tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post1506998954445138691..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Is This What Jeff Schloss Said at That NYC Meeting Last Week?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62023158003716468122012-04-19T19:27:07.927-07:002012-04-19T19:27:07.927-07:00Instead of a similarity study which presupposes th...Instead of a similarity study which presupposes the very question being asked, why don't you have evidence of a actual protein changing from none form to the other? If you were honest with the science you would admit that this is a glaring lack of empirical confirmation!bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38666415934356463082012-04-06T07:57:21.756-07:002012-04-06T07:57:21.756-07:00Beyond doubt in the same sense and to the same deg...Beyond doubt in the same sense and to the same degree as the kind of evidence that juries use to sentence fellow human beings to death. Not logical certainty, but "beyond reasonable doubt."<br /><br />In fact the evidence is exactly of the type used in courts. Same technology and same reasoning.Petrushkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02343702725399620404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-92095638773649442482012-04-06T03:52:55.269-07:002012-04-06T03:52:55.269-07:00"And yet you do not even require that level o..."And yet you do not even require that level of explanation from your preferred evolution scenario?"<br /><br />You seem to think that because science has little information on exactly how most proteins have formed, the theory of evolution has been dealt a crushing blow.<br /><br />But when I point out that ID has no idea of how any proteins have come into existence, that's ok. Why the double standard? Is it because ID isn't even looking? <br /><br />I can't ask why I should care about what ID believes happened because ID doesn't know squat about how proteins come to be, isn't doing any research into the question and, as far as can be seen, doesn't care. The only "research" ID is doing is looking for ways to disprove evolution and they're making fools of themselves doing it.<br /><br />Wow! 100,000 hours of "highly parallel" computing time. What's that in bacteria hours? If your bacterial colony is large enough to see, you've got trillions of bacteria, each dividing every half hour, with a chance for a mutation with every division. Numbers like that soon swamp a mere 100,000 hours of even the most highly parallel computer time.<br /><br />It involved "a technique known as yeast display to screen candidates" plus "x-ray crystallography to validate designs"? That's automatic in evolution. The bacteria multiply, DNA mutates and if one gets a beneficial mutation its descendants start to multiply faster than the rest of the colony and soon take over.<br /><br />"...[T]he researchers from the University of Washington and The Scripps Institute have unwittingly provided empirical evidence that the high-precision interactions required for PPIs" are pretty fast and easy - no intelligence required.<br /><br />Two more points. First, google bacterial evolution and see how many papers and books and text books show up in the results. Note that NONE of them are from ID researchers.<br /><br />Then, google hemoglobin evolution. Here's the first result: "A comparative study of hemoglobin was conducted to explain how an ancestral single-function molecule gave rise to descending molecules with varied functions."Hemoglobin—the oxygen-transport protein that gives blood its red color—got its start at about the time life originated on earth, nearly four billion years ago." ... "A look at the ancestral hemoglobins indicates that newly arising proteins co-opt the chemistry of older ones and gain new functions through structural alterations. But these studies have revealed an additional way to modify function. Scientists are coming to the realization that changes in a protein's regulation—the when and how of its expression—can also give rise to functional differences."<br /><br />I won't rub it in by quoting from any of the eight other papers that show up on the first page of results alone. I'll just ask: WHAT'S THIS CRAP ABOUT SCIENTISTS NOT KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT HOW PROTEINS EVOLVE?Dave Mullenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396248292343586723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24502255756018748702012-04-06T00:24:47.777-07:002012-04-06T00:24:47.777-07:00Why does the fact that the argument entails theolo...<i>Why does the fact that the argument entails theological premises render it self-defeating?</i><br /><br />Well atheism and materialism hold that there is no material world, so it is illogical to arrive at such a conclusion via a non material truth claim. Make sense? IOW, I can’t say god wouldn’t allow for X, and since X exists, therefore materialism is true. My conclusion contradicts my premise, which is that non material truths exist.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77497396607823670112012-04-05T23:54:28.570-07:002012-04-05T23:54:28.570-07:00"For example, consider the problem of evil. I..."For example, consider the problem of evil. It is a very powerful argument, and atheists often use it. And yet the argument entails theological premises about a god. The atheist must subscribe to said premises in order for the argument to work. Ultimately, what we deem to be “powerful” are in fact self-defeating arguments."<br /><br />Why does the fact that the argument entails theological premises render it self-defeating? <br /><br />Personally, I don't find the argument from moral evil very persuasive, but the one from natural evil seems to have much more force. To me, tornadoes, earthquakes and scorpion tails make much more sense on naturalism--the work of blind, impersonal forces--than Christian theism.<br /><br />"Well that is for the consumption of people who take Scripture seriously."<br /><br />I take it very seriously (or, did).<br /><br />"More generally, you can boil them down into four categories: greater god theology, religious rationalism and deism, the problem of evil, and theological opposition to miracles. Or, to go even further, you can see two broad categories: greater god and the intellectual necessity.<br /><br />However you want to categorize this evolutionary thought, I don’t think there is much question that they are all contradictory to Scripture. You could probably write a book on it, showing the opposition. You could pick out specific verses here and there to make your case, but it would probably be more meaningful to discuss the broad strokes of evolutionary thought and how it is in opposition to the broad strokes of Scripture."<br /><br />I agree that all of the above are unbiblical except for religious rationalism and the problem of (natural) evil. The others are rather easy to counter biblically. How do you think Scripture counters the remaining two?<br /><br />"It’s the next logical step isn’t it. Suddenly you lose your repentance and Jesus dying on the cross for your sins is lost."<br /><br />Indeed. For me, evolution makes nonsense of the Bible.<br /><br />"BornAgain mentioned the biological Big Bangs (eg, Cambrian Explosion). It’s common seen as a problem for evolution, rather than common descent (CD). But even for the latter, this wide array of designs that rapidly appears must have a huge phylogeny behind it that mysteriously is not evident. So I think it poses a serious problem for CD as well."<br /><br />I don't think it's as big as a problem for evolution and CD as I once did. I think there are a lot of good, plausible explanations floating around out there that might account for it, especially those found on Talk Origins. <br /><br />"You mentioned highly conserved sequences in distant species. Keep in mind that these sequences are not highly functionally constrained. A dogmatic evolutionist once privately cited this exact finding, hypothetically before the finding came true, that such a finding would demolish common descent. And yet here we are. The finding came true, and he is still an evolutionist and CDer."<br /><br />It is peculiar indeed, but doesn't it seem like a very rare exception to a well established rule?<br /><br />"The good thing about all this is that from a strictly scientific perspective (which evolutionists to not hold to), we actually should be able to agree on how evolution and CD fare. The answer is very poorly. You’ll never be able to pin down the evolutionists and make them stick to the science, so they’ll never agree. But that’s the fact of the matter. The evidence demolishes these theories."<br /><br />I'm primarily concerned with CD. Why else do you think it fares poorly scientifically?<br /><br />"But if you hold strongly to a particular set of religious views, then they will hold sway for you."<br /><br />So, would you agree there is no hope for a young-Earth creationist at this time?bbigejhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04411619648899536246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34281255884757425662012-04-05T19:33:45.699-07:002012-04-05T19:33:45.699-07:00Bornagain
"Strange But True - Miracle Testim...Bornagain<br /><br />"Strange But True - Miracle Testimony<br />https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfNTNocmRjZGtkdg&hl=en"<br /><br />Amazing story! Too bad it didn't move our atheist friends much.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5870011295005333502012-04-05T19:19:04.902-07:002012-04-05T19:19:04.902-07:00Your imaginary god doesn't exist, and you'...Your imaginary god doesn't exist, and you're a poster boy for insanity and fanatical narcissism. <br /><br />I'm sure you think that you're accomplishing something positive with all of your links and insane rambling but you're nothing but a laughing stock and a massive hypocrite. <br /><br />Did you get beaten up and/or molested a lot when you were a kid? Is your religious fanaticism an escape from internal strife and pain? Does having a cloistered, friendless, useless life in a self-imposed cloud of religious delusions really make up for the worthwhile life you're missing?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15210951612815669012012-04-05T17:19:53.152-07:002012-04-05T17:19:53.152-07:00On the second link I posted here ^^ is the same pa...On the second link I posted here ^^ is the same paper BA77 refers to below <i>Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak</i> <a href="http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v104/i15/e158102" rel="nofollow">here</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65874874093708088442012-04-05T16:52:22.450-07:002012-04-05T16:52:22.450-07:00It's funny that the Intelligent Designer screw...<i>It's funny that the Intelligent Designer screwed up human eyes while getting squid eyes right. God's ways are mysterious and all that, I guess.</i><br /><br />Dave I think it's worth looking at the links <a href="http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/baddesigns" rel="nofollow">here</a> and more specifically <a href="http://www.reasons.org/articles/new-research-highlights-elegant-design-in-the-inverted-retina" rel="nofollow">here</a><br /><br />I urge you to read the content, it's compelling ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36862655079962059382012-04-05T15:31:44.011-07:002012-04-05T15:31:44.011-07:00velikovskys
I am happy for you, to be without dou...<i>velikovskys<br /><br />I am happy for you, to be without doubt must be a comfort.</i><br /><br />Like a wise man one noted,<br /><br />"no brain, no headaches!"<br /><br />:DGhostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87328408685508431472012-04-05T15:25:50.511-07:002012-04-05T15:25:50.511-07:00I am happy for you, to be without doubt must be a ...I am happy for you, to be without doubt must be a comfort.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86827470201108787252012-04-05T13:58:50.923-07:002012-04-05T13:58:50.923-07:00Miracle Testimony - One Easter Sunday Sunrise Serv...Miracle Testimony - One Easter Sunday Sunrise Service - video<br />http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995314/<br /><br />Moreover, the words of the Holy Bible have literally, in a event that turned my worldview completely upsidedown, ‘come alive’ as I was reading them: This following testimony reveals one such time this occurred:<br /><br />Strange But True - Miracle Testimony<br />https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfNTNocmRjZGtkdg&hl=en<br /><br />Hebrews 4:12<br />For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50664656606562842582012-04-05T12:11:54.743-07:002012-04-05T12:11:54.743-07:00Testify BA , tell us how you know,in your own word...Testify BA , tell us how you know,in your own words.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23933511158604504782012-04-05T10:22:28.497-07:002012-04-05T10:22:28.497-07:00well 'hole', I don't believe in an ima...well 'hole', I don't believe in an imaginary god, I believe in a REAL and LIVING God. In fact I KNOW God is real! Moreover 'hole', though you vehemently deny anything to do with God today, I guarantee you, with as much certainty as the sun will rise tomorrow, that your will bow your knee to God and that your tongue will confess to Him!<br /><br />Romans 14:11<br />For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, to me every knee shall bow, And every tongue shall confess to God.<br /><br />Natalie Grant - Your Great Name Lyrics - video<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCg3HU1jhVAbornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50841389637749887742012-04-05T08:13:32.249-07:002012-04-05T08:13:32.249-07:00Just so I have this straight, for the umpteenth ti...Just so I have this straight, for the umpteenth time, you look up something on the internet and post it, thinking it conflicts with what I wrote.<br /><br />However, for the umpteenth time, I point out how you didn't actually understand what you posted in the first place, and that it actually doesn't conflict with what I wrote. <br /><br />At which point, you declare "Scott, 2 down 10^500 - 2 to go"? How exactly does this make sense? <br /><br />If this isn't an example of the the Dunning-Kruger effect, what else are we supposed to conclude?<br /><br />Do you think the answer has been divinely revealed to you, so details in any paper must support your position even if you do not understand them?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66584244860021188022012-04-05T04:49:36.106-07:002012-04-05T04:49:36.106-07:00ba, you really like to play games, don't you? ...ba, you really like to play games, don't you? Why don't you actually respond to this - "If you claim that God did it, then tell us when He did it and where and describe all the steps involved." - instead of linking to totally irrelevant stuff? <br /><br />Where's your scientific, testable evidence that your <b>imaginary god</b> (not humans and not "intelligence") ever designed anything?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15817420539288949832012-04-05T02:25:53.284-07:002012-04-05T02:25:53.284-07:00Dave, why should I care what they believe happened...Dave, why should I care what they believe happened instead of believe what the evidence actually says?<br /><br />Dave you go on to state:<br /><br />'If you claim that God did it, then tell us when He did it and where and describe all the steps involved.'<br /><br />And yet you do not even require that level of explanation from your preferred evolution scenario? Perhaps you should demand the origination of just one protein by purely material processes first?,,, By the way though purely material processes have failed to generate a single protein, intelligence has:<br /><br />Viral-Binding Protein Design Makes the Case for Intelligent Design Sick! (as in cool) - Fazale Rana - June 2011<br />Excerpt: When considering this study, it is remarkable to note how much effort it took to design a protein that binds to a specific location on the hemagglutinin molecule. As biochemists Bryan Der and Brian Kuhlman point out while commenting on this work, the design of these proteins required:<br />"...cutting-edge software developed by ~20 groups worldwide and 100,000 hours of highly parallel computing time. It also involved using a technique known as yeast display to screen candidate proteins and select those with high binding affinities, as well as x-ray crystallography to validate designs.2"<br />If it takes this much work and intellectual input to create a single protein from scratch, is it really reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes could accomplish this task routinely?<br />In other words, the researchers from the University of Washington and The Scripps Institute have unwittingly provided empirical evidence that the high-precision interactions required for PPIs requires intelligent agency to arise. Sick!<br />http://www.reasons.org/viral-binding-protein-design-makes-case-intelligent-design-sick-coolbornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10865413600853786882012-04-05T02:17:16.091-07:002012-04-05T02:17:16.091-07:00That's not surprising. Evangelical Christians...That's not surprising. Evangelical Christians are forbidden to believe in pagan stuff like palm readers and astrology.Dave Mullenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396248292343586723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21102306915432665822012-04-05T02:12:00.131-07:002012-04-05T02:12:00.131-07:00My original comment was on Professor Hunter's ...My original comment was on Professor Hunter's claim that "the human and squid vision system are uncannily similar." Since one has an inverted retina and the other doesn't, this is plain false. <br /><br />You "countered" with a cut and paste job from your store of misinformation which describes how human vision EVOLVED to use glial cells to channel light directly to photoreceptor cells in the fovea, bypassing the nerve cells in front of them and reducing chromatic aberration and getting rid of some noise in the process.<br /><br />These cells would work just as well if the retina were right side out. I asked if The Intelligent Designer had done the same thing for the squid and you don't seem to like that question. Sorry about that, but it's a legitimate question. Did He?<br /><br />Then you bring up another cut and paste from your treasure trove, this time on near death experiences. Guess what? You're not dead when you have a NEAR death experience! You're not dead just because your heart has stopped, ask anyone who's had open heart surgery. <br /><br />But your brain IS deprived of oxygen and starts to malfunction and that is enough to account for people who think they see while their hearts are stopped (or maybe she actually did - there are several different pathways for vision in the human brain and her oxygen starved and malfunctioning cells might have tapped into one of them. Look up "blind sight") or have out of body experiences or anything else that I've ever heard of happening during an NDE.<br /><br />Before making totally unfactual "arguments" about what consciousness is, try reading up on what research shows about it. I suggest "Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain" by Michael Gazzaniga for a recent book that gives a good account of what we actually KNOW about consciousness as compared to the off the wall theories that some people have about it.<br /><br />The world seems to be divided into two camps regarding consciousness: Those who are studying it in the lab and making great strides in understanding it and theologians and a few philosophers who don't know squat, but who have plenty of ever more worthless and off the wall theories about it.<br /><br />P.S. Thank you for not dragging the Shroud of Turin into this.Dave Mullenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396248292343586723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10828259094074858152012-04-05T01:34:23.874-07:002012-04-05T01:34:23.874-07:00BA77, have you read the papers you toss at us? On...BA77, have you read the papers you toss at us? One is here: http://prl.aps.org/pdf/PRL/v104/i15/e158102<br /><br />The other, simplified version, is here: http://spie.org/documents/Newsroom/Imported/003189/003189_10.pdf<br /><br />They both describe how the retina EVOLVED (their word) to add glial cells which "drill down" through the nerve cells to the light sensing cells. <br /><br />Those glial cells reject light that doesn't strike them perpendicularly, thus rejecting noise from reflections in the eye. <br /><br />They also reduce chromatic aberration (blue light focuses approx .25 mm in front of red light) by channeling both colors directly to the light sensitive cells. <br /><br />Note that word EVOLVED. I wonder if The Intelligent Designer did the same for the squid? After all, "the human and squid vision system are uncannily similar."<br /><br />You also make a point that we don't know the exact process by which the proteins in the eye evolved. This is not surprising, since they evolved millions of years ago and left no fossils that we know of.<br /><br />But you know what? Neither can ID. You haven't the faintest idea of how those proteins came to be there. Saying "God did it" carries about the same weight as saying "Evolution did it." except that we have lots of evidence of evolution making things.<br /><br />If you claim that God did it, then tell us when He did it and where and describe all the steps involved. Did the proteins appear instantly and fully formed or did precursors appear first and then gradually mutate into their present form? When did they appear? Did they appear in humans or in some ancestral animal? <br /><br />That's what you're asking of us and you seem to think that our inability to answer is some kind of victory for ID. <br /><br />Well, two can play that game. If you can't answer the above questions, then I'm going to copy your tactics and declare victory.Dave Mullenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396248292343586723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2292476872062339602012-04-04T22:55:15.853-07:002012-04-04T22:55:15.853-07:00Grasping at straws, Cornelius?
No, I’m reporting...<i>Grasping at straws, Cornelius? </i><br /><br />No, I’m reporting on the science. Something which you seem to oppose.<br /><br /><br /><i> Translation: Man shares common ancestry with apes, mice, birds, dinosaurs and fishes. Genes are transferred vertically among these lineages, with an occasional exception due to viral insertions. This is beyond any doubt. Doolittle does not dispute that. Creationists such as yourself do.</i><br /><br />Beyond any doubt? Why is that true? How does the absence of falsification translate into “Beyond any doubt?”Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86810085650627793122012-04-04T22:34:37.730-07:002012-04-04T22:34:37.730-07:00Louis: 5. I don't yet know how to resolve conu...Louis: 5. I don't yet know how to resolve conundrum #4. From a Judeo-Christian POV, all I know is that the name Yahweh means 'I am that I am'. I take this to mean that he is what he is out of logical necessity.<br /><br />Scott: And If someone names their child "Yahweh", that child must exist out of a logical necessary? What if I legally change my name to "Yahweh"?<br /><br />Louis: OK. That does it. I'm talking to a moron. See ya.<br /><br />The Bible says that God's name is "I am what I am", so he doesn't need a physical brain? And if I do not agree, I'm a moron?<br /><br />Again, how does one's choosing to call them self any name in particular actually result in them actually having any necessary, specific properties?<br /><br />If the name "I am what I am" is only relevant when revealed from the Bible, then you're appealing to authority rather than making a rational argument. <br /><br />Again, this sounds like more hocus pocus.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75996445040815915172012-04-04T19:03:52.000-07:002012-04-04T19:03:52.000-07:00By the way phil (ba77), remarks like "the ...By the way phil (ba77), remarks like "the 'hole' truth" and "delusional atheists" are mighty christian of ya. I'm sure your imaginary jesus is proud of you. <br /><br />With friends like you, gordon mullings, joe gallien, o'leary, arrington, and the rest of the IDiots, ID and christianity don't need any enemies. You sanctimonious god zombies are doing more harm than good for your maniacal agenda.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55607818457294314752012-04-04T18:42:20.467-07:002012-04-04T18:42:20.467-07:00Multiple Scotts would be fine with me, but one loo...Multiple Scotts would be fine with me, but one looney toon like you is more than enough. <br /><br />You still haven't said what happened in your life that turned you into such a pompous godbot.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72238714500536472042012-04-04T18:34:29.488-07:002012-04-04T18:34:29.488-07:00Theistic postulations, miracles, near death experi...Theistic postulations, miracles, near death experiences, etc.? <br /><br />So, your objections to science and the ToE, and your promotion of ID, are based on your religious beliefs. Of course I knew that all along.<br /><br />All science so far! LOLThe whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.com