tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post8954628082928507391..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Evolutionists Lose Again: “There's Not Even a Consensus on How to Approach the Problem”Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger121125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70396016824720231162015-11-20T22:45:33.381-08:002015-11-20T22:45:33.381-08:00nice blog, methods of delivery and illustrations a...nice blog, methods of delivery and illustrations are also cool, thanks. <a href="http://nutrifa.com/jenis-jenis-batuk-dan-penyebabnya/" rel="nofollow">jenis-jenis batuk dan penyebabnya</a>Genieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13479963049408825786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74670295513940317512012-06-28T14:15:20.609-07:002012-06-28T14:15:20.609-07:00Thanks Ian for linking to my refutation of William...Thanks Ian for linking to my refutation of William Lane Craig's arguments. I thought I'd chime in here and offer my view. I think everyone is missing the point. The OP is based on a strawman. This isn't about evolution. <i>Evolution cannot start until life comes into existence</i>. This is about <i>origin of life studies and has nothing to do with evolution</i>. The fact of evolution is incontrovertible. The issue scientists are having is figuring out the mechanisms by which the first life came about. There have been some good ideas but clearly there is no consensus yet as to which method might have been more likely.<br /><br />Thanks.Arizona Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17377658912951142427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80636307559764627992012-06-26T21:28:00.627-07:002012-06-26T21:28:00.627-07:00I think attention has move on to the next article ...I think attention has move on to the next article that Cornelius has posted. Does anybody want to hear requested reponses from me to the above questions? If so, I might consider responding. Otherwise, why? And, now that I think about it, why should one respond anyway? It is obvious that, at this point in time, each side has a staunch preference to a certain position. Regardless of the amount of evidence.bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13462678825475085862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75014782232412840212012-06-26T05:41:21.850-07:002012-06-26T05:41:21.850-07:00bpragmatic: Philosophy, to me, can be or is an ins...bpragmatic: <i>Philosophy, to me, can be or is an insufficient rattling about to try and explain phenomena that is vastly unobserved and undesribed from an observatioal perspective. LOTS OF SPECULATION BASED ON UNCONFIRMABLE ASSERTIONS. Now tell me how the TEO is different from that. Your answer is something I may or may not look at based on my level of interest and time.</i><br /><br />I still don't really understand what you are asking. I'm aware that English may not be your first language, but as you don't seem highly motivated to read my response, I'll leave it there, unless you want to clarify.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19641734038610518002012-06-26T05:13:47.008-07:002012-06-26T05:13:47.008-07:00Pragmatic
"What do you mean by that?"
...Pragmatic<br /><br />"What do you mean by that?"<br /><br />I just meant “ while you were busy doing something else”. <br />Not everything translates well into English. Goes the other way around,too. Example would be when people say “love you to pieces” it freaks me out. It translates horrendously into my first language.<br /><br />Nothing new here, I had lots of misunderstandings with people over the years.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52117226228778832002012-06-25T20:51:27.313-07:002012-06-25T20:51:27.313-07:00To Elizabeth,
Philosophy, to me, can be or is an i...To Elizabeth,<br />Philosophy, to me, can be or is an insufficient rattling about to try and explain phenomena that is vastly unobserved and undesribed from an observatioal perspective. LOTS OF SPECULATION BASED ON UNCONFIRMABLE ASSERTIONS. Now tell me how the TEO is different from that. Your answer is something I may or may not look at based on my level of interest and time.bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13462678825475085862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80977514749378070652012-06-25T20:43:09.823-07:002012-06-25T20:43:09.823-07:00Eugen,
I do not chase rabbits in my way of thinkin...Eugen,<br />I do not chase rabbits in my way of thinking. What do you mean by that? So that I can respond to what you, in your mind are saying.bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13462678825475085862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67316362185110648292012-06-25T16:11:41.383-07:002012-06-25T16:11:41.383-07:00Elizabeth
while bp is chasing rabbits may I ask f...Elizabeth<br /><br />while bp is chasing rabbits may I ask for your thoughts on the “selfish” gene idea.<br /><br />Lets think "chemically" like chemical do.<br /><br /> 1. Gene is a string of nucleotides, which is nothing more than bunch of molecules made of carbon, hydrogen,oxygen and nitrogen. Molecules or atoms don’t care if they are in this or that configuration. It is more likely molecules making gene would exist dissolved, freely floating around instead of chemically formal setup of a gene.<br /><br />2. Wouldn’t evolution somehow favor gene’s continuation as a gene itself not as a copy? Nature should evolve mechanisms that eventually manage to lock in one set of genes and keep guarding and perpetuating them forever.<br /><br />What I mean is once it gets to me, I wish by then evolution developed mechanisms that can keep me alive and unchanged forever instead of copying me. Copy of me is not me. That would be ultimate, pure, simple unlimited selfishness. Nature should drive for that and for simplicity, elegance and survival only. Why then complications?Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11248859492798275592012-06-25T13:09:57.673-07:002012-06-25T13:09:57.673-07:00IHS:
We have to go outside the laws of nature as ...IHS:<br /><br />We have to go outside the laws of nature as we know them to explain the Big Bang. In that sense, it is supernatural.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22416380342946464252012-06-25T12:11:40.181-07:002012-06-25T12:11:40.181-07:00Blas: There is no that contonuous branching proces...<b>Blas</b>: <i>There is no that contonuous branching process but instead a wierd arrange of branches. </i><br /><br />That's a cladogram. It's all branchings. Not sure what you are saying. <br /><br /><b>Blas</b>: <i>Why we do not have recent branches? </i><br /><br />There are recent branchings. The cladogram only provides a coarse view. For instance, mammals are represented by just four species; Homo sapiens, Pan troglodyte, Mus musculous and Rattus norvegicus. A more detailed cladogram would show many more branchings.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44910121700235380152012-06-25T10:03:22.437-07:002012-06-25T10:03:22.437-07:00But let me ask you a question while I am waiting f...But let me ask you a question while I am waiting for clarification:<br /><br />What part/aspect of the Theory of Evolution do you think is incorrect?Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5245036897682373792012-06-25T09:25:19.402-07:002012-06-25T09:25:19.402-07:00I don't understand your question, bpragmatic.
...I don't understand your question, bpragmatic.<br /><br />And what do you mean by my "own dedication to the philosophy" - what philosophy?Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75852952008357473512012-06-25T09:17:08.966-07:002012-06-25T09:17:08.966-07:00Zachriel said
"What the Theory of Evolution ...Zachriel said<br /><br />"What the Theory of Evolution claims, and the evidence supports, is a continuous branching process."<br /><br />Agree this is what a RM process will do. But when you look at the tree of life :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_SVG.svg<br /><br />You do not see that. There is no that contonuous branching process but instead a wierd arrange of branches. I know that is because it is not only RM but these tree was pruned by NS. Nut if you add all the fossil record that image will not change really. Ok, it is because all the failed branches do not live fossils. But again, all the branches are very old. Why we do not have recent branches?<br /><br />Too many questions and many missed evidence. May I be perverse?Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88223273747725629712012-06-25T08:57:45.435-07:002012-06-25T08:57:45.435-07:00Thorton, I know you are all about showing how athe...Thorton, I know you are all about showing how atheism is so superior to Theism by ridiculing and mocking anyone who has the audacity to believe that the unfathomable levels of complexity found in life are not the result of time and chance (though you have ZERO empirical evidence for the creative power of time and chance) but perhaps instead of your usual knee jerk ad hominem attack, demonstrating how much more reasonable atheists are than Theists, you could actually look at the referenced article Dr. Tyler was commenting on?<br /><br />Evolutionary uniformitarianism - Douglas H. Erwin - Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC<br />Excerpt: Fig. 1. First occurrences of phyla, classes and equivalent ranked stem-clades during the Ediacaran, Cambrian and Ordovician periods.,,,<br />Fig. 2. Cumulative diversity of phyla, classes and equivalent ranked stem-clades during the Ediacaran, Cambrian and Ordovician periods.,,<br />http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160611000443<br /><br />Thorton,,, Disparity preceding diversity is simply not what Darwinism predicted for the fossil record!<br /><br />Of related note to Thorton's ad hominem, here is,,<br /><br /> The Flowchart of Objections to Intelligent Design<br />http://sententias.org/2012/06/22/id-flowchart/ <br /><br />Please note where Thorton ranks in the flowchart! :)bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5053833753865453752012-06-25T08:02:38.288-07:002012-06-25T08:02:38.288-07:00batspit77
The unscientific hegemony of uniformita...<i>batspit77<br /><br />The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism - David Tyler - May 2011</i><br /><br />Just so we're clear - that would be <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/09/who-is-david-tyler.html" rel="nofollow">this David Tyler</a>, a YEC and member of the Biblical Creation Society. A guy with zero training in biology or paleontology and who works for the Department of Clothing Design and Technology, Hollings Faculty of Food, Clothing & Hospitality Management, Manchester Metropolitan University.<br /><br /><b>All science so far!</b>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89183772848157572262012-06-25T07:16:57.757-07:002012-06-25T07:16:57.757-07:00The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism - D...The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism - David Tyler - May 2011<br />Excerpt: The pervasive pattern of natural history: disparity precedes diversity,,,, The summary of results for phyla is as follows. The pattern reinforces earlier research that concluded the Explosion is not an artefact of sampling. Much the same finding applies to the appearance of classes. These data are presented in Figures 1 and 2 in the paper.<br />http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2011/05/16/the_unscientific_hegemony_of_uniformitarbornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91458550420249749852012-06-24T17:04:34.674-07:002012-06-24T17:04:34.674-07:00bornagain77: he only thing that is 'arbitrary&...<b>bornagain77</b>: <i>he only thing that is 'arbitrary' in the whole thing is your rampant excuse making</i><br /><br />Still, the chart you provided doesn't show diversity vs. disparity, but number of phyla across time. As phyla are an arbitrary division of clades, the chart doesn't represent what you claim it does.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68869595907023294312012-06-24T11:19:13.256-07:002012-06-24T11:19:13.256-07:00Scott:
"Yes I have."
Phil:
"No y...Scott:<br /><br />"Yes I have."<br /><br />Phil:<br /><br />"No you haven't"bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52470155672789867562012-06-24T11:17:35.136-07:002012-06-24T11:17:35.136-07:00Zach the only thing that is 'arbitrary' in...Zach the only thing that is 'arbitrary' in the whole thing is your rampant excuse making for uncle Charley.bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9116953296999489382012-06-24T11:04:53.764-07:002012-06-24T11:04:53.764-07:00The point is we have no idea what existed at or be...The point is we have no idea what existed at or before the Big Bang.<br /><br />As Tonto would say, "Who is we pale face???"<br /><br />Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Big Bang<br />https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agaJIWjPWHs5vtMx5SkpaMPbantoP471k0lNBUXg0Xo/edit<br /><br />John 1:1-5<br />In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20343330073028711192012-06-24T10:25:14.515-07:002012-06-24T10:25:14.515-07:00bornagain77 June 24, 2012 3:25 AM
[...]
Well Ia...<i><b>bornagain77</b> June 24, 2012 3:25 AM<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />Well Ian, since time, as we understand it, did not exist before the Big Bang it makes no sense to ask why it went 'Bang' when it did. But we can ask, from what we know from empirical evidence, what are the necessary characteristics of the 'Banger' of the Big Bang:</i><br /><br />The point is we have no idea what existed at or before the Big Bang. Perhaps there was some from of 'meta-time". We simply don't know but that ignorance does not necessarily make the question absurd.<br /><br /><i>The First Cause Must Be A Personal Being - William Lane Craig - video<br />http://www.metacafe.com/w/4813914</i><br /><br />I am familiar with Craig's arguments. Are you also familiar with their <a href="http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2010/05/william-lane-craigs-arguments-for-god.html" rel="nofollow">refutation</a>?<br /><br /><i>As I said at the end of the last section, due to Craig's many factual and logical errors it is incumbent upon any rational person to embrace the conclusion that if these arguments are seen to be faulty then it stands to reason that there is no evidence of god's existence. Given this fact, it shouldn't take much for a rational individual to further conclude that god is most likely non-existent.</i>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22120354019322818232012-06-24T08:18:50.051-07:002012-06-24T08:18:50.051-07:00Scott: "I've already referenced evidence ...Scott: "I've already referenced evidence that strongly collaborates evolutionary theory. And there is plenty more where that came from." <br /><br />BA: No it doesn't and no there isn't!<br /><br />Yes I have. Science doesn't prove anything is positively true. This is because no one has yet to formulate a "principle of induction" that actually works in practice. (And we can say the same about the current crop of ID, in that no ID proponent has actually formulated a "principle of design detection" that works in practice either.) <br /><br />So, scientific theories are tested by observations, not derived from them. <br /><br />But, by all means, feel free to enlighten us as to how you've solved this problem. Please be specific. <br /><br />Scott: "Second, we discard a infinite number of mere possibilities every day in every field of science. Why should your preferred designer be any different?"<br /><br />BA: You 'theory of knowledge' is lacking to put it kindly 10^500 versions of Scott<br /><br />And it's lacking because? Or have you yet again resorted to a failed attempt at ridiculing a theory you're clueless about?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53661503419326784992012-06-24T05:51:09.253-07:002012-06-24T05:51:09.253-07:00Origin of Phyla - The Fossil Evidence - Timeline G...Origin of Phyla - The Fossil Evidence - Timeline Graph<br />http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzNobjlobjNncQ&hl=en<br /><br /><b>bornagain77</b>: <i>Darwinism predict diversity to precede disparity, </i><br /><br />The chart doesn't show diversity vs. disparity, but number of phyla across time. As phyla are an arbitrary division of clades, the chart doesn't represent what you claim it does.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76690086244537000432012-06-24T05:38:32.011-07:002012-06-24T05:38:32.011-07:00So the strength of a theory is measured by whether...So the strength of a theory is measured by whether it has "traction" in society at large?<br /><br />So when most people believed the Sun went around the Earth - because that's how it looked - that meant that the Sun was actually going around the Earth then because that's what most people believed?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62459516155097743852012-06-24T05:33:34.300-07:002012-06-24T05:33:34.300-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.com