tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post720236710934714925..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: A Clinical Psychologist Just Said Evolution is “Beyond Any Rational Doubt”Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5451039119360063432012-03-20T05:25:33.033-07:002012-03-20T05:25:33.033-07:00Look here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/poppe...Look here:<br />http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/<br /><br />Thanks Geox , it will save me some time.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89789181511086417462012-03-19T20:32:55.366-07:002012-03-19T20:32:55.366-07:00Ugh, not iTunes.Ugh, not iTunes.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6230549454188573102012-03-19T20:29:55.977-07:002012-03-19T20:29:55.977-07:00And contemporary philosophers complain all the tim...And contemporary philosophers complain all the time scientists seem to have got stuck in naïve Popperianism. There's a lot to catch up! I'm on it as well.<br /><br />Look here:<br />http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56725285497048406062012-03-19T20:22:55.496-07:002012-03-19T20:22:55.496-07:00Oh, come on... if you're a big boy you should ...Oh, come on... if you're a big boy you should be able to do your own homework, the claim was yours!<br /><br />Anyway, if think it's interesting you're modelling a natural process, but not the design process. Perhaps you could work on that. ID refuses to do that by definition. I think there is one of the big fat problems with it. Even good ole Creation Sceince(TM) is more substantial.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10519988194696203842012-03-19T19:52:18.087-07:002012-03-19T19:52:18.087-07:00I heard of Popper but I'm not familiar with hi...I heard of Popper but I'm not familiar with his work or ideas.I'll investigate a bit online.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69090448581190065442012-03-19T17:04:45.488-07:002012-03-19T17:04:45.488-07:00Eugene: Well, one of our main ingredients are prot...Eugene: Well, one of our main ingredients are proteins so that's the reason for the setup in my thought experiment. If I would like to find out if processors can self assemble than I would use some concentration of logic gates in containers with dielectric liquid. Logic gates should be prepared in such a way they can form weak connections. etc.<br /><br />Again, you're assuming there should be some way to use induction to mechanically extrapolate exactly how the first primitive cells appeared using observations. But both Popper and Deutsch illustrates how this is a myth. <br /><br />While I might have mentioned them before, I'd highly recommend <i>The Logic of Scientific Discovery</i> as a starting point for Popper, and both of Deutsch's books, which expands on Popper's work: <i>The Fabric of Reality</i> and <i>The Beginning of Infinity</i>. In fact, the latter contains an entire chapter on creation. <br /><br />All of which are available on amazon or iTunes bookstore.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69796149453166887292012-03-19T16:08:10.823-07:002012-03-19T16:08:10.823-07:00Scott, Geoxus
" First, we'd have creatio...Scott, Geoxus<br /><br />" First, we'd have creationists objecting because intelligence was involved in some way shape or form. "<br /><br />I'm not your standard off the shelf creationist. I understand some intelligence needs to be involved. I'm layman but I think me and anybody honest can recognize when experiment is heavily engineered and guided. That's is just an exercise in chemical engineering.<br /><br />Well, one of our main ingredients are proteins so that's the reason for the setup in my thought experiment. If I would like to find out if processors can self assemble than I would use some concentration of logic gates in containers with dielectric liquid. Logic gates should be prepared in such a way they can form weak connections. etc<br /><br />If you guys have any ideas come forward.<br /><br />As for Poper I didn't read him. Otoh, I did watch Deutch's video Scott recommended and I find it was pretty interesting.<br /><br />I like physicists and astronomers, some of them are borderline bonkers. <br /><br />I was very interested in those fields when I was young. Then I discovered that if I wanted girls I needed money fast, damn the long education.<br /><br /> Now I still don't have girls and I ran out of money. What happened? :) :)Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70478759436208755132012-03-19T14:40:51.725-07:002012-03-19T14:40:51.725-07:00Second, you're assuming we should be able to s...<i>Second, you're assuming we should be able to simply extrapolate the conditions under which the most primitive forms of life evolved using some mechanical process.</i><br /><br />He's also assuming that we know what those conditions are. To find <i>plausible</i> conditions is one of the central tasks of OOL research.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32648139028417252942012-03-19T12:07:36.509-07:002012-03-19T12:07:36.509-07:00Yes, it's naive and simplistic.
First, we...Yes, it's naive and simplistic. <br /><br />First, we'd have creationists objecting because intelligence was involved in some way shape or form. <br /><br />Second, you're assuming we should be able to simply extrapolate the conditions under which the most primitive forms of life evolved using some mechanical process. But this is inductivism, which as Popper pointed out, is a myth. <br /><br />So, it isn't' that we lack evidence, as the evidence is all around us, inside of us, etc. What's scare is a theory that explains all of this evidence, not evidence. And we create theories via the process of conjecture and refutation. <br /><br />As such, your expectation that "after few years with above simple experiment we would see some proteins and maybe structures", is naive and simplistic. It's inductivism to the core.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64194296086734925072012-03-18T13:19:23.115-07:002012-03-18T13:19:23.115-07:00" Exactly how does this work, in detail? &quo..." Exactly how does this work, in detail? "<br /><br /> I have experiment idea for creating universe but it would be too hard. Experiment below is easier. Also this is very generous to nature as we help it with ready materials, temperature, agitation, selection, etc<br /> <br /> Lets say we have a container full of concentrated amino acids and we provide some gentle agitation to the mix. We take sample once per month and see if any proteins are formed.<br /><br /> If there are proteins we isolate them and put in another container and provide agitation. Take sample from protein container once per month and examine if they self assembled into some structure. <br /><br /> If protein structures formed isolate them and put in another container etc<br /><br /> Experiment should run for many years. I understand nature had millions of years but even after few years with above simple experiment we would see some proteins and maybe structures. That is if nature alone is capable of creating them.<br /> <br /> Maybe this is naive and simplistic. Somebody can correct me.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20336078602228940232012-03-18T11:58:17.082-07:002012-03-18T11:58:17.082-07:00I'm still not clear.
Are you saying it is po...I'm still not clear. <br /><br />Are you saying it is possible to rationally differentiate between an abstract designer and natural processes. And we can do so because we can demonstrate both of there capabilities? <br /><br />Exactly how does this work, in detail?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68261722280509623842012-03-18T10:04:33.946-07:002012-03-18T10:04:33.946-07:00"However, my question was if and why it would..."However, my question was if and why it wouldn't be possible to rationally differentiate between this option (a designer) and natural processes"<br /><br />Scott<br /><br />It would be easy to set up experiment to test capabilities of nature vs. capabilities of an engineer. I can come up with few right away. Maybe we should even make a reality show.<br /><br />Geoxus<br /><br />Dilbert is fantastic.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17967430602296434952012-03-17T21:38:46.388-07:002012-03-17T21:38:46.388-07:00Like this?Like <a href="http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-03-15/" rel="nofollow">this</a>?Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9749827737656720302012-03-17T19:58:52.294-07:002012-03-17T19:58:52.294-07:00Eugene: Now seriously, you know we theists think t...Eugene: Now seriously, you know we theists think there is a powerful Being, an Engineer of our reality. <br /><br />Which represents one of the options I mentioned. <br /><br />However, my question was if and why it wouldn't be possible to rationally differentiate between this option (a designer) and natural processes.<br /><br />Do you see the difference?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10681837961254183552012-03-17T16:37:49.762-07:002012-03-17T16:37:49.762-07:00"He decomposed"
Yes, recycling is impor..."He decomposed"<br /><br />Yes, recycling is important.<br /><br />:)Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30944513445251977562012-03-17T16:10:51.392-07:002012-03-17T16:10:51.392-07:00Hey Eugen, do you know what happened to Beethoven ...Hey Eugen, do you know what happened to Beethoven when he died?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />He decomposed. :)Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72176255128737961142012-03-17T16:01:19.267-07:002012-03-17T16:01:19.267-07:00I like Chinese food.
:)
Now seriously, you know we...I like Chinese food.<br />:)<br />Now seriously, you know we theists think there is a powerful Being, an Engineer of our reality. Some theists know for sure. I just think there is based on logic, science and intuition. I'm not so good with the Holy Book to use it as reference but I hear there is an interesting discussion in The Book of Job.<br />I read on atheist scientist's blog recently on percentage he is sure there is no God. I asked him if he is afraid of something as he is a bit older. Afraid of what happens when he kicks the bucket. He didn't answer.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70592538187104872532012-03-17T12:57:50.415-07:002012-03-17T12:57:50.415-07:00Eugen,
So it's impossible to rationally diffe...Eugen,<br /><br />So it's impossible to rationally differentiate because a Chinese saying says so? Really?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70189284870397212002012-03-17T06:28:19.766-07:002012-03-17T06:28:19.766-07:00Scott
because
"A good craftsman leaves no ...Scott<br /><br />because<br /><br /><br />"A good craftsman leaves no traces" <br /><br />Chinese sayingEugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60944893790152672382012-03-16T16:46:29.437-07:002012-03-16T16:46:29.437-07:00Furthermore advances in quantum physics have falsi...Furthermore advances in quantum physics have falsified the materialistic foundation of neo-Darwinism:<br /><br />Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information<br />https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_USbornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13997951876125929022012-03-16T16:39:05.962-07:002012-03-16T16:39:05.962-07:00Lakatos - Exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate scie...Lakatos - Exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’<br />https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit<br /><br />Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - Casey Luskin - January 2012<br />http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/talk_origins_sp055281.html<br /><br />Here is part 2 of a podcast exposing the Talk Origin's speciation FAQ i.e. 'literature bluff'<br /><br />Talk Origins Speciation FAQ, pt. 2: Lack of Evidence for Big Claims - Casey Luskin<br />http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-02-15T14_09_41-08_00<br /><br />A Primer on the Tree of Life – Casey Luskin – 2009<br />Excerpt: The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified.<br />http://www.discovery.org/a/10651<br /><br />How to Play the Gene Evolution Game – Casey Luskin – Feb. 2010<br />http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/how_to_play_the_gene_evolution032141.html<br /><br />Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis – 2006<br />Excerpt: Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true.<br />http://www.pnas.org/content/104/7/2043.abstract<br /><br />Here is how neo-Darwinian evolution avoids falsification from the fossil record;<br /><br />Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? – Paul Nelson – Feb. 2010<br />Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge.<br />http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/seeing_ghosts_in_the_bushes_pa031061.html<br /><br />The Fossil Record and Falsifiable Predictions For ID – Casey Luskin – Audio<br />http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-03-26T14_56_42-07_00<br /><br />Here is how evolutionists avoid falsification from the biogeographical data of finding numerous and highly similar species in widely separated locations:<br /><br />More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism – March 2010<br />http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/sea_monkeys_are_the_tip_of_the032471.html<br /><br />The Case of the Mysterious Hoatzin: Biogeography Fails Neo-Darwinism Again – Casey Luskin – November 5, 2011<br />Excerpt: If two similar species separated by thousands of kilometers across oceans cannot challenge common descent, what biogeographical data can? The way evolutionists treat it, there is virtually no biogeographical data that can challenge common descent even in principle.<br />http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/the_case_of_the_mysterious_hoa052571.html<br /><br />In this following podcast, Casey Luskin interviews microbiologist and immunologist Donald Ewert about his previous work as associate editor for the journal Development and Comparitive Immunology, where he realized that the papers published were comparative studies that had nothing to do with evolution at all.<br /><br />What Does Evolution Have to Do With Immunology? Not Much - April 2011<br />http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-04-06T11_39_03-07_00<br /><br />The deception (literature bluffing), from neo-Darwinists at Dover, did not stop with immunology;<br /><br />The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information – Casey Luskin – March 2010<br />http://www.discovery.org/a/14251<br /><br />Many more instances of Darwinism avoiding falsification here:<br /><br />Darwin’s Predictions – Cornelius Hunter PhD.<br />http://www.darwinspredictions.com/bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13444006801839469842012-03-16T14:26:26.384-07:002012-03-16T14:26:26.384-07:00Cornelius,
Are you suggesting there is no way to...Cornelius, <br /><br />Are you suggesting there is no way to rationally differentiate between a biosphere created by natural processes and a biosphere created by an abstract designer? If so, why?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67235432473198279472012-03-16T14:11:48.745-07:002012-03-16T14:11:48.745-07:00National Velour
It is essential to recognize that...<i>National Velour<br /><br />It is essential to recognize that within mainstream biology, evolution, meaning descent from a common ancestor, is an accepted FACT.<br /><br />Just don't ask them to provide empirical evidence for it.</i><br /><br />Here's a good synopsis of the empirical evidence for evolution.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" rel="nofollow">The Scientific Case for Common Descent</a><br /><br />A good book that bridges the gap between a popular press book and a detailed scholarly textbook is S.J. Gould's <br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Evolutionary-Theory-Stephen-Gould/dp/0674006135" rel="nofollow">The Structure of Evolutionary Theory</a><br /><br />There are also millions of readily accessible scientific papers and thousands of textbooks documenting the detailed empirical evidence. <br /><br />I know you've seen these resources offered multiple times, so why you feel compelled to still lie about there being no evidence is a mystery.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29783977370885952142012-03-16T13:33:17.766-07:002012-03-16T13:33:17.766-07:00It is essential to recognize that within mainstrea...<i>It is essential to recognize that within mainstream biology, evolution, meaning descent from a common ancestor, is an accepted FACT.</i><br /><br />Just don't ask them to provide empirical evidence for it.National Velourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15142359587875219081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5722057040355929432012-03-16T11:33:11.942-07:002012-03-16T11:33:11.942-07:00LOL!
I hope the irony isn't lost on anyone th...LOL!<br /><br />I hope the irony isn't lost on anyone that the first person to reply is the psychologically retarded Creationist loony Batspit77.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.com