tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post6569049482698326580..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Birds With Ornamental Eyespots Have Unlikely NeighborsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18378268680511660432014-07-31T17:30:10.795-07:002014-07-31T17:30:10.795-07:00Natschuster said:"Sorry Shevi is my daughter,...Natschuster said:"Sorry Shevi is my daughter, She forgot to sign out." <br />I have also a daughter, so I understand it.Germanicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633891476693192259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64647088656650973462014-07-31T17:26:41.916-07:002014-07-31T17:26:41.916-07:00Natschuster said:
"Anyway, if you scientists ...Natschuster said:<br />"Anyway, if you scientists find something like stones arranged in a circle, they assume that it was designed ..."<br />It depends. But not after having examined also other possibilities not excluding <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2665675.stm" rel="nofollow"> natural phenomena</a>. <br />In any case I would investigate case per case exactly because I am not aware of an objective test to detect design (or you are thinking to CSI or similar). Scientists are not impressed by “… it was designed because it looks designed”. You cannot call this an objective test.<br />Germanicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633891476693192259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40003569626840002942014-07-31T17:14:55.823-07:002014-07-31T17:14:55.823-07:00Nat,
Sorry Shevi is my daughter, She forgot to sig...<i>Nat,<br />Sorry Shevi is my daughter, She forgot to sign out. </i><br /><br />Great name. Loyal,too. velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43098407411196277042014-07-31T17:10:08.796-07:002014-07-31T17:10:08.796-07:00Nat, thanks for laying out your evidence and logic...Nat, thanks for laying out your evidence and logic <br /><br /><i>Nat:<br />It's like this. There is no good naturalistic explanation for the origin of the Universe, so wee need a supernatural one.</i><br /><br />Certainly you could use that logic, however since most things that have been attributed to a supernatural explanation have turned out to have naturalistic explanation, the lack of a natural explanation could be<br /> 1 a yet to be discovered natural explanation<br /> 2 an undetectable, unfalsifiable, unpredictable explanation( supernatural)<br /><br />Since only one kind of explanation (naturalistic)is known to exist, the natural explanation is the most parsimonious <br /><br /><i>There is no good naturalistic explanation for the apparent fine tuning to accommodate life, so we need a supernatural one.</i><br /><br />Ditto<br /><br /><i>So we have an entity that is powerful enough to create Universe</i><br /><br />To be accurate, it is not logically impossible that we have such an entity if one exists.<br /><br /><i> and shows evidence of planning, that is, a mind. </i><br /><br />To know if this universe is planned first you would have to determine if the theoretical supernatural explanation could or did plan and if it did what was the goal. I think we are a long way from giving our conjectured supernatural explanation a potentially anthropomorphic mind yet. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18966144266508812242014-07-31T16:36:38.923-07:002014-07-31T16:36:38.923-07:00Sorry Shevi is my daughter, She forgot to sign out...Sorry Shevi is my daughter, She forgot to sign out. <br />Anyway, if you scientists find something like stones arranged in a circle, they assume that it was designed because it looks designed and it is really hard to explain it without design. Why isn't that an objective test.<br />natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05312526400131321079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7291386496883461582014-07-31T16:13:09.460-07:002014-07-31T16:13:09.460-07:00Shevi S
"Okay: we know from experience that i...Shevi S<br />"Okay: we know from experience that it is really really hard to make things that have certain characteristics like irreducible complexity.without design."<br />Have you understand my questions to Natschuster? Which "objective test" are you proposing for the design? Repeating the same argument of Natschuster doesn't add much to the discussion.<br />Germanicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633891476693192259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41516406741769303972014-07-31T13:21:41.440-07:002014-07-31T13:21:41.440-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Germanicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633891476693192259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65964035084690316002014-07-31T12:50:57.752-07:002014-07-31T12:50:57.752-07:00Okay: we know from experience that it is really re...Okay: we know from experience that it is really really hard to make things that have certain characteristics like irreducible complexity.without design. Its hard to explain things with highly specified complexity without coming on to design. If you see a leather pouch attached to two pieces of string, you assume that it was designed to be a sling, as simple as it is. So organism have lots and lots of these very characteristics. Ergo, it is really hard to explain organisms without coming on to design.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07989587603064652727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25893281697700733512014-07-31T06:56:10.090-07:002014-07-31T06:56:10.090-07:00Natschuster said:
"I guess an objective test ...Natschuster said:<br />"I guess an objective test for design would be the fact that the apparent design we see al over the place Is really, really hard to explain in another way."<br /><br />I apologise for the intrusion in this discussion, but I cannot resist. Natschuster, can you not recognise how ridiculous is your proposed “objective” test? Again and again you cannot say better that if a complete explanation is still not available your favourite explanation should be per default. What were to start to present any piece of positive evidence for the design, so for the beginning?Germanicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633891476693192259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61840969315976359692014-07-31T05:07:23.305-07:002014-07-31T05:07:23.305-07:00Zach:
I guess an objective test for design would ...Zach:<br /><br />I guess an objective test for design would be the fact that the apparent design we see al over the place Is really, really hard to explain in another way.<br /><br />And you can prove anything using mathematical models. It all depends on your programming and inputs. And monophyletic origin could be a single designer as well.<br /><br />"Really? Pretty sure it was a peculiar species of Hominid known for building in stone. Did you think otherwise?"<br /><br />But which hominids? And why? See, we don't need to know all the details to conclude design.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47137140335340596362014-07-31T05:00:06.277-07:002014-07-31T05:00:06.277-07:00Vel:
"Spiders have intangible ideas? The Col...Vel:<br /><br />"Spiders have intangible ideas? The Colorado River ? <br />DNA? The tree that became the first wheel?"<br /><br />I guess spiders to have intangible ideas. Do you have a better. And to the best of my knowledge the Grand Canyon does not show a whole lot of evidence of design. And DNA was designed, yes. It contains and transfers the design, like a computer. And a tree was designed to be a tree, The human designs the wheel. <br /><br />"How do you know that a supernatural being thinks? Or is a being? Or how a supernatural being interacts with the natural? Does it manipulate existing matter or create new matter? "<br /><br />I'm really not sure how a supernatural entity thinks. I only have how I think to go on. But evolutionist claim to know exactly how a supernatural entity would create every detail in the Universe, so why can't I indulge in a little speculation? And I guess a supernatural would both create new matter, and interact with preexisting matter.<br />natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19233650802431460642014-07-31T04:51:15.218-07:002014-07-31T04:51:15.218-07:00Vel:
It's like this. There is no good natural...Vel:<br /><br />It's like this. There is no good naturalistic explanation for the origin of the Universe, so wee need a supernatural one. There is no good naturalistic explanation for the apparent fine tuning to accommodate life, so we need a supernatural one. So we have an entity that is powerful enough to create Universe, and shows evidence of planning, that is, a mind. Then we need a supernatural explanation to explain the origin of life. That means that we have an entity with a special affinity for life. Then there is stuff<br />about humans, like our mind, consciousness, etc. that is hard to explain without supernatural stuff. That indicates that the Creator has a special affinity for humans. See, this Creator is looking more and more like the God of Abraham, Humans have a need to seek and connect to truths beyond the mere reality of physical existence. That is why we have spirituality, religion, etc. That s evidence that we were created with a soul. Then we have a moral sense that is hard to explain in Darwinian terms. That means that the Creator expects us to behave morally. He also gave us the capacity to do bad thing. That means we have free will. All this sounds a lot like the God of Abraham. It all fits.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16649669862653506742014-07-31T03:09:48.141-07:002014-07-31T03:09:48.141-07:00natschuster: The signal for design is really, real...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>The signal for design is really, really, strong. </i><br /><br />Can you provide an objective test? <br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>Anyway, I'm not sure how string the signal for a nested hierarchy is. </i><br /><br />Theobald, A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry, Nature 2010: "Among a wide range of biological models involving the independent ancestry of major taxonomic groups, the model selection tests are found to overwhelmingly support UCA irrespective of the presence of horizontal gene transfer and symbiotic fusion events. These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life."<br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>What we have are side branches with a transitional feature. If the real ancestors really existed why can't we find them? </i><br /><br />We may have direct ancestors, but there's no way to know for sure. Turns out that its hard to tell your cousins from your siblings from bones alone. Consequently, we posit transitionals meaning exhibiting both primitive and derived traits, and test for those. <br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>I'm not sure we know who designed Stonehenge either. </i><br /><br />Really? Pretty sure it was a peculiar species of Hominid known for building in stone. Did you think otherwise? <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90765087057376222732014-07-30T20:08:20.598-07:002014-07-30T20:08:20.598-07:00Nat,
I guess that, since the evidence from the res...<i>Nat,<br />I guess that, since the evidence from the rest of the universe points toward an entity that closely resembles the God of Abraham, then the most parsimonious explanation would be the God of Abraham.</i><br /><br />Perhaps you might provide the evidence and logic that leads to that startling conclusion. <br /><br /><i>And how do designers design anything? Fist there is this intangible thing called a thought, an idea, etc.</i><br /><br />Spiders have intangible ideas? The Colorado River ? <br />DNA? The tree that became the first wheel? <br /><br />I have always thought it strange that a discipline based on detecting design spends so little time on theories of design<br /><br /><i>I understand that science is having a real hard time explaining how that happens.</i><br /><br />That is because it tries to explain the how<br /><br /><i>So it may be something spiritual, supernatural, etc. A supernatural being should have no trouble thinking.</i><br /><br />How do you know that a supernatural being thinks? Or is a being? Or how a supernatural being interacts with the natural? Does it manipulate existing matter or create new matter? <br /><br />I understand that theism is having a real hard time explaining how that works. velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33483478141836396182014-07-30T19:04:53.871-07:002014-07-30T19:04:53.871-07:00And how do designers design anything? Fist there i...And how do designers design anything? Fist there is this intangible thing called a thought, an idea, etc. I understand that science is having a real hard time explaining how that happens. So it may be something spiritual, supernatural, etc. A supernatural being should have no trouble thinking.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67791402367799088402014-07-30T19:00:57.560-07:002014-07-30T19:00:57.560-07:00Gee, I'm not sure we know who designed Stonehe...Gee, I'm not sure we know who designed Stonehenge either. Stone axes and pointy stick s might have been designed by humans, chimps, or some proto-human.<br /><br />I guess that, since the evidence from the rest of the universe points toward an entity that closely resembles the God of Abraham, then the most parsimonious explanation would be the God of Abraham.<br />natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6453358628559860102014-07-30T17:06:39.960-07:002014-07-30T17:06:39.960-07:00natschuster:
The signal for design is really, rea...<b>natschuster:</b><br /><br /><i>The signal for design is really, really, strong. Its all over every organism.</i><br /><br />Terrific. Any guess as to <b>how</b> the flagellum was designed?<br /><br />And by what designer?<br /><br />You don't have a clue, do you?Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13183797919008212182014-07-30T16:39:45.340-07:002014-07-30T16:39:45.340-07:00It starts with a random mutation, that is an accid...It starts with a random mutation, that is an accident. And, to explain something irreducibly complex like a flagellum, you need to come on to a whole bunch of hypothetical, theoretical functional intermediates. And you need to come onto a whole bunch of luck to explain the evolution of something as highly specified as a typical protein. <br /><br />The signal for design is really, really, strong. Its all over every organism. Anyway, I'm not sure how string the signal for a nested hierarchy is. There is so much ambiguity, overlap, and contradictory signals.<br /><br />And I keep on reading that the dozen of so transitional series are transition between major groups. And the real ancestors are still missing. What we have are side branches with a transitional feature. If the real ancestors really existed why can't we find them? And if species evolved from other species why can't we find that in the fossil record?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18075571055459608362014-07-30T07:14:14.634-07:002014-07-30T07:14:14.634-07:00Angelina Jolie's leg
http://www.google.com/sea...Angelina Jolie's leg<br />http://www.google.com/search?q=angelina+jolie%27s+leg&tbm=isch<br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34894111143876970182014-07-30T06:41:15.117-07:002014-07-30T06:41:15.117-07:00blas,
Every day low probability events happen.
A...<i>blas,<br />Every day low probability events happen. </i><br /><br />And high probability events happen more often<br /><br /><i>Science predicting the future, unless in a tightly controlled enviroment, is not more accurate that predicting it by throwing cards. </i><br /><br />That would be news to planetary scientists.<br /><br /><i>The climate change, that is a fact, probably is getting warmer, how much and how much that warming is "anthropogenic" is debatable</i><br /><br />Less and less as more data is gathered.<br /><br /> <i>Cutting your leg because of that a la Angelina Jolie it is not smart.</i><br /><br />I don't believe it was her leg but with her family history it might be. velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11253561305224743482014-07-29T12:39:42.007-07:002014-07-29T12:39:42.007-07:00eugen,
Good point.....nevertheless regarding clima...<i>eugen,<br />Good point.....nevertheless regarding climate issues I'm siding with skeptical climatologists.</i><br /><br />That's is fine of course, my only problem was your reason seemed not to be climate data driven . velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15080085128453147262014-07-29T10:56:02.103-07:002014-07-29T10:56:02.103-07:00natschuster: "Too much" means very unlik...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>"Too much" means very unlikely that it could be all by accident. </i><br /><br />Evolutionary adaptation isn't "accident", so that would be a strawman argument. Evolution adaptation is specifically proposed as a mechanism of generating complex functional structures, and there is significant evidenced that the mechanism is more than capable of doing so. <br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>Organism have lots of crossing as well, e.g. the eyespots mentioned above. </i><br /><br />Yet, there is still a very strong signal of the singular nested hierarchy. You might compare to a nested hierarchy of artifacts, such as buildings. <br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>And the fossil record merely shows different species living at different times not one species changing into another. </i><br /><br />The dividing line between species isn't always distinct, but there are many fossil series showing gradual change. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21859874328403748962014-07-29T10:50:41.439-07:002014-07-29T10:50:41.439-07:00"Too much" means very unlikely that it c..."Too much" means very unlikely that it could be all by accident. <br /><br />Organism have lots of crossing as well, e.g. the eyespots mentioned above. And the fossil record merely shows different species living at different times not one species changing into another. Looks just like the "evolution" of technology.<br /><br />And it's funny how it is just the many, many species that were near the borders of the groups that became extinct. natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13358526910559918672014-07-29T09:24:40.894-07:002014-07-29T09:24:40.894-07:00velikovskys said:
"Why do you assume the rich...velikovskys said:<br />"Why do you assume the rich are the fittest?"<br /><br />Who survive is the fittest that is what ToE says. <br /><br />"Not exactly, wealth provides more options,not guarantees."<br /><br />Every day low probability events happen. <br /><br />"So you are not arguing that climate change is not happening but you should have the opportunity to cause it yourself."<br /><br />Science predicting the future, unless in a tightly controlled enviroment, is not more accurate that predicting it by throwing cards. The climate change, that is a fact, probably is getting warmer, how much and how much that warming is "anthropogenic" is debatable an unpredictable. Cutting your leg because of that a la Angelina Jolie it is not smart.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8761717244354664682014-07-29T07:48:46.828-07:002014-07-29T07:48:46.828-07:00Z: That's why we wanted you to provide a neste...Z: That's why we wanted you to provide a nested hierarchy of artifacts, such as buildings<br /><br />Sorry, it was Nic whom we asked to provide a nested hierarchy of artifacts, such as buildings. However, you might try to provide one yourself. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.com