tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post6835075513248305654..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: William Bialek: More Perfect Than We ImaginedUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90758137726986760122013-03-25T07:59:23.640-07:002013-03-25T07:59:23.640-07:00What's interesting is that he thinks science c...What's interesting is that he thinks science can resolve the problem of solipsism. Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40986165999312374812013-03-25T07:57:09.455-07:002013-03-25T07:57:09.455-07:00Zachriel
Jeff: a theory only explains an event if...<i>Zachriel<br /><br />Jeff: a theory only explains an event if it, together with the initial conditions, IMPLIES the event and its timing.<br /><br />Can you predict when a particular radium atom will decay? </i><br /><br />Of course he can't, and it's pretty clear he is incapable of understanding the concept. It's been explained to him <i>ad nauseum</i> that because evolutionary processes have a stochastic component it's impossible to predict specific outcomes. Even with identical starting conditions and identical selection pressures you won't get identical results. This was clearly demonstrated in the Lenski's <i>E coli</i> long term experiments.<br /><br />But the ignorant philosopher has latched on to his one ignorance based talking point and keeps blithering the same dumb demand for predictability over and over and over and over.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55800629320484498412013-03-25T05:54:31.849-07:002013-03-25T05:54:31.849-07:00Jeff: So what?
Because the nested hierarchy is ...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>So what? </i><br /><br />Because the nested hierarchy is an essential organizing pattern in biology. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>All I have to posit is that any natural conditions that aren't necessary for my mere existence, but yet provide greater long-term satisfaction to me than if they didn't exist, are designed to satisfy me by a relevantly competent, motivated and intending intelligent designer. </i><br /><br />Or not. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Your metaphysics doesn't even imply solipsism or the 5-minute theory is falsifiable. </i><br /><br />Of course not. Science doesn't 'prove' claims but supports them with evidence. It's methodological. Your real complaint isn't evolutionary biology, but science itself. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>A theory only explains events if it deduces them from the theory and initial conditions. </i><br /><br />A scientific theory doesn't have to explain everything to explain some things. More particularly, when trying to unravel history, there will often be gaps. For instance, can you determine the genealogy of everyone back ten-thousand years? Of course not. Does that mean we don't know anything about the process of how people are born? Of course not. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>a theory only explains an event if it, together with the initial conditions, IMPLIES the event and its timing. </i><br /><br />Can you predict when a particular radium atom will decay? <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17501114631787237882013-03-24T18:41:43.278-07:002013-03-24T18:41:43.278-07:00With respect to solipsism, etc, if you can't f...With respect to solipsism, etc, if you can't falsify them, then a "corroboration" of a theory that assumes there are other beings doesn't imply there are other beings. The corroboration ceases to mean much at all. And of course, if I can never come to know that there are other beings, I can never know if there's such thing as "peer" review, collaboration, witnesses, etc, either.<br /><br />Thus, calling solipsism vacuous doesn't begin to address the utter inability of your metaphysics to rule it out with any plausibility.<br /><br />The teleological view is that satisfaction is the fundamental criteria of human choice, with truth being relevant to humans only because belief is both inevitable for humans AND, therefore, indispensable to human satisfaction. For to suppress natural beliefs that seem to be means to long-term satisfaction is to act contrary to long-term satisfaction. <br /><br />Deductive and inductive inferences are virtually irresistable to the human mind. So much so that you can't help but believe that you are being parsimonious (your supposed handful of assumptions) when in fact you are quite far FROM it. It seems that even you realize that positing millions of ad-hoc assumptions just to imply the nested hierarchy is a bit on the worthless side of things. And yet that's exactly what you're doing by positing the logical possibility of millions of events that are not only NOT known to be logically possible, but don't even have the inductive warrant of being analogical inferences either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15679375419530639332013-03-24T18:00:08.972-07:002013-03-24T18:00:08.972-07:00Z: Sure, but separate ancestry doesn't explain...Z: Sure, but separate ancestry doesn't explain the nested hierarchy. <br /><br />J: So what? You have to posit millions of ad-hoc hypotheses to IMPLY/EXPLAIN the nested hierarchy. All I have to posit is that any natural conditions that aren't necessary for my mere existence, but yet provide greater long-term satisfaction to me than if they didn't exist, are designed to satisfy me by a relevantly competent, motivated and intending intelligent designer. From that handful of assumptions, it follows that the nested hierarchy is an intentional state of affairs, regardless of whether it is the result of gradualism, saltations, or SA's.<br /><br />Your metaphysics doesn't even imply solipsism or the 5-minute theory is falsifiable. Per your metaphysics, no matter how many times you corroborate a theory, the plausibility of the theory never rises to the level of ruling out the REAL possibility of solipsism, the 5-minute theory, etc. How impressive. Atheists pendulum swing from extreme credulity to radical skepticism without batting an eye.<br /><br />Jeff: Deduce the existence of, at the posited times, every extinct and non-extinct terrestrial species from your handful of propositions.<br /><br />Z: That isn't required in order to have a valid theory.<br /><br />J: Explanations ARE deductions, Z. A theory only explains events if it deduces them from the theory and initial conditions.<br /><br />Z: It's like saying physical theory isn't correct if we can't predict the future position of every snowball in the Oort Cloud, every grain of sand in a landslide, every molecule of water in a turbulent flow, the time every radioactive particle will decay, or the trajectory of every raindrop in a thunderstorm. No theory predicts every detail of every thing.<br /><br />J: If a theory doesn't imply a conceivable event, our failure to observe the event doesn't falsify the theory. But on the other hand, a theory only explains an event if it, together with the initial conditions, IMPLIES the event and its timing. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43010374730403085172013-03-24T16:52:19.716-07:002013-03-24T16:52:19.716-07:00Jeff: A population is not a mechanism. Bifurcating...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>A population is not a mechanism. Bifurcating descent is not a mechansim (remember how manuscripts are caused?). Variation is not a mechanism. And natural selection is NOT a mechanism. </i><br /><br />In biology, a mechanism is a process that results in a phenomena. The common ancestral population is a posited initial condition. Natural variation is observed. Bifurcating descent and natural selection are mechanisms in this sense. However, each can be explain in terms of other mechanisms. <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Bifurcating descent with variation is sufficient to explain the existence of a nested hierarchy.</i><br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Yes, "[A] nested hierarchy," not THE particular nested hierarchy of earth's fauna and flora via NATURAL variation.</i><br /><br />That's right, which is why we used the indefinite article. It takes other mechanisms to explain the observed nested hierarchy, everything from natural selection to cometary impacts. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Didn't see a number in there. </i><br /><br />Perhaps you don't understand the notion of "gradual". <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Selection is NOT antecedent TO the variation. </i><br /><br />Selection occurs after variation. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Thus selection is not a cause/mechanism of variation. </i><br /><br />Of course not. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>It DOESN'T FOLLOW that earth's extinct and non-extinct species are ALL the effects of bifurcated descent from a single ancestor even IF speciation is always bifurcated. WHY? Because all speciation could be bifurcated even if speciation proceeded from separate ancestries! </i><br /><br />Sure, but separate ancestry doesn't explain the nested hierarchy. In any case, we can test that hypothesis by looking for transitionals. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Surely you understand that if I get to posit millions of ad-hoc hypotheses about event properties in the past as you do, that I could IMPLY lots of deductions that also happen to be OBSERVATIONS!!!! </i><br /><br />We're only positing a handful. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Deduce the existence of, at the posited times, every extinct and non-extinct terrestrial species from your handful of propositions. </i><br /><br />That isn't required in order to have a valid theory. It's like saying physical theory isn't correct if we can't predict the future position of every snowball in the Oort Cloud, every grain of sand in a landslide, every molecule of water in a turbulent flow, the time every radioactive particle will decay, or the trajectory of every raindrop in a thunderstorm. No theory predicts every detail of every thing. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67268163524572270202013-03-24T15:47:32.163-07:002013-03-24T15:47:32.163-07:00Liar for Jesus Jeff
Get yourself a logic book and...<i>Liar for Jesus Jeff<br /><br />Get yourself a logic book and read it, Z.</i><br /><br />Get yourself a Biology 101 book and read it LFJJ. Your blithering scientific ignorance would make a high school freshman cringe.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68274021126483519522013-03-24T15:37:27.307-07:002013-03-24T15:37:27.307-07:00Z: The explanation is provided by a handful of mec...Z: The explanation is provided by a handful of mechanisms; a common ancestral population, bifurcating descent, natural variation.<br /><br />J: A population is not a mechanism. Bifurcating descent is not a mechansim (remember how manuscripts are caused?). Variation is not a mechanism. And natural selection is NOT a mechanism.<br /><br />Z: Bifurcating descent with variation is sufficient to explain the existence of a nested hierarchy.<br /><br />J: Yes, "[A] nested hierarchy," not THE particular nested hierarchy of earth's fauna and flora via NATURAL variation. Natural explanation means that initial conditions PLUS real-world causality IMPLIES the observed SUBSEQUENT conditions. For the kazillionth time, there is NOTHING we know about earth's real-world causality that, when applied to some precambrian condition(s), IMPLIES the subsequent existence of earth's extinct and non-extinct fauna, much less at the posited times of their origins. Dude, you really need to get a grip on basic deductive logic.<br /><br />Jeff: How many do you hypothesize?<br /><br />Z: Darwin posited aphyletic gradualism, and there are many instances of phyletic gradualism. Modern evolutionary theory allows for punctuated equilibrium, which is still phenotypic gradualism.<br /><br />J: Didn't see a number in there.<br /><br />Z: Of course natural selection is a mechanism, but we don't need natural selection to show that speciation occurs. <br /><br />J: A cause is antecedent to its effect. A mechanism of variation is the CAUSE of variation. Selection is NOT antecedent TO the variation. Something has to already exist TO be selected. Thus selection is not a cause/mechanism of variation.<br /><br />Z: We can observe gradations of reproductive isolation. And speciation has been observed.<br /><br />J: Come down to earth for a minute. Think: It DOESN'T FOLLOW that earth's extinct and non-extinct species are ALL the effects of bifurcated descent from a single ancestor even IF speciation is always bifurcated. WHY? Because all speciation could be bifurcated even if speciation proceeded from separate ancestries! <br /><br />THIS, Z, is why you have to demonstrate that the number of ad-hoc hypotheses entailed in your view is less than Ken Ham's view, or other SA views. You haven't even BEGUN to do that. Thus, you haven't even BEGUN to establish that your view is more plausible. Because the number of ad-hoc hypotheses required for the competing views is the ONLY conceivable relative plausibility criteria relevant to that question, isn't it? Surely you understand that if I get to posit millions of ad-hoc hypotheses about event properties in the past as you do, that I could IMPLY lots of deductions that also happen to be OBSERVATIONS!!!! SO WHAT???<br /><br />Jeff: Millions of ad-hoc assumptions.<br /><br />Z: You say that, but we're only positing a handful of mechanisms; a common ancestral population, bifurcating descent, natural variation. <br /><br />J: Deduce the existence of, at the posited times, every extinct and non-extinct terrestrial species from your handful of propositions. <br /><br />Z: These mechanisms imply a nested hierarchy. <br /><br />J: That handful of propositions may imply a nested hierarchy of single-celled organisms, or only reptiles, etc, depending on the rules of natural variation. That's beside the point. You need to IMPLY the PARTICULAR nested hierarchy of PARTICULAR fauna and flora from a single precambrian organism. THAT'S what takes MILLIONS of ad-hoc assumptions. Because we have no knowledge of "natural variation" that implies ANY SUCH THING! Get yourself a logic book and read it, Z. I don't even have to read logic books to see the idiocy of these ridiculous claims of yours about deductive implications.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-92127010525885128312013-03-24T08:09:30.363-07:002013-03-24T08:09:30.363-07:00Jeff: Thank you for ceasing the lie that they'...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>Thank you for ceasing the lie that they're IMPLIED. </i><br /><br />Phenotypic gradualism was posited in Darwin's original theory of evolution. A modified form is still a basis of modern evolutionary theory. Of course it's implied by theory as it's a tenet of the theory. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>But then we need the posited number of unobserved, unexplained transitions. </i><br /><br />The explanation is provided by a handful of mechanisms; a common ancestral population, bifurcating descent, natural variation. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Otherwise, the nested hierarchy is conceivably the result of either SA's or saltational evolution that doesn't necessarily imply a nested hierarchy. </i><br /><br />You've never provided a clear definition of SA, but we can test saltational evolution and many versions of separate ancestry by looking for transitionals. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>So, again, how many do you have to posit to have existed to render bifurcated descent THE explanation of the nested hierarchy? </i><br /><br />Bifurcating descent with variation is sufficient to explain the existence of a nested hierarchy. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>How many do you hypothesize? </i><br /><br />Darwin posited aphyletic gradualism, and there are many instances of phyletic gradualism. Modern evolutionary theory allows for punctuated equilibrium, which is still phenotypic gradualism. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Posit any mechanism (natural selection isn't a mechanism) and then use hypothetico-deduction to deduce how the initial species became another species. </i><br /><br />Of course natural selection is a mechanism, but we don't need natural selection to show that speciation occurs. We can observe gradations of reproductive isolation. And speciation has been observed. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Do you know what "definition" means? Bifurcating descent either occurred or it didn't. </i><br /><br />Yes, the theory posits bifurcating descent from a common ancestral population. This hypothesis implies a nested hierarchy. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Millions of ad-hoc assumptions. </i><br /><br />You say that, but we're only positing a handful of mechanisms; a common ancestral population, bifurcating descent, natural variation. These mechanisms imply a nested hierarchy. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76499222591592533562013-03-24T07:25:54.310-07:002013-03-24T07:25:54.310-07:00Jeff: Not if saltations are the reason for the mor...Jeff: Not if saltations are the reason for the morphological/phenotypic gaps.<br /><br />Z: We can test that hypothesis by looking for transitionals.<br />http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/<br /><br />J: Thank you for ceasing the lie that they're IMPLIED. The most that could be implied is the transitional quality of TRAITS. The EXISTENCE of bifurcated-descent-caused transitional species must be posited to IMPLY the hierarchy. But then we need the posited number of unobserved, unexplained transitions. Otherwise, the nested hierarchy is conceivably the result of either SA's or saltational evolution that doesn't necessarily imply a nested hierarchy.<br /><br />So, again, how many do you have to posit to have existed to render bifurcated descent THE explanation of the nested hierarchy? And again, these ad-hoc assumptions are on top of the ad-hoc'ly posited properties of millions of events that don't follow from anything we know about nature, as well as tons of ad-hoc hypotheses required to IMPLY that known stratigraphic ranges correlate significantly with existential ranges.<br /><br />Jeff: Thus, large morphological/phenotypic gaps can be explained by separate ancestries, saltational evolution, or non-saltational evolution, but each approach requires ad-hoc hypotheses.<br /><br />Z: Well, they are different hypotheses, something we can test by looking for transitional species.<br /><br />J: How many do you hypothesize? Three, 300 thousand, 3 million? For every one you don't observe, you have to concoct ad-hoc hypotheses as to why you don't observe them, JUST LIKE SA'ists DO if they choose to hypothesize a genus' or family's existence when/where it is not observed. If you're clueless enough to think that we have geological, taphonomic, ecological, and psychological theory that is so deductively implicating of what existed and what would be preserved and discovered by now that we can deduce the correlation of known stratigraphic ranges to existential ranges, you're extremely confused.<br /><br />Z: But mechanisms of variation are not sufficient to explain the entirety of the evidence. Other mechanisms are required, such as natural selection, even chance events, such as cometary impacts.<br /><br />J: Posit any mechanism (natural selection isn't a mechanism) and then use hypothetico-deduction to deduce how the initial species became another species. You're all bluff. You have no explanations for anything but the most trivial evolution. Ken Ham agrees with you on what you actually know. The rest is a huge pile of ad-hoc assumptions.<br /><br />Z: Actually, that question is largely settled. There is sufficient knowledge of variation and the history of life to show that large gaps could and have been bridged.<br /><br />J: Take what we know from observation about mechanisms and frequences and deduce, using hypothetico-deduction, that Cambrian fauna is a logical implication of Precambrian organisms, etc. You must think people are really stupid. We're talking about a historical hypothesis with specific time-limits, not what might happen in the future for any conceivable time-frame. We have no idea if natural laws COULD have produced Cambrian fauna at the relevant times, etc, from a Precambrian ancestor.<br /><br />Z: The hypothesis of bifurcating descent from a common ancestral population *does imply* that all species are descended from the common ancestral population—by definition. <br /><br />J: Do you know what "definition" means? Bifurcating descent either occurred or it didn't. In either case, there is no definition of bifurcating descent that IMPLIES that earth's species descended BY bifurcating descent. You are one confused puppy. It takes millions more ad-hoc assumptions to compel that deductive conclusion.<br /><br />Z: Well, yeah. There are common mechanisms that are posited to explain millions of past events.<br /><br />J: Millions of ad-hoc assumptions.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3113870466327507942013-03-24T06:14:33.594-07:002013-03-24T06:14:33.594-07:00Jeff: 1) The nested hierarchy exists INDEPENDENTLY...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>1) The nested hierarchy exists INDEPENDENTLY of hypothetical transitional traits. </i><br /><br />That's right. It's an observation. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Thus, large morphological/phenotypic gaps can be explained by separate ancestries, saltational evolution, or non-saltational evolution, but each approach requires ad-hoc hypotheses. </i><br /><br />Well, they are different hypotheses, something we can test by looking for transitional species. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>2) There is no naturalistic theory limited to knowledge of mechanisms of variation that implies ANY posited major evolutionary trajectory OR even the logical possibility of such naturalistic trajectories. </i><br /><br />Your prose is difficult to untangle. But mechanisms of variation are not sufficient to explain the entirety of the evidence. Other mechanisms are required, such as natural selection, even chance events, such as cometary impacts. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>3) Per 1) and 2), there is no naturalistic theory limited to knowledge of mechanisms of variation that implies the large morphological/phenotypic gaps could have been bridged genealogically. </i><br /><br />Actually, that question is largely settled. There is sufficient knowledge of variation and the history of life to show that large gaps could and have been bridged. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>4) Per 3), positing that naturalistic bifurcated descent began starting from a precambrian ancestor does not IMPLY that even one extant or fossil species descended from such a putative precambrian ancestor. </i><br /><br />The hypothesis of bifurcating descent from a common ancestral population *does imply* that all species are descended from the common ancestral population—by definition. It's hard to understand why you would make such a statement which is self-contradictory. Do you know what "posit" means? <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>5) Per 4), the only way to imply that extant or fossil species are/were descendants of such a putative precambrian ancestor via bifurcated descent is to just posit the relevant properties for millions of past events that WOULD imply it </i><br /><br />Well, yeah. There are common mechanisms that are posited to explain millions of past events. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>And this is why rational people couldn't care less about the nested hierarchy argument, especially since there's a plausible teleological explanation for it. </i><br /><br />Just the entire scientific community. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87630049916298288862013-03-24T06:07:07.358-07:002013-03-24T06:07:07.358-07:00Blas March 23, 2013 at 6:54 AM
So your argument ...<i><b>Blas</b> March 23, 2013 at 6:54 AM<br /><br />So your argument is metaphysical. If God exists is evil.</i><br /><br />Metaphysics is fun. We all play with it from time to time. <br /><br />Highlighting the wondrous things in nature and inferring or implying that they say something about any intelligent agency that might be behind them is a metaphysical argument. But it cuts both ways. By the same token, we can argue that the less appealing parts of nature might also say something about the nature of any intelligent agent that might be behind them.<br /><br /><i>Keeping the question in the science side, how do you explain that evolution optimized the human eye to the maximun and keeped the abortion rate at levels that can guarantee the extintion when the natural selector is ability to reproduce?</i><br /><br />Where did I say that I thought the eye is maximally optimized? The human visual system works very well, given its functional problems, but it's hardly ideal. But that's evolution for you. If it works well enough, that's all that's needed.<br /><br />As for spontaneous abortion rates, if they were too high we wouldn't be here to argue about it. The human reproductive system has a lot of well-known problems but it works well enough for us to survive and thrive. But even we can see ways in which the design could be improved so, if it <i>was</i> designed, it doesn't say much about the competence of the designer.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4838724720186580032013-03-24T06:03:38.760-07:002013-03-24T06:03:38.760-07:00Jeff: Not if saltations are the reason for the mor...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>Not if saltations are the reason for the morpholgical/phenotypic gaps. So what do you have to posit ad-hoc'ly to rule out saltations for those gaps? </i><br /> <br />We can test that hypothesis by looking for transitionals. <br />http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/<br /> <br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>If you think deduction only applies to philosophy, then you're right, I have no use for the superstition you call "science." </i><br /><br />Science depends on deduction, as in hypothetico-deduction. <br /> Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31780958344314940302013-03-24T05:59:59.532-07:002013-03-24T05:59:59.532-07:00Jason Kay: Can you clarify the purpose of your las...<b>Jason Kay</b>: <i>Can you clarify the purpose of your last paragraph please Zachriel?</i><br /><br />It's an example of a confirmed prediction. Please explain the incredible coincidence of specifically journeying to a specific location in the Arctic to find a fossil organism with characteristics intermediate between fish and land vertebrates resulted in finding a novel fossil organism with just those characteristics. Lucky guess? <br /> <br /><b>Jason Kay</b>: <i>"Tiktaalik Blown "Out of the Water" by Earlier Tetrapod Fossil Footprints" </i><br /><br />A transitional has characteristics of the ancestral and derived organisms, but doesn't have to be the very first of something. <br /> <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81109170247434344292013-03-23T23:26:26.618-07:002013-03-23T23:26:26.618-07:00humans deciding which texts were inspired by God?...humans deciding which texts were inspired by God? <br /><br /><b>As for your claim of design being unfalsifiable must I again remind you I have already answered this.<br />Find a warm moist area anywhere on the planet. Mix it up. with no other intelligent input and if you get full life not just components ID is falsified. Get to it. We've been waiting for the better part of a century</b><br /><br />Incorrect, an unknown designer with unknown capabilities is logically capable of creating life through nature, one could never know if it is teleological or not. You can never eliminate a unknown intelligence with unknown powers.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33723424051303970972013-03-23T23:25:09.460-07:002013-03-23T23:25:09.460-07:00Elijah,
Cornelius post should you ever read it is ...<b>Elijah,<br />Cornelius post should you ever read it is not focused on any "beautiful wonders of the world" but of design. many Assault weapons are designed to kill. How does that disporve they were designed</b><br /><br />That was your claim,CH's"scratch the surface of creation’s wonders and reflect on what it all means, then this video is for you." That is CH focus,the designer.<br /><br /><b>Totally ridiculous. If someone merely mentions in passing Creation's wonders it invalidates the whole piece as a fallacy?</b><br />No,it just invalidates your claim that CH was not focused on " the wonders of creation." <br /><br /> <b>SO? What is your point. I was responding",a) you can always tell when an atheists thinks the facts have him against the ropes. He begins appealing to theology" directly to Sped Not blas. You are confused again.</b><br /> <br />The only person appealing to theology is Blas, then Blas must be an atheist per Elijah.<br /><br /><b>inference of what though? Morality? lack of it? What does that have to do with intelligence? If the sad logic is that if we can infer any one thing logically it equates <br />to being able to infer anything logically its fails on absurdity</b><br /><br />Inference from the fact that through design children die hideous death, as you said earlier ,everything is designed. No morality just an inference that a designer who includes innocent children suffering into the design, might not be a that concerned about suffering in children. <br /><br />We put people in jail in human design for that design choice.<br /><br /><br /> <b> To use my previous analogy I can infer logically an assault Gun was designed to kill not who or why. Thats a totally other issue for which design cannot address.</b><br /><br />If one designs a lethal organism to humans, then it will kill humans, is that surprising ? No one has to pull the trigger. That does not mean it is not designed,just that the designer is willing to rub out humans.<br /><br /><b>That defect surely overrides all the other clear evidences of intelligent design of my laptop right?</b><br /><br />Still missing point, assuming design is true, what can we know of the designer? That is science. But are you saying that the designer of life can create defective designs? <br /><br /><b>Shucks If I take a fancy for my sister and sleep with her I guess the aberrations in the offspring (should he or she live) would clearly infer that the "wondrous designer" made all of those defects too right?</b><br /><br />No one slept with his sister to create childhood leukemia. Now if you are saying that there are natural forces which alter the designers design then you are closer to a theistic evolutionist<br /><br /><b>You and others in the world do not own him so you cannot cry that he has neglected you."</b><br />Then<br /><b>precisely so the neglect issue does not even compute. Its merely an appeal to metaphysics and emotion.</b><br /><br />You are the only one talking about neglect, therefore your theory does not compute. It was an appeal to metaphysics and emotion. I agree.<br /><br /><b>It is ID's position that the designer is wondrous.</b><br /><br />ID says nothing about the designer,only design can be correctly inferred from an object sometimes.<br /><br /><br /> <b>Sped already went way beyond ID to talk about a wondrous designer (not merely wondrous design) </b><br /><br />I don't believe that in Ian's opinion that with the designer's resume that wondrous is the adjective he would use<br /><br /><b> you are here trying to claim I am the one taking it to that level. How convenient..... but dishonest.</b><br /><br />Again,you and Blas are the only ones to invoke a god, so yes you are injecting theology into the discussion<br /><br /><b>"Technically, men tell us what God inspired them to tell us."<br /><br />technically that is your claim not a matter of technicality. <br /></b><br /><br />Are you claiming that the words of the Bible were written directly by God without human authors and without other humans deciding which texts were inspired by God? <br /><br />velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82697078566328880522013-03-23T19:57:31.166-07:002013-03-23T19:57:31.166-07:00Jason Kay
I am surprised, with a wave of your han...<i>Jason Kay<br /><br />I am surprised, with a wave of your hand, you simply dismiss a PhD scientist like Dr Wile, purely on the grounds of him being a Creationist. </i><br /><br />According to his blog his PhD is in Nuclear Chemistry. You tell me how that gives him expertise to comment on evolutionary developments in human morphology in the last 3 MY.<br /><br />I looked over his blog and he seems to be a hard core YEC pushing the same crappy arguments we've seen from the Creationist camp forever. C14 in dino bones anyone?<br /><br /><i>Perhaps I should start doing the same for articles written by Darwinists that I happen not to like?</i><br /><br />If you find one making silly assertions on topics way outside his area of expertise like Wile does, go for it.<br /><br /><i>Please read Prof. Lieberman's (one of your own) work. </i><br /><br />Have you read it? Are you going to claim Prof. Lieberman supports YEC too? Why is his book called <i>The <b>EVOLUTION</b> of the Human Head</i>?<br /><br /><i>I've heard both too, your point being?</i><br /><br />The point being you defended those viewpoints as being "scientific". I'd ask you how but you wouldn't answer.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30987184339940864402013-03-23T19:34:46.299-07:002013-03-23T19:34:46.299-07:00I am surprised, with a wave of your hand, you simp...I am surprised, with a wave of your hand, you simply dismiss a PhD scientist like Dr Wile, purely on the grounds of him being a Creationist. <br /><br />Perhaps I should start doing the same for articles written by Darwinists that I happen not to like?<br /><br />"It has nothing to do with eating soft foods after the industrial revolution."<br /><br />Please read Prof. Lieberman's (one of your own) work. He is very specific about how our eating habits, particularly moving from hard to soft foods, has affected our jaw bones, that in turn, causes wisdom teeth problems today.<br /><br />"What about malaria? Was that "designed" or was it caused by the Fall? I've heard both."<br /><br />I've heard both too, your point being?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17612470847104273006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91820216583475921492013-03-23T19:24:29.611-07:002013-03-23T19:24:29.611-07:00Eugen
Christian Taliban?
:D
Somebody should make...<i>Eugen<br /><br />Christian Taliban?<br />:D<br /><br />Somebody should make toilet paper brand Talibum.</i><br /><br />For when you take a <b>lifepsy</b> and have to wipe your <b>Elijah2012</b> :D :D :DGhostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32186147081543860992013-03-23T19:21:07.680-07:002013-03-23T19:21:07.680-07:00LOL! The two little scientifically ignorant Godbo...LOL! The two little scientifically ignorant Godbotherers are going to do a tag-team Idiot act! How cute!Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86099534613273102542013-03-23T19:18:57.854-07:002013-03-23T19:18:57.854-07:00Jason Kay
T; "You don't seem to understa...<i>Jason Kay<br /><br />T; "You don't seem to understand what the term means in the scientific usage."<br /><br />Here we go, the old "You don't understand evolution" sidestep.</i><br /><br />If you understand the term then why are you so hesitant to give me your definition of "transitional fossil"?<br /><br />What else am I suppose to assume except that you don't know the scientific meaning?<br /><br /><i>"Also, could you please give us your ID-Creationism explanation for Tiktaalik?"<br /><br />You assume way too much.</i><br /><br />You're 2 for 2 on dodged questions. Not off to a good start here.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30467217555005063912013-03-23T19:09:31.303-07:002013-03-23T19:09:31.303-07:00pas=parts
And I notice I am the second "John...pas=parts<br /><br />And I notice I am the second "John" commenting in this thread.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07919936647706409841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83592798240202360802013-03-23T19:08:47.533-07:002013-03-23T19:08:47.533-07:00Thorton March 23, 2013 at 2:39 PM
"You don&#...Thorton March 23, 2013 at 2:39 PM<br /><br />"You don't seem to understand what the term means in the scientific usage."<br /><br />Here we go, the old "You don't understand evolution" sidestep. <br /><br />"Also, could you please give us your ID-Creationism explanation for Tiktaalik?"<br /><br />You assume way too much.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17612470847104273006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48646684790824343022013-03-23T19:07:15.182-07:002013-03-23T19:07:15.182-07:00Christian Taliban?
:D
Somebody should make toilet...Christian Taliban?<br />:D<br /><br />Somebody should make toilet paper brand Talibum.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32329748657190265872013-03-23T19:05:01.564-07:002013-03-23T19:05:01.564-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07919936647706409841noreply@blogger.com