tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post5700492570098922484..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: More Insertion Site Preferences: A Reminder of Evolutionists Having it both WaysUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56912090881841462502011-09-11T09:32:45.042-07:002011-09-11T09:32:45.042-07:00Eocene: So if I have this correct, the question of...Eocene: So if I have this correct, the question of what a god, any god, would or wouldn't do is nothing more than a smartassism used only in a debate setting, especially when you consider the way it is used by people like PZ Meyers ???<br /><br />It's a criticism of what appears to be an inconsistent application of how theists identify God's actions, or lack there of, in practice. Apparently, the terms 'Intelligent' and 'design' can be varied to mean anything and everything depending on the context in which it's being applied. <br /><br />In over words, it's not even clear which God are you referring to as many definitions exist. Is God merely just some person who is infinitely powerful? Is the the God of open theism? Or is God pure love in that he can only sit on the sidelines and make us feel warm and fuzzy? <br /><br />And let not even get started on exactly when or how he intervenes, and in which ways. Again it seems to vary depending on exactly what people are trying to "explain" by involving God. The Bible is just one such example. <br /><br />Again, should we attempt to take the claim seriously, in that God "designed" the biosphere, in reality, and that *all* observations should conform to them, we see what appears to be conflicts in how God's actions, or lack there of, are identified in practice. <br /><br />Of course, this is no mere coincidence. God is a bad explanation in that he's easily varied an related to whatever you're attempt to explain directly via the claim itself. There is no deep and hard to vary explanation as to how God does anything, in realty. It's all magic.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57696287878127935972011-09-11T08:57:17.523-07:002011-09-11T08:57:17.523-07:00Eocene: Interesting. I asked a simple question, ju...Eocene: Interesting. I asked a simple question, just one simple question mind you and as true to your historical nature you reply with an entire manuscript which trips off into Nowhere Man's yellow submarine world. <br /><br />First, your "simple" question was actually a loaded question, which commits the same fallacy as "when did you stop beating your wife?" Rather than simply say, "We don't. Cornelius merely creates an elaborate misrepresentation that makes it appear that way", I actually provided a detailed example where he was caught with his hands in the cookie jar. <br /><br />Second, if my comment actually "[tripped] off into Nowhere Man's yellow submarine world.", then you should have no problem pointing out exactly where and how. Please be specific. <br /><br />Furthermore, I certainly do not claim to have a personal relationship with the "mind and figurative heart" of said being. That would be theists, such as yourself. I'm merely pointing out what appears to be an inconsistent application of how theists identify God's actions, or lack there of, in practice. <br /><br />For all I know, God could have created the universes last Thursday with the appearance of age, false memories of creating cars, medicine, computers, etc.. <br /><br />However, in doing so he would have created false memories of Darwin having developed evolutionary theory, the fossil record, past molecular evidence and false memories of the theory's acceptance by science. Could God have wanted to set up such a scenario? We cannot rule it out. However, if so this suggests there is something fundamentally wrong with our ability to create knowledge. We might as well give up here and now, because what we think is reality simply isn't a reliable. Such a claim is a denial of scientific realism, just like solipsism. <br /><br />And so is the current crop of ID. If the biosphere really was carefully designed by an intelligent designer then apparently he was blindsided by the acceptance of Neo-Darwinism by mainstream science (and not very intelligent) or he planned it all along; just as if a "designer" who created the universe last Thursday planned the mere appearance of age, false memories, and the acceptance of false theories. <br /><br />In other words, rather than creating the universe last Thursday in a way that merely made it look *as if* knowledge had be created by the entirety of science - including Darwin's theory- the designer created the biosphere *as if* the process of evolution created the knowledge found the genome, but did not. <br /><br />As such, it's a denial of scientific realism and a variant of solipsism.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84185550283980253232011-09-11T02:51:43.558-07:002011-09-11T02:51:43.558-07:00Interesting. I asked a simple question, just one s...Interesting. I asked a simple question, just one simple question mind you and as true to your historical nature you reply with an entire manuscript which trips off into Nowhere Man's yellow submarine world. Well here's the only bit worth responding to.<br />-----<br /><br />Scotty:<br /><br />"However, unlike the climate when Origins was written, science today does not write peer reviewed papers that in and of itself actually presents an argument of what God would or would not do."<br />=====<br /><br />So if I have this correct, the question of what a god, any god, would or wouldn't do is nothing more than a smartassism used only in a debate setting, especially when you consider the way it is used by people like PZ Meyers ???Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11908537360310694612011-09-10T20:40:52.283-07:002011-09-10T20:40:52.283-07:00Eocene: "Off hand I'd say he keeps asking...Eocene: "Off hand I'd say he keeps asking because not one of the local cowards offers an experiment where by they have delved into the mind and figurative heart of an entity they insist does NOT exist..."<br /><br />You still don't understand the concept of 'burden of proof', do you?<br />Why is someone who doesn't accept the existence of a proposed agent expected to devise experiments to test attributes of said agent?<br /><br />Those who propose the existence of said agent are the ones required to produce experiments and evidence before being taken seriously.<br /><br />(And again, "I read it in an old book." is not evidence.)Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83112313519946344612011-09-10T17:21:52.727-07:002011-09-10T17:21:52.727-07:00Eocene,
The topic of Sober's paper was the d...Eocene, <br /><br />The topic of Sober's paper was the details around Darwin writing Origins. As such, he was describing the climate in which Darwin created his theory. This includes objections by creationists at the time, which represented a significant influence in the form of Natural Theology. So, it's would come as no surprise that Sober would mention creationists and creations arguments. <br /><br />However, unlike the climate when Origins was written, science today does not write peer reviewed papers that in and of itself actually presents an argument of what God would or would not do. In addition, we have since discovered DNA, which wasn't available to Darwin at the time. <br /><br />In other words, Darwin may have written about God in Origins, but this was because of the particular climate of science itself at the time. We no longer live in this climate. The public might, but science does not. <br /><br />Of course, Cornelius conveniently left out the context of Sober's paper. This comes as no surprise, as we regularly catch Cornelius quote mining and misrepresenting facts to suit his agenda. This is just yet another example. <br /><br />Furthermore, despite the fact that science has changed, Sober pointed out that one of the main objections of creationists today is essentially same as in Darwin's time. "Fundamental Kinds" are separated from one another by boundaries that cannot be crossed. <br /><br />Neal's objections in this thread alone is an example of just this. <br /><br />While these boundaries may have expanded to some degree today, they still contain an implicit claim that God, or a carefully constructed functional equivalent "intelligent designer", would have implemented the world we observe in a specific manner. <br /><br />Statements such as "No intelligent designer would ever have done that." are made in direct reference to these claims, rather than presented in peer reviewed papers as arguments. In fact, the above statement made by Dawkins was a response to the following question in an interview, not a peer reviewed paper… <br /><br />Q: <i>The so-called intelligent design critique argues that some biological machines are too complex to evolve without help from above. Your book counters with several examples of "unintelligent design." Any favorites? </i><br /><br />The objections of ID proponents to the contrary suggest they think their obvious and transparent effort to remove explicit references of God - carefully and intentionally designed to hold the door open for their favorite theological designer - has somehow fooled science as a whole. If you haven't figured it out by now, It hasn't. We're not buying it. Nor are you somehow entitled to demand it's acceptance as a "scientific theory" under the guise of "free speech", in leu of actually doing the science. <br /><br />In other words, these sort of statements reflect a critique of what appears to be an incoherent criteria for identifying God's actions, or lack there of, in the world by theists - in practice -, rather than representing beliefs held by those actually making the statement themselves. While Natural Theology may make fewer assumptions than Theological Naturalism, it still makes significant assumptions none the less. <br /><br />Cornelius, when will you get around to contrasting Theological Naturalism with Natural Theology?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90040086848609163752011-09-10T17:08:30.700-07:002011-09-10T17:08:30.700-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34830750159925642572011-09-10T10:50:14.474-07:002011-09-10T10:50:14.474-07:00Beam Me Up Scotty:
"Cornelius keeps asking h...Beam Me Up Scotty:<br /><br />"Cornelius keeps asking how we could know God wouldn't want this particular world."<br />======<br /><br />Off hand I'd say he keeps asking because not one of the local cowards offers an experiment where by they have delved into the mind and figurative heart of an entity they insist does NOT exist and came to a conclusion as to what this entity which does NOT exist would or wouldn't do in any given situation. If possible please help us replicate your personal experiment without tripping off into a Netherworld definitions shell gaming. <br /><br />So what exact scientific method experiment did you use to arrive at your conclusions Mr Scott ???<br /><br />Please tell us so that we can replicate it and arrive at the same conclusions you did.Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35152816019997503352011-09-10T07:51:43.845-07:002011-09-10T07:51:43.845-07:00Neal: Besides, physicists never say that their the...Neal: Besides, physicists never say that their theory of gravity is a fact because an intelligent designer wouldn't have created gravity that way. That's the difference that you need to admit. <br /><br />Neal, I've pointed out that there has been no need to critique such a claim publicly as it does not exist. ID proponents are not claiming that God is a direct cause of gravity. Why do you suppose that is?<br /><br />I'm suggesting that this is because they hold and underlying assumption that God would not act in a way that could be mathematically modeled and predicted. But this seems to be an assumption about what God would or would not do. In fact, we can see this sort of assumption throughout the early history of science, including Newton, etc. Ancient people used to think God opened a woman's womb. Then we started figuring out how conceptions actually worked. Surely God wouldn't act in a way that could be modeled or understood, so we no longer think this is the case. <br /><br />However, why should we assume that God wouldn't choose to pull on objects according to their mass in the very same way - every single time - which would make him the direct cause of gravity? What underlying assumption is this based on? In other words, it seems that this is an assumption that appears arbitrary, unless it's based on some particular theological belief about what God would or would not do. <br /><br />Cornelius keeps asking how we could know God wouldn't want this particular world. <br /><br />However, I'd ask, how does Cornelius know how God wouldn't go about *implementing* this particular world, including the phenomena of gravity? Even Natural Theology makes specific assumptions about God, which apparently assume God wouldn't act in a way that could be modeled. <br /><br />Yet I'd suggest this is an arbitrary assumption should we make an objective attempt to be neutral.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50509199884455373952011-09-10T06:28:42.914-07:002011-09-10T06:28:42.914-07:00Troy said...
Of course the coward Dembski quickl...<i>Troy said...<br /><br /> Of course the coward Dembski quickly ate his words. The same coward that bailed at the Dover trial.</i><br /><br />Yeah, but he sure got even for that one though! His masterwork "farting Judge Jones" animation sure put the evil evos in their place!Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55682140540908553962011-09-10T05:40:43.446-07:002011-09-10T05:40:43.446-07:00Oh, but their are plenty of Christian "univer...Oh, but their are plenty of Christian "universities". Why, I believe the author of this blog is employed by one. We all know what bastions of independent thought and top notch ID research they are. <br /><br />Remember how Dembski almost got expelled in a most humiliating fashion because he didn't toe the party line on The Flood That Really Happened Yes Siree? Of course the coward Dembski quickly ate his words. The same coward that bailed at the Dover trial.<br /><br />Bwahahatroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9745159935256626542011-09-10T05:04:56.469-07:002011-09-10T05:04:56.469-07:00Scott said:
"If evolution is preventing the ...Scott said:<br /><br />"If evolution is preventing the "right" kind of research from being performed, then why isn't he the one doing it?"<br /><br />That is an excellent point, although I think that IDiots would probably use the word "Darwinists" instead of evolution. Either way, Scott's point is something that I think needs to be brought out more often. <br /><br />Opponents of science, evolution, evolutionary theory, Darwin, materialism, naturalism, etc., constantly bitch about those things and make it sound as though they are prevented from doing their own research. <br /><br />There is more money within religious groups and in the pockets of religious people than in all of science and there's no law against IDiots building, equipping, and staffing their own labs or other research facilities and teams. No one is stopping IDiots from doing whatever research they want or need to do, except themselves. <br /><br />You ID pushers go on and on and on about being expelled or censored or blocked in some way, even though none of that is true. You spend all of your time whining and bitching about being blocked but you do nothing about doing your own research. You take legitimate scientific research and dishonestly pick it apart in a lame attempt to bolster your religious agenda. You do nothing on your own and you rely completely on bashing real science. <br /><br />That is NEVER going to get you anywhere positive with science. You will NOT replace science with your delusional religious agenda, and you will NOT gain any credibility with science by dishonestly and arrogantly bashing it for the sole purpose of replacing it with your religious agenda. <br /><br />Since you think that science, and especially the ToE, are wrong, bad, corrupt, biased, or whatever, do your own original research and show with verifiable evidence what YOU find. Otherwise, you're just uselessly flapping your gums and showing how shallow, uneducated, arrogant, biased, and delusional you are.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72577379870892605192011-09-09T20:00:33.316-07:002011-09-09T20:00:33.316-07:00Cornelius says:
Hawks:
One easy place to start i...Cornelius says:<br /><br /><i>Hawks:<br /><br />One easy place to start is Sober's paper, which is linked here:<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/sober-religion-isnt-science-except-when.html</i><br /><br />Funny that in that post Cornelius repeats the same lie I pointed out long ago, that Sober "argues from dysteleology". Sober's real point is that adaptation disturbs the phylogenetic signal, and thus characters of reduced function would be more useful for tracing phylogeny. As usual with Sober, the paper is very well-written. I encourage every one to follow Scott's link and read it.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13917478810139407622011-09-09T18:25:54.998-07:002011-09-09T18:25:54.998-07:00Actually, you can find the entire paper here....
...Actually, you can find the entire paper here.... <br /><br />http://www.pnas.org/content/106/suppl.1/10048.full<br /><br />Which, to no surprise, contains additional details which are conspicuously missing from Cornelius' original post post.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81294681446533447482011-09-09T16:22:41.498-07:002011-09-09T16:22:41.498-07:00Hawks:
One easy place to start is Sober's pap...Hawks:<br /><br />One easy place to start is Sober's paper, which is linked here:<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/sober-religion-isnt-science-except-when.htmlCornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39469572314930964052011-09-09T14:30:27.667-07:002011-09-09T14:30:27.667-07:00Tedford:
Troy, I quoted the whole abstract in ano...Tedford:<br /><br /><i>Troy, I quoted the whole abstract in another post on a previous article and gave the link.</i><br /><br />But you just didn't bother to do that now. <br /><br /><i>Of course, evolution is still considered a fact, regardless of the evidence.</i><br /><br />No, it's <i>because</i> of the evidence. The fossil record shows the small and big changes and the genomic data confirm it. <br /><br />Your refusal to tell us what evolution textbooks you have studied is telling. You don't care about science - you just can't handle the truth. <br /><br />Have a nice weekend.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75773912000261583802011-09-09T14:18:26.103-07:002011-09-09T14:18:26.103-07:00Thanks Pedant, always enjoy your posts as well.Thanks Pedant, always enjoy your posts as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73493153041665825092011-09-09T14:13:15.175-07:002011-09-09T14:13:15.175-07:00Scott said...
Neal: … as the national academy...<i>Scott said...<br /><br /> Neal: … as the national academy of sciences says, they are "constrained and do not accumulate over time".<br /><br /> Neal,<br /><br /> We've already pointed out this is a flawed interpretation.<br /><br /> Why do you keep referencing an paper knowing (a) it doesn't support your position or (b) you do not understand how interpret said paper, but present it anyway because it merely sounds like it could stupor your position?</i><br /><br />Easy. It's because Tedford is an idiot who couldn't understand the actual solid science research that supports ToE if it crawled up his leg and bit him on his idiot butt.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40156173199978448902011-09-09T13:58:42.586-07:002011-09-09T13:58:42.586-07:00Neal Tedford, although you won't answer my que...Neal Tedford, although you won't answer my questions, I will be civil and reply to yours. You asked:<br /><br /><i>Reality = Purely natural explanations<br /><br />Non-reality = Everything that is not a purely natural explanation<br /><br />Does that clearly define your view?</i><br /><br />If by "purely natural" you mean lacking any supernatural component, my answer is YES!<br /><br />Now, be a sport and tell me why you question whether mathematics is "purely natural"?Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84049108098266098732011-09-09T13:48:50.658-07:002011-09-09T13:48:50.658-07:00Troy said, "PNAS papers do not reflect the op...Troy said, "PNAS papers do not reflect the opinion of the NAS"<br /><br />Right. They'll probably start publishing ID theory too because it doesn't reflect their opinion. LOL<br /><br />Have a nice weekendAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1026977600474635052011-09-09T13:44:32.342-07:002011-09-09T13:44:32.342-07:00Evey Solara:
P element preference is not limited ...Evey Solara:<br /><br /><i>P element preference is not limited to the 300 hotspots, but applies to many more and possibly all origins.</i><br /><br />Thanks, Evey. You're the only person who's had anything to say pertinent to the <i>P</i> element paper that Dr Hunter cited in his OP. <br /><br />We're still waiting for a member of our creationist panel of experts to explain how specificity in <i>P</i> element integration falsifies evolution.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25967567256547432942011-09-09T13:43:43.365-07:002011-09-09T13:43:43.365-07:00Troy, how about that Wonderful Life book by Gould?...Troy, how about that Wonderful Life book by Gould? Lots of support in it for a rich fossil record of transitionals before the Cambrian, right? PE, of course, was invented due to a rich fossil record of transitionals. <br /><br />From the bluster of evolutionists on this blog you would think that the fossils come buried with arrows pointing to their phylogeny.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28529879768596864052011-09-09T13:33:26.085-07:002011-09-09T13:33:26.085-07:00Troy, I quoted the whole abstract in another post ...Troy, I quoted the whole abstract in another post on a previous article and gave the link. <br /><br />Of course, evolution is still considered a fact, regardless of the evidence. We are assured that big change evolution occured millions of years ago, but the change we see now does not accumulate... but it did before! Just what evolutionists always expected. Funny that big change evolution stuff, how it likes to hide when you want to see it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34004684330319265902011-09-09T13:17:02.089-07:002011-09-09T13:17:02.089-07:00Neal: … as the national academy of sciences says, ...Neal: … as the national academy of sciences says, they are "constrained and do not accumulate over time". <br /><br />Neal, <br /><br />We've already pointed out this is a flawed interpretation. <br /><br />Why do you keep referencing an paper knowing (a) it doesn't support your position or (b) you do not understand how interpret said paper, but present it anyway because it merely sounds like it could stupor your position?<br /><br />With this sort of clear deception, It's unclear why you expect us to take your arguments seriously. <br /><br />In fact, I'd suggest you don't even take your own arguments seriously. Rather. you're "serious" about arguing against a theory you personally object to, even if this includes presenting arguments you know are falsehoods or that you knowingly do not understand. <br /><br />Is this what you think God want's you to do? Really?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44754583243806538402011-09-09T13:04:03.741-07:002011-09-09T13:04:03.741-07:00Neal, once again you reveal your dishonesty. The N...Neal, once again you reveal your dishonesty. The NAS didn't say changes are "constrained and do not accumulate over time". There was a paper in PNAS (and PNAS papers do not reflect the opinion of the NAS) that said<br /><br /><i>Even though rapid, short-term evolution often occurs in intervals shorter than 1 Myr, the changes are constrained and do not accumulate over time. Over longer intervals (1–360 Myr), this pattern of bounded evolution yields to a pattern of increasing divergence with time.</i><br /><br />Why did you not quote the rest of the paragraph?<br /><br />And why didn't you answer my question as to what evolution textbooks you have read?troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80158220551083421302011-09-09T12:26:19.847-07:002011-09-09T12:26:19.847-07:00Troy, to clarify, it would be a good start if we c...Troy, to clarify, it would be a good start if we could observe evolution that is not shown to be limited or bounded. In other words, the examples that evolutionists give are examples of change, but changes are known to be limited... as the national academy of sciences says, they are "constrained and do not accumulate over time". <br /><br /><br />Evolution that we can observe are "bounded fluctuations"... which is exactly what creationists have said for the last three thousand years... creation events, followed by small change within limits. Like the fossil record shows also.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com