yielding insights' into possible pathways for the first cells.<br /><br />Let's repeat for the slower one among us:<br /><br />...show supporting evidence for selection acting on heritable variation as the mechanism for the development of cellular systems that came AFTER the initial abiogenesis event, which resulted in the first proto cells.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5172626327603411662013-09-22T10:39:32.735-07:002013-09-22T10:39:32.735-07:00Scott: What do I mean by this? If we take what O&#...Scott: What do I mean by this? If we take what O'Reilly says across the board seriously, he's a creationist. <br /><br />Jeff: I don't see how you get that from his statements.<br /><br />Scott: Yet another thing we supposedly cannot make progress on. Check.<br /><br />Jeff: Of course you could make progress on that question, Scott. You could ASK him SPECIFICALLY. <br /><br />We can't make progress unless I ask O'Reilly directly? Really?<br /><br />Did you actually watch any of the videos I referenced?<br /><br />Specifically, where he says "I think Intelligent Design made everything happen" and "It takes more faith to not believe - and to think this was all luck - All this human body, the intricacies of the human body, all luck, than it does to believe in a deity."<br /><br />Do those statement sound like someone who believes "the biological world spontaneously arose"? <br /><br />Furthermore, O'Reilly could tap dance around the question or refuse to acknowledge it at all. Or he could simply lie about his belief. After all, I've asked Cornelius direct questions over and over again, which he refuses to answer. <br /><br />For example, I've asked Cornelius directly, at least a dozen times, if he believes that knowledge in specific spheres comes from authoritative, supernatural sources. But he refuses to even acknowledge the question. Apparently, he thinks this somehow creates the illusion of being neutral on the issue. <br /><br />But, again, O'Reilly's individual statements do not exist in a vacuum, any more than Cornelius' do.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28103295390240112172013-09-22T10:05:10.467-07:002013-09-22T10:05:10.467-07:00Scott: I'm not following you. For example, giv...Scott: I'm not following you. For example, given your view, how could you be conceived of the idea there is no way to convince anyone without warrant or explanation, unless that idea itself is warranted and/or explained?<br /><br />Jeff: Because I agree with you... <br /><br />You don't agree with me, Jeff. That's my entire point. If I agreed with you, why would I keep suggesting you are presenting a false dilemma?<br /><br />Furthermore, any solution to a problem that includes the idea that it is also a non-solution doesn't survive criticism as a solution to any problem. As such I discard it. It's that simple. <br /><br />Jeff: I mean, by "convince," providing POSITIVE evidence. <br /><br />Of course you do, Jeff. That's what I asked what positive evidence you have for your belief that there must be positive evidence, etc. <br /><br />Jeff: ...if you're right in your skepticism...<br /><br />Again, disagreeing with you on how knowledge grows isn't the same as claiming there is no knowledge. <br /><br />Is there something about this you do not understand?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.com