tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post6763951130263768531..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Response to Comments: Detecting Miracles and Digging HolesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89111116604000214202011-07-26T08:53:33.807-07:002011-07-26T08:53:33.807-07:00Looks like life might not have had a "creator...Looks like life might not have had a "creator" but may be "imported" from Mars or such. It might have travelled over a long time, and proteins might have evolved like that. <br /><br />What is possibly wrong with this point of view, please educate me.Salahuddinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305650453997643357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70361619694073651292011-07-14T08:33:01.353-07:002011-07-14T08:33:01.353-07:00Bias: Scott I agree with everything you said, but ...Bias: Scott I agree with everything you said, but it is irrelevant to discussion about science.<br /><br />.... because?<br /><br />Apparently, you're definition of science is woefully of date or you're appealing to some hidden assumption which somehow insulates it from these issues. <br /><br />- Is there a solution to the problem of induction? If so, what is it?<br /><br />- Where do you put divine revelation in the traditional justificationalist hierarchy of deduction, induction and philosophy?<br /><br />I'm guessing the answers to these questions would shed some much needed light on this issue.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21780351116901142092011-07-13T13:16:45.900-07:002011-07-13T13:16:45.900-07:00Blas said...
Thorton: "Stories about his...<i>Blas said...<br /><br /> Thorton: "Stories about histories are certainly scientifically falsifiable. What do you think police detectives do when they bust the alibis of suspected criminals?"<br /><br /> Thorton when scientific police investigates crimes, they perform actual test over actual evidence, they try to understand what happened yesterday, not millions of years ago. </i><br /><br />If the evidence from the event still exists and is still testable, why would the age of the evidence matter? Does a footprint stop being a footprint when it hits a certain age? Evidence of evolution from hundreds of millions of years ago is still available and testable.<br /><br /><i>Nobody can scientifically prove or disprove if Napoleon was poisoned figure the ToE.</i><br /><br />Science doesn't prove or disprove <b>anything</b>. Science offers the most reasonable explanation based on the evidence available. And science can certainly tell what killed someone, even if that event happened thousands of years ago. Go read about what science knows about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman" rel="nofollow">Otzi the Iceman</a>, a 5300 year old corpse found frozen in the Alps.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86142293810798480382011-07-13T12:21:33.446-07:002011-07-13T12:21:33.446-07:00Scott I agree with everything you said, but it is ...Scott I agree with everything you said, but it is irrelevant to discussion about science.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4664586735092191202011-07-13T09:21:19.599-07:002011-07-13T09:21:19.599-07:00Bias: […] I'm going to take tomorrow an airpla...Bias: […] I'm going to take tomorrow an airplane because my God does not play dices with the universe. What says to you science?<br /><br />That you're God is directly involved in some aspects of phenomena, but a secondary cause of others is a theological assumption. <br /><br />Just as we no longer have Muslim algebra or Christian physics, evolution doesn't hinge on the properties you happen to personally attribute to your God. <br /><br />Without theory, you're left with induction. However, as Hume showed us, the future doesn't necessary resemble the past, or vice versa. <br /><br />For example, It could be that an army of slide rule toting demons intervene to pul on objects according to their mass. <br /><br />But this leaves the question: why would an army of demons just so happen to agree to do such a thing consistently and at the rate we currently observe? In the absence of such an explanation, it stands that they could also just so happen to decide pull on objects differently five million years from now, five months from now or five seconds from now. <br /><br />From the perspective of science, your "God" is no different than this army of demons, in that we lack explanations for why he would act the way you expect him to act. The difference is that it's a commonly accepted religious view that God is consistent. <br /><br />One could just as well posit that God has an equally powerful evil twin and each of them want different gravitational constants. As such, the constant we observe is one that neither wanted, but a average between the two. Should one give up, the constant could change. <br /><br />Finally, Einstein's wasn't referring to a personal God, he was referring to Spinoza's God. <br /><br />"<i>It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. </i>"<br /><br />- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87344253514061387802011-07-13T07:49:33.529-07:002011-07-13T07:49:33.529-07:00Thorton"Stories about histories are certainly...Thorton"Stories about histories are certainly scientifically falsifiable. What do you thing police detectives do when they bust the alibis of suspected criminals?"<br /><br />Thorton when scientific police investigates crimes, they perform actual test over actual evidence, they try to understand what happened yesterday, not millions of years ago. Nobody can scientifically prove or disprove if Napoleon was poisoned figure the ToE.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90219813954432046922011-07-13T07:20:28.419-07:002011-07-13T07:20:28.419-07:00Thorton:" rigorously test their new designs, ...Thorton:" rigorously test their new designs, "<br /><br />The key word is test, their don´t care about theories, they tests.<br /><br />The ones who succeeded were the ones who knew to keep their religious biases and preconceptions out of their scientific work. That is just as true for today's very devout scientists as it was 400 years ago. Pity today's darwinists aren't honest enough or smart enough to follow their exampleBlashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85488167384806931282011-07-13T01:42:16.281-07:002011-07-13T01:42:16.281-07:00Blas said...
Thorton said...
"Claim...<i>Blas said...<br /><br /> Thorton said...<br /><br /> "Claiming your Deity used supernatural miracles to produce all the life forms on earth de novo is not science. If you want to discuss that you should move to a blog about religion."<br /><br /> I never claimed that, I´m only said, that Noa´s hypotesis is not falsifiable, like ToE, because are histories not science.</i><br /><br />Noah's Ark hypothesis is falsifiable and has been falsified. I already showed you the evidence. ToE is falsifiable but hasn't been falsified. That's the big difference.<br /><br />Stories about histories are certainly scientifically falsifiable. What do you thing police detectives do when they bust the alibis of suspected criminals?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15158168975417349422011-07-13T01:38:14.422-07:002011-07-13T01:38:14.422-07:00squid ink schuster said...
The point is that ...<i>squid ink schuster said...<br /><br /> The point is that the success of technology doesn't seem to correlate very well with the success of any scientific theory, or the scientific method. Y'know, hypothesis testing, etc.</i><br /><br />LOL! Sure thing squiddy. In Schusterville engineers and designers never bother to rigorously test their new designs, They jump right from conception into the production stage.<br /><br /><i>And lots of the people who actually invented modern science were religious. They were doing science to understand the mind of God.</i><br /><br />The ones who succeeded were the ones who knew to keep their religious biases and preconceptions out of their scientific work. That is just as true for today's very devout scientists as it was 400 years ago. Pity today's Creationists and IDiots aren't honest enough or smart enough to follow their example.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33993213444418573622011-07-12T23:41:51.852-07:002011-07-12T23:41:51.852-07:00Why would you say that Nick? Augustine made the s...Why would you say that Nick? Augustine made the simple observation that 'out of sight is not out of mind'.<br /><br />The definition of natural that you (pl)seem to adhere to is where natural means what can be observed with the eye, that which can be detected with mechanical sensors, that which can be isolated.<br /><br />Unfortunately for science practitioners today, we are arriving at the edge of the ability for that narrow definition of nature to yield more in depth understanding of the physical world. We've paid a 1B ticket to see the Higgs Boson show. Where are you, boson baby?<br /><br />To be sure, it is that which can be perceived and comprehended by Mind, regardless of its state of existence that matters (pardon the pun), not what is seen through a 1B dollar race track.<br /><br />How much more do we have to pay before we accept the idea that we and the universe are more than meets the eye?Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89686840040470364292011-07-12T22:06:06.970-07:002011-07-12T22:06:06.970-07:00"As for magic and miracles, St. Augusting put..."As for magic and miracles, St. Augusting put it nicely when he said (paraphrasing) "Miracles are only miracles because we don't yet understand the science behind them". If we keep digging and we will eventually know how spirits operate in the material dimension- / "There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed."<br /><br />Sounds like Augustine was a methodological naturalist...NickMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765417807335152285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86439107230046744012011-07-12T18:48:26.714-07:002011-07-12T18:48:26.714-07:00Thorton said...
"Claiming your Deity used su...Thorton said...<br /><br />"Claiming your Deity used supernatural miracles to produce all the life forms on earth de novo is not science. If you want to discuss that you should move to a blog about religion."<br /><br />I never claimed that, I´m only said, that Noa´s hypotesis is not falsifiable, like ToE, because are histories not science.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72720256854205400852011-07-12T18:42:41.947-07:002011-07-12T18:42:41.947-07:00troy said...
"Blas, you brought up The Logos....troy said...<br />"Blas, you brought up The Logos. When I bring up Bayesian logic, you blame me for bringing up metaphysics? See the problem?"<br /><br />My discussion with Thorton developed in this way:<br /><br /><br />Thorton:" How about the hypothesis "all life on earth save 2 or 7 breeding pairs was wiped out by an Earth covering flood only 4500 years ago". That bit of foolishness has been disproven a thousand times over. "<br /><br />Please, with the strict hypotetico-deduction scientific method disprove that hypotesis.<br /><br />With [the with] the strict hypotetico-deduction scientific method prove that the laws of physics will stand tomorrow.<br /><br />Thorton:"I'm listening - Tell us how you would design an airplane when you have a Loki God randomly changing Bernoulli's principle and/or the force of gravity."<br /><br />Blas:It is impossible, and I´m going to take tomorrow an airplane because my God does not play dices with the universe. What says to you science? Will Bernoulli´s principle stands tomorrow when I´ll take the plane?<br /><br />Thorton:"Aah, so when your personal safety depends on it then you're more than happy to stipulate science assume only naturalism. Makes you somewhat of a hypocrite, but that's not surprising."<br /><br />Blas:You always understand backwards, I´m not going to take the plane assuming of naturalism, because they do not have a way to demostrate that Bernoulli´s principle will stand tomorrow. I will take the plane because The Logos does not play dices with the universe, so I can trust that Bernoulli´s principle will stand tomorrow.<br /><br /><br />As you can see, I brought the Logos only to explain how also non naturalists can do science.<br />And naturalist in the same way have to use reason or hope that the "scientifics laws" are constants.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27941226280605537542011-07-12T18:39:05.274-07:002011-07-12T18:39:05.274-07:00Nat,
This created a problem for Darwinists becau...Nat,<br /><br /><b> This created a problem for Darwinists because it meant that the variation that natural selection needed to work on wasn't there</b><br /><br />From the wiki,the tension was<br /> " debate over saltationism versus gradualism (Darwin had been a gradualist, but Bateson was a saltationist). Later, Ronald Fisher and J.B.S. Haldane showed that discrete mutations were compatible with gradual evolution:"<br /><br />It wasn't if it occurred ,just what was the manner. I guess you missed that partAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90549496004809151362011-07-12T17:04:32.383-07:002011-07-12T17:04:32.383-07:00And according to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wi...And according to this:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis<br /><br />Mendelism was a problem for Darwinism until the development of the modern synthesis.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19309220336276188782011-07-12T16:51:36.182-07:002011-07-12T16:51:36.182-07:00According to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...According to this:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemmules<br /><br />Gemmules are very different than genes.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21580261851633645302011-07-12T16:47:48.634-07:002011-07-12T16:47:48.634-07:00Thorton:"Claiming your Deity used supernatura...Thorton:"Claiming your Deity used supernatural miracles to produce all the life forms on earth de novo is not science. If you want to discuss that you should move to a blog about religion."<br /><br />I´m not making that claim, I´ll try to keep all metaphisic out of science but seems darwinist always bring in metaphisic i the discussion I wonder why.<br />Follow the discussion I had with Ritchie.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4421524199031226382011-07-12T16:14:26.381-07:002011-07-12T16:14:26.381-07:00Thorton:
The point is that the success of techno...Thorton: <br /><br />The point is that the success of technology doesn't seem to correlate very well with the success of any scientific theory, or the scientific method. Y'know, hypothesis testing, etc.<br /><br />And lots of the people who actually invented modern science were religious. They were doing science to understand the mind of God.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87060416730144509052011-07-12T15:16:18.499-07:002011-07-12T15:16:18.499-07:00Nat -
"I understand Darwin's idea of in...Nat - <br /><br />"I understand Darwin's idea of inheritance was based on what he called "gemules" which weer little blobby things that got into the germ cells and controlled what the offspring look like. Gemules were suppose to be malliable.<br /><br />Mendel discovered that inheritance is controlled by discrete units called genes that are passed intact from parent to offspring. This created a problem for Darwinists because it meant that the variation that natural selection needed to work on wasn't there. It wasn't until the modern synthesis was invented that evolutionists could accept genetics. Please correct me if I'm wrong."<br /><br />I'm afraid you are wrong. Mendel did not pose problems for Darwinisn - his discoveries absolutely vindicated Darwin.<br /><br />I wrote out a long post about how Darwin left a lot of his theory to be fleshed out by scientists after him, but I'm having technical issues and my cmoputer is cutting out whenever it feels like it. But please put aside an hour to watch the following programme. I think you'll find it very instructive:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XJIHOzmZLsRitchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37143243652746062502011-07-12T15:03:33.431-07:002011-07-12T15:03:33.431-07:00Blas, you brought up The Logos. When I bring up Ba...Blas, you brought up The Logos. When I bring up Bayesian logic, you blame me for bringing up metaphysics? See the problem?troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60284693378223097832011-07-12T14:51:51.987-07:002011-07-12T14:51:51.987-07:00Blas said...
Troy said:" By Bayesian log...<i>Blas said...<br /><br /> Troy said:" By Bayesian logic, that gives me plenty of comfort."<br /><br /> That is not science, if you want discuss that we can move to a blog about metaphisics</i><br /><br />Claiming your Deity used supernatural miracles to produce all the life forms on earth <i>de novo</i> is not science. If you want to discuss that you should move to a blog about religion.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89339001839468504952011-07-12T14:48:46.071-07:002011-07-12T14:48:46.071-07:00Blas said...
Thorton:"But the net result...<i>Blas said...<br /><br /> Thorton:"But the net result is the same. You want only naturalism when it suits you, demand science accept the supernatural when it doesn't. Hypocrite."<br /><br /> I´ll try to understand you. You mean that I accept naturalism because I use the Bernoulli´s principle and then discard naturalism?<br /><br />If that is what you understand, as Ritchie, or you in the falsification of the Noa´s ark history you are confusing the empirical data with the explanation or the theory behind the empirical data. Bernoulli´s principle is an empirical observation and fits a lot of theories behind. I can beleive it is due the hairs of God and still build safety airplanes.</i><br /><br />If that's the case then by the same standard the evidence for evolution (common descent over deep time) is an empirical observation and fits the naturalistic theory behind it extremely well. Genetic diversity and no evidence of any severe population bottlenecks 4500 years ago is an empirical observation and fits the naturalistic theory behind it extremely well. <br /><br />I can believe that the Omnipotent Deity Of My Choice used naturalistic evolutionary processes and common descent over billions of years to produce the biologic diversity we see today and still get scientific results. So there is no reason to demand science include supernatural miracles in life's history. Yet that is exactly what you and the other Creationist are doing.<br /><br />Claiming GAWD allows naturalism to happen in one case and demanding supernatural intervention in another is the act of a hypocrite.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24587164325904014752011-07-12T14:18:53.262-07:002011-07-12T14:18:53.262-07:00Troy said:" By Bayesian logic, that gives me ...Troy said:" By Bayesian logic, that gives me plenty of comfort."<br /><br />That is not science, if you want discuss that we can move to a blog about metaphisics.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90574627356028309922011-07-12T14:16:43.699-07:002011-07-12T14:16:43.699-07:00Thorton:"But the net result is the same. You ...Thorton:"But the net result is the same. You want only naturalism when it suits you, demand science accept the supernatural when it doesn't. Hypocrite."<br /><br />I´ll try to understand you. You mean that I accept naturalism because I use the Bernoulli´s principle and then discard naturalism? <br /><br />If that is what you understand, as Ritchie, or you in the falsification of the Noa´s ark history you are confusing the empirical data with the explanation or the theory behind the empirical data. Bernoulli´s principle is an empirical observation and fits a lot of theories behind. I can beleive it is due the hairs of God and still build safety airplanes.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55505356450059294192011-07-12T13:43:05.652-07:002011-07-12T13:43:05.652-07:00troy said...
Blas: "I will take the plan...<i>troy said...<br /><br /> Blas: "I will take the plane because The Logos does not play dices with the universe, so I can trust that Bernoulli´s principle will stand tomorrow."<br /><br /> The Logos? What's that then? I wonder how many of the children that drowned on that cruise ship on the Wolga took comfort in The Logos.</i><br /><br />The sinking of the Wolga was nothing compared to the millions who were supposedly drowned in Noah's Flood by The Logos. <br /><br />How do you suppose those folks felt Blas? They trusted in The Logos too to 'not play dices', only to see the sadistic bastard a create supernatural miracle to give them all a slow agonizing death.<br /><br />If The Logos can use a miracle to commit genocide on the whole planet, what's to stop It from making the wings of your plane lose all lift?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.com