tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post5302349987711666916..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Post Synaptic Proteins Intolerant of ChangeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger137125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9185092253591610542010-12-28T13:50:43.469-08:002010-12-28T13:50:43.469-08:00I don't know how to put it in any kinder way. ...<b>I don't know how to put it in any kinder way. When you have all of biology just happening to arise on its own, with long shot after long shot constructions arising, it seems like "unlikely" is hardly an equivocation. If anything, it is an understatement.</b><br /><br />I'm asking for intellectually honesty, not kindness. The phrase "All of biology" represents concrete outcomes. However, the theory of evolution doesn't suggest evolution has goals or exhibits foresight. Nor does it suggest that the concrete path we observe was in any way pre-planned. <br /><br />The unqualified statement that "evolution is unlikely" is vague and appears disingenuous. It's similar to stating the lottery is highly unlikely, when one really means a specific person's odds of winning the lottery is highly unlikely. <br /><br /><b>Again, no, what I actually do is present these statistics *with* explanations. For instance, for protein evolution I explain that intermediate proteins are needed, but that there scant evidence of such intermediates.</b><br /><br />You're making the assumption that the lack of discovered intermediates (an observation) indicates no such intermediates exist of will never be identified as such. Furthermore, you're assuming your readers will make the same assumption and that they will implicitly apply that assumption with the rest of your statistics. <br /><br /><b>The only way to resolve this problem is to have the spacer removal mechanism already in place. </b><br /><br />You seem to have mistaken statistics with incredulity. You did not present statistics in the original post you quoted from or anywhere in it's comments. <br /><br /><b>No, I don't have my own private definition of science, and nor does it vary as you suggest.</b><br /><br />Then you should have no problem explaining how gravity *is* valid science while evolution is not. I've asked this question several times and do not recall receiving a response.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61729766539841348992010-12-28T13:49:21.314-08:002010-12-28T13:49:21.314-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37387425559198496742010-12-28T13:47:58.418-08:002010-12-28T13:47:58.418-08:00Cornelius wrote:
What I have pointed out is that...Cornelius wrote: <br /><br /><b>What I have pointed out is that religion has driven evolutionists to absurd scientific conclusions. They now believe evolution is a fact, an undefendable conclusion. The religious beliefs that got them there is another matter.</b><br /><br />OK, let me rephrase. <br /><br /><i>For example, you say your neutral in regards to evolution, yet continually claim it's an absurd, religiously <b>driven, scientific conclusion</b> which could represent thoughts corrupted by sin.</i><br /><br />Is that more accurate? If so, I don't see how this makes your position any more neutral.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13860809227985209222010-12-28T08:10:46.201-08:002010-12-28T08:10:46.201-08:00Janfeld: "I would rephrase this to say the Bi...<i>Janfeld: "I would rephrase this to say the Bible is incomplete from a "give me any scientific details" perspective."<br />=====<br /><br />Ecocene: Spoken like a true Ideo-blogger. Ever see that movie classic with Henry Fonda and Paul Newman called "Never Give An Inch" ???<br />-----<br /></i><br />Merely a factual statement that the Bible (as CH notes also) is short on science. In fact sometimes it's just plain wrong (e.g., rabbits chewing the cud). Of course I daresay you can do what Omar does with the Koran and quote-mine something from Psalms to show how scientifically literate the Bible is, but I would hope you're above that sort of thing. Either way, we are left with the fact that the BIble - even though Christians regard it as God's revelation has very little to say on science (and in fact on many subjects that concern us in modern times). As Cornelius said it is a book written for ancient people in ancient language (although apparently many Christians believe it God's word and revelation for all the ages?)<br /><br /><i>Janfeld: "But it is quite understandable that a more literal reading of the Bible does and has yield an understanding that the Universe and Earth is not terribly old. This belief was in place for many, many centuries - and some persist with it today."<br />======<br /><br />Ecocene: Remember the strategy boys and girls, keep it Fundie. Keep it Fundie at all costs. The Biblical account can ONLY have a Fundie slant to it. We can ONLY eat chew up and spit out Fundies all day long. Without them we have no purpose and our pointless blind indifferent existance has no meaning to life otherwise. <br /></i><br /><br />I was just merely stating the fact that the majority of Bible believers have taken a literal view of the scriptures over the years, and some still do today - incongruous as that may be. It is probably only in the last two hundred years through advances in science (and especially knowledge of the real age of the earth) that Christians have had to approach the Bible in a less literal way. Which of course is interesting in itself.<br /><br />Yes, there are alternative ways of viewing the Bible - many in fact, but the Bible itself offers very few clues on how it should be interpreted (which probably explains the huge proliferation of denominations, sects, cults - some 30,000 or more in fact). If you can provide us with the proper way in which the Bible should be read and interpreted I'm sure many here would be interested in hearing it. <br /><br />Ecocene: "Again ROFL!!!"<br /><br />Only ROFL? Not ROFLMAO or ROFLABAOTP or ROFLLASF?TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28345376727794911372010-12-28T08:08:12.915-08:002010-12-28T08:08:12.915-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5143303257435897062010-12-28T03:56:28.310-08:002010-12-28T03:56:28.310-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58479354540290264532010-12-28T02:55:01.217-08:002010-12-28T02:55:01.217-08:00Let's see now, there are no absolutes and trut...<em>Let's see now, there are no absolutes and truth is relative because evolution is true and everyone can decide morality for themselves ??? Hmmmmm!!!</em><br /><br />I guess I just don't see how "there are no absolutes and truth is relative" and "everyone can decide morality for themselves" follows from "evolution is true". Evolution is the gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms. More precisely it is the change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. I'm not sure that I see how that equates to "There is no such thing as right or wrong?" Any chance that you could be a little bit more explicit in your logic?Venture Freehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17667967894208257738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17871907757631684592010-12-28T02:07:02.094-08:002010-12-28T02:07:02.094-08:00Second Opinion:
"Cornelius Hunter, before we...Second Opinion:<br /><br />"Cornelius Hunter, before we keep arguing about words, could you give an example where in any other branch of science an intelligent cause is invoked as the best explanation? <br />======<br /><br />This doesn't even make sense, there is no such branch of science that discusses intelligent God causes. Science is supposed to be neutral. Although they have no problem with Panspermian Alien causes or Parallel Universes. Maybe you should rethink your question, minus the Thortonianism quips.Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20707251701660536902010-12-28T01:59:49.367-08:002010-12-28T01:59:49.367-08:00Cornelius Hunter, before we keep arguing about wor...Cornelius Hunter, before we keep arguing about words, could you give an example where in any other branch of science an intelligent cause is invoked as the best explanation? (Except for animals building stuff.)second opinionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790522541732472791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83778048122650230182010-12-28T01:31:35.484-08:002010-12-28T01:31:35.484-08:00McGee:
"I'm sure that I must be bungling...McGee:<br /><br />"I'm sure that I must be bungling this terribly. Please correct me if I've totally misrepresented your position."<br />=======<br /><br />Let's see now, there are no absolutes and truth is relative because evolution is true and everyone can decide morality for themselves ??? Hmmmmm!!!<br /><br />So when Pontius Pilate said, "What Is Truth?" he actually meant "Who can possibly know what the truth is for any certainty?" So in a nut shell he declares that no one can possibly know what the truth is, yet after washing his hands of the affair he then turns around and asks those onlookers who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement ??? At least it's apparent that old Pontius believed in the truth of his staement.<br /><br />The morality issue is also another attempt at game playing and wasting time. Pedant says what is at stake here is ideology. He is correct and I've pointed out that it's not about the science. It's about accountability and moral issues. "How dare you impose your version of morality on me" Yet the Evolutionist has no problem imposing their version of morality on someone else. <br /><br />Rev Richard Dawkins says, "Most educated, secular people (and this includes most scientists, academics, and journalists) seem to believe that there is no such thing as moral truth - only moral preference, moral opinion, and emotional reactions that we mistake for genuine knowledge of right and wrong, or good and evil."<br /><br />So is Richard Dawkin's bold statement right or wrong ??? Is it good or evil ??? Evidently everybody can believe and do whatever they want.<br /> "Truth is relative! There's no right and there's no wrong! We should be able to do whatever we want!"<br /><br /> If that is a true statement and there is no right and there is no wrong, and everyone should be able to do whatever they want, then why do they become angry when someone robs their house ??? Mugs them in the streets or rapes their daughter ??? So there are absolutes!!!<br /><br />In reality they do believe in absolute truth, theirs. Common ground to an atheist is believe and accept whatever comes out of their mouth as absolute truth.Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91966331621169779112010-12-28T00:11:09.987-08:002010-12-28T00:11:09.987-08:00Janfeld:
"I would rephrase this to say the B...Janfeld:<br /><br />"I would rephrase this to say the Bible is incomplete from a "give me any scientific details" perspective."<br />=====<br /><br />Spoken like a true Ideo-blogger. Ever see that movie classic with Henry Fonda and Paul Newman called "Never Give An Inch" ???<br />-----<br /><br />Janfeld:<br /><br />"But it is quite understandable that a more literal reading of the Bible does and has yield an understanding that the Universe and Earth is not terribly old. This belief was in place for many, many centuries - and some persist with it today."<br />======<br /><br />Remember the strategy boys and girls, keep it Fundie. Keep it Fundie at all costs. The Biblical account can ONLY have a Fundie slant to it. We can ONLY eat chew up and spit out Fundies all day long. Without them we have no purpose and our pointless blind indifferent existance has no meaning to life otherwise. <br /><br />Again ROFL!!!Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62233673189963376012010-12-28T00:01:04.817-08:002010-12-28T00:01:04.817-08:00Cornelius:
"How are unique genes in similar ...Cornelius:<br /><br />"How are unique genes in similar species evidence for evolution?"<br />----<br /><br />Pedant:<br /><br />"It's late in my day, and Negative Entropy has replied to some of your other rhetorical questions, so I'll just address this one, because I like it a lot. Please cite the evidence that you have claimed to exist for the more than 1000 unique genes in humans that are a problem for evolution."<br />======<br /><br />I believe he asked you FIRST!!! Besides, you wouldn't be interested anyway. When the "Please cite" or Please tell us" etc spin question pop up, it's usually nothing more than a ploy to avoid looking ignorant to the original question asked. Again, it's NOT about the science Petty, it's the Ideology(western uncivilization is at stake). LOLEocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80141490808689701292010-12-27T23:54:06.365-08:002010-12-27T23:54:06.365-08:00Thorton:
"What magic barrier can you demonst...Thorton:<br /><br />"What magic barrier can you demonstrate that would make it impossible (not just time consuming) for microevolutionary changes to accumulate into macro ones?<br /><br />And please, don't insult everyone's intelligent with your non-sequitur "Monsanto species barrier" BS again."<br />=====<br /><br />I believe this question can best be expained by your pet company Monsanto or by any of their former employees now appointed to a U.S. Government position of GMO propaganda push oversight. <br /><br />And as far as intelligence, there simply is nothing observable to insult. I know, it's tough being the love child of Penn Jillette and Rosie O'Donnel, but it's still no excuse for ignorance in this day and age. *wink*<br />------<br /><br />Thorton:<br /><br />"Psst, hey dummy....walking can most certainly get you from L.A. to Paris if you take a route over the northern polar ice cap."<br />======<br /><br />So let me get this straight. Global Warming and/or Climate Change is a proven psuedo-science Hoax after all and the Right-Wing Fundies got it correct ??? Incredible !!!Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83716304181630022232010-12-27T23:16:04.090-08:002010-12-27T23:16:04.090-08:00CH: "Well sure the Bible is incomplete, from ...CH: "Well sure the Bible is incomplete, from a "give me all the scientific details" perspective. It gives about a page and a half of science (compared to the thousands of pages we're used to in our texts), written in an ancient language to ancient peoples."<br /><br />I would rephrase this to say the Bible is incomplete from a "give me any scientific details" perspective. <br /><br />As to evolution being a fact, others have addressed this. Like others here I would distinguish between the theory of evolution and the observation of species changing over time. Or do you not think the latter is a fact either? It's OK, I wouldn't expect a yes or no answer from you. <br /><br />But given the paucity of other theories (including ID), I think the theory of evolution is probably the best contender. If there is a supernatural alternative (and associated agent) I don't see any plausible evidence for that yet - although you and your ID cohorts may yet surprise us all, but so far ID seems more of a PR job rather than a respectable scientific endeavor worth considering. The real essence of the argument to me, is there a natural explanation or a supernatural one. I can see that evolution may not be a perfect theory (what theory is), but to propose that there is an alternative supernatural explanation would be an astounding discovery. Besides, assuming there is a highly intelligent agent responsible, that agent seems really rather reluctant to speak out doesn't it? (or has it chosen the Discovery Institute as it's chosen mouthpiece?)<br /><br />Again, the best way to usurp a scientific theory is replace it with another...and it's rather a shame that you don't focus your energies on this endeavor which would be well suited to your training. But you seem content to pull down rather than build up - each to their own I guess (but my understanding of history is that it is those that build up that make a difference). <br /><br />CH: "I didn't know that. Are you channeling Bishop Ussher?"<br /><br />Funny. But it is quite understandable that a more literal reading of the Bible does and has yield an understanding that the Universe and Earth is not terribly old. This belief was in place for many, many centuries - and some persist with it today. There's even a putative museum in Kentucky dedicated to this belief. Clearly the author(s) of the Bible weren't concerned with people being confused over this issue, and remaining so even today, even within Christendom (and perhaps especially so), to the point that it must inevitably dilute and distract from Christendom's main mission.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58289612483137838112010-12-27T21:24:39.879-08:002010-12-27T21:24:39.879-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75124616457157518312010-12-27T21:21:38.729-08:002010-12-27T21:21:38.729-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73282626941625108302010-12-27T20:32:59.979-08:002010-12-27T20:32:59.979-08:00Janfeld:
===
do you think you're channeling S...Janfeld:<br /><br />===<br />do you think you're channeling Socrates or something?<br />===<br /><br />In what ways are different rivers alike? In what ways are they different?<br /><br /><br />===<br />CH: "Actually I was hoping you might awaken."<br /><br />I don't really know what you mean by that, <br />===<br /><br />As I said earlier, awaken from the belief that evolution is a fact. Evolution may or may not be true, but it is *not* a fact. No one knows whether evolution it true or not, but we *do* know what is the state of our knowledge. The fact claim is a claim about the state of our knowledge. Of that there is no uncertainty. We all know what the state of our knowledge it, and sans metaphysical assumptions, we do *not* know evolution to be a no-brainer, compelling explanation of the data that can be denied only by taking an irrational approach. This simply is not the case. The evolutionary claim that it is a fact is an obvious misrepresentation of the science. But of course evolutionist's claims do not stem from science in the first place.<br /><br /><br />===<br />I guess I take a much more straightforward approach to things. For example, the Bible claims the Universe as we know it is a mere 6-7K years old. <br />===<br /><br />I didn't know that. Are you channeling Bishop Ussher?<br /><br /><br />===<br />And besides you keep talking about a "wide range of possibilities"? So obviously you think about these things. But it almost sounds like you acknowledge a certain sense of incompleteness or something lacking from the Bible<br />===<br /><br />Well sure the Bible is incomplete, from a "give me all the scientific details" perspective. It gives about a page and a half of science (compared to the thousands of pages we're used to in our texts), written in an ancient language to ancient peoples.<br /><br /><br />===<br />but instead we have a wholly contradictory set of facts/myths/allegories which in modern times seem at discord with recent science. To me that's an issue that needs to be discussed and tackled head-on, but judging again by your rather obfuscated answer (although very articulate and eloquent), it seems you always like to skirt around these things. <br />===<br /><br />Yes, I agree that this is an issue worthy of consideration and discussion. I didn't mean to skirt your questions--in fact I could have simply ignored your question about my views altogether.<br /><br />But this blog is about evolution, not the Bible. Evolutionists are constantly bringing up the latter as their foil, so topics such as theology and the Bible do continually arise. But the purpose of this blog is not to engage in biblical exegesis or criticism. That would take it too far afield.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61545377639429189582010-12-27T16:41:35.277-08:002010-12-27T16:41:35.277-08:00Hunter:
How are unique genes in similar species e...Hunter:<br /><br /><i>How are unique genes in similar species evidence for evolution?</i><br /><br />It's late in my day, and Negative Entropy has replied to some of your other rhetorical questions, so I'll just address this one, because I like it a lot. Please cite the evidence that you have claimed to exist for the more than 1000 unique genes in humans that are a problem for evolution.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35754370552921672792010-12-27T16:38:13.831-08:002010-12-27T16:38:13.831-08:00Cornelius Hunter said...
You seem to be labor...<i>Cornelius Hunter said...<br /><br /> You seem to be laboring at missing the point. I did not say I am immune to my metaphysics. I explained that my metaphysics are neutral on evolution.</i><br /><br />What you "explain" and what you demonstrate are two different things CH. You can make all the hand-waving denials you want, but the evidence of your Fundy religious agenda is out there for all to see.<br /><br /><i>===<br />Again I suppose he is preaching to the invisible grandstand of wavering theists who might be tempted to embrace evolution.<br />===<br /><br />Actually I was hoping you might awaken.</i><br /><br />We know CH. All the distortions and lies you tell about science and scientists are just your misguided attempts at "witnessing" for your religion. Jesus must be so proud of you.<br /><br /><i>So here is how it works. The fossils, genetics, comparative anatomy, and so forth, present all kinds of problems for evolution. </i><br /><br />Sadly for you CH, the problems only exist inside your tightly closed Fundy mind. The real scientific community accepts that there are still unknowns to investigate but sees nothing even remotely close to being a show stopper. But keep whining and stomping your feet if it gives you a sense of self worth. Heaven knows you've done nothing of any scientific value in the last half dozen years.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37413996598193177742010-12-27T15:39:19.439-08:002010-12-27T15:39:19.439-08:00Hey Cornelius!
Playing the rhetorics again, I see...Hey Cornelius!<br /><br />Playing the rhetorics again, I see.<br /><br /><i>For instance, how are new forms appearing in the fossil record evidence for evolution?</i><br /><br />Depends. Which forms are you thinking about? How much more do you know about the before and after such forms appeared? As you present it here, it is neither evidence for, nor against. As you present it, it looks a lot like a categorical mistake. If something is not evidence for evolution, it does not necessarily mean it is evidence against evolution.<br /><br /><i>How are complex mechanisms that are lethal to the organism without additional parts, evidence for evolution?</i><br /><br />Same thing, what else do you know about them? That piece of data alone does not tell me whether it is evidence for, against, or neither.<br /><br /><i>How are built-in adaptation mechanisms evidence for evolution?</i><br /><br />Same thing.<br /><br /><i>How are unique genes in similar species evidence for evolution?</i><br /><br />Same thing. Though this one looks more in target, without more information it means little. A possibility against? Yup. But we have to know much more before reaching any conclusions, don't we?<br /><br /><i>Oh, that's right, they aren't. Even evolutionists admit that in their honest moments. But for the most part, evolutionists such as here promote the obvious lie that all the evidence supports the theory.</i><br /><br />And the customary grand finale! Nothing but empty and amateurish rhetoric.<br /><br />Misguided religion drives your pseudoscience, and it matters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31545545845398952762010-12-27T15:15:07.921-08:002010-12-27T15:15:07.921-08:00CH: "No, I'm not the one avoiding difficu...CH: "No, I'm not the one avoiding difficult issues."<br /><br />Your inability to answer a question in a straightforward and understandable way without rhetorical tricks (do you think you're channeling Socrates or something?) is becoming quite legendary as many others here are noting also. It is in fact rather exasperating. I almost wonder if you realize this. <br /><br />CH: "Actually I was hoping you might awaken."<br /><br />I don't really know what you mean by that, other than you are expressing a hope that I might share a similar worldview to yourself. I have already been through that phase in my life and have moved on. My hope for you is that you will move on one day too. I know I am all the happier for it.<br /><br />CH: "Usually when people claim that the Bible's teaching on science and origins contradicts what we see in the natural world, as you are here, they have cards they are not showing. For instance, they are interpreting some scientific observations according to some non scientific assumptions. etc, etc"<br /><br />I guess I take a much more straightforward approach to things. For example, the Bible claims the Universe as we know it is a mere 6-7K years old. Observations from a number of different scientific disciplines tell us in is likely around 13-14 Billion years old. A big difference. <br /><br />So yes you take what the Bible says, but there's a discrepancy here. Do you just ignore it, pretend it doesn't matter, or allegorize it? Surely you have some thoughts on the matter even if you keep them to yourself - certainly as a former Christian myself, I pondered a lot over these things, as did many of my Christian friends. <br /><br />And besides you keep talking about a "wide range of possibilities"? So obviously you think about these things. But it almost sounds like you acknowledge a certain sense of incompleteness or something lacking from the Bible - as if what the Bible has does not provide sufficient information (although it seems more than adequate for others, such as Ken Ham and Kent Hovind?). <br /><br />I think it would be one thing if these things were omitted completely from the Bible - perhaps as a sign from God that we are not supposed to ask these kinds of questions - but instead we have a wholly contradictory set of facts/myths/allegories which in modern times seem at discord with recent science. To me that's an issue that needs to be discussed and tackled head-on, but judging again by your rather obfuscated answer (although very articulate and eloquent), it seems you always like to skirt around these things.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50696052867609088612010-12-27T15:09:53.419-08:002010-12-27T15:09:53.419-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38202379976614247402010-12-27T14:51:13.664-08:002010-12-27T14:51:13.664-08:00Pedant:
==
The fossils, genetics, comparative ana...Pedant:<br /><br />==<br />The fossils, genetics, comparative anatomy, and so forth, [are evidence] for evolution.<br />===<br /><br />How so?<br /><br />For instance, how are new forms appearing in the fossil record evidence for evolution?<br /><br />How are complex mechanisms that are lethal to the organism without additional parts, evidence for evolution?<br /><br />How are built-in adaptation mechanisms evidence for evolution?<br /><br />How are unique genes in similar species evidence for evolution? <br /><br />Oh, that's right, they aren't. Even evolutionists admit that in their honest moments. But for the most part, evolutionists such as here promote the obvious lie that all the evidence supports the theory.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11242354306640469512010-12-27T14:42:44.168-08:002010-12-27T14:42:44.168-08:00Janfeld:
===
Now, I do appreciate that with all o...Janfeld:<br /><br />===<br />Now, I do appreciate that with all of us (including CH) that metaphysics do indeed influence and affect our worldview. CH seems to be unique in that he thinks he is somehow immune to his own metaphysics<br />===<br /><br />You seem to be laboring at missing the point. I did not say I am immune to my metaphysics. I explained that my metaphysics are neutral on evolution. I realize you are a refugee from fundamentalism, so likely trapped in the warfare myth, but the fact is evolution is not atheism in disguise, it was not motivated by, or influenced by atheism. There are plenty of metaphysical arguments for evolution that Christians elaborated and developed in the 17th - 19th centuries. And some are reasonably good arguments. But while I acknowledge these premises and arguments, and their strengths, I do not hold to them anywhere near as strongly as do evolutionists. I allow other evidence, not the least of which is the evidence from nature, to sway my conclusions as well.<br /><br /><br />===<br />(when in fact we can clearly draw a line between his Christian views on "sin" and how he believes this has impacted people's thinking on evolution). <br />===<br /><br />How else am I to explain your non sensical views on evolution?<br /><br /><br />===<br />Again I suppose he is preaching to the invisible grandstand of wavering theists who might be tempted to embrace evolution. <br />===<br /><br />Actually I was hoping you might awaken.<br /><br /><br />===<br />But in the end the CH "metaphysics" playing card is really little more than a ruse, a diversion, an assertion to avoid discussing head-on the more difficult questions and issues. <br />===<br /><br />No, I'm not the one avoiding difficult issues.<br /><br /><br />===<br />So CH, let's try again. I made the claim that I believe the Bible's teaching on science and origins contradicts that what we see in the natural world. Without invoking metaphysics, can you explain how it doesn't? <br />===<br /><br />Usually when people claim that the Bible's teaching on science and origins contradicts what we see in the natural world, as you are here, they have cards they are not showing. For instance, they are interpreting some scientific observations according to some non scientific assumptions. Or the same with scripture. I'm just not motivated to do that. I'll take what the Bible says, but I don't want to add or subtract from it. Likewise with science. But that leaves one with a rather wide interpretive framework which for many is dissatisfying and unacceptable. Something your background probably would not tolerate.<br /><br />Without those additional assumptions added to the data, you're often left with a wide spectrum of possibilities. So you might accuse me of avoiding difficult issues, but I'm just not interested in making inference or conclusions that the data do not require.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-202783171573679272010-12-27T14:30:23.665-08:002010-12-27T14:30:23.665-08:00Hunter:
So here is how it works. The fossils, gen...Hunter:<br /><br /><i>So here is how it works. The fossils, genetics, comparative anatomy, and so forth, present all kinds of problems for evolution. So the theory is patched and twisted every which way to try to fit the data. All this because the theory was culturally mandated in the first place, and declared to be a fact for naturalism was assumed. Then, when you point this out, they accuse you of attacking science.</i><br /><br />Actually, <b>here</b> is how it works:<br /><br />The fossils, genetics, comparative anatomy, and so forth, [are evidence] for evolution. So the theory is [well supported by] the data. All this because the theory was [a landmark in scientific reasoning], and [the weight of accumulated evidence qualified the history of common descent as a fact]. Then, when [Hunter argues to the contrary], [he is] attacking science [ideologically].Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.com