tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post8050976910824547902..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: New Study Indicates Geomagnetic Imprinting in SalmonUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger241125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16510660204306667982013-02-12T16:58:26.073-08:002013-02-12T16:58:26.073-08:00What piece of data would that be, Moronton? I'...What piece of data would that be, Moronton? I'm in that Rip Van Winkle nap, but I'll wake up if you find me that paper I requested.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39155708521824373752013-02-12T06:42:03.882-08:002013-02-12T06:42:03.882-08:00Liar for Jesus Jeff
I realize it's word salad...<i>Liar for Jesus Jeff<br /><br />I realize it's word salad to you, TWT. </i><br /><br />It's a meaningless word salad to <b>every</b> scientifically literate person LLFJ. Your philosophical blithering may sound impressive to other clueless freshmen like yourself, but it's just so much noise to those who actually understand the science.<br /><br />The simple fact is you've cut and run from every last piece of technical data that's been presented because you don't understand it and can't answer it. Keep blithering if it makes you feel better, but it has zero impact on anything connected to reality.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28283635515483355082013-02-12T04:29:21.769-08:002013-02-12T04:29:21.769-08:00I realize it's word salad to you, TWT. That me...I realize it's word salad to you, TWT. That mental incompetence of yours explains why you can't present an argument for your position.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33946438349680950732013-02-12T01:10:27.780-08:002013-02-12T01:10:27.780-08:00Word salad.
Gish gallop.
"godhead"? I...Word salad. <br /><br />Gish gallop.<br /><br />"godhead"? Is that the name of a heavy metal xtian band, or a sex act?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19272183885150950012013-02-11T20:31:59.508-08:002013-02-11T20:31:59.508-08:00TWT, If the validity of any explanation to any eve...TWT, If the validity of any explanation to any event depends on the truth of an infinite set of ad-hoc hypotheses (which is your approach), it's obvious that no explanation can be had for any event whatsoever. Sympathetic/competent theism limits the number of ad-hoc hypotheses for explaining events of THIS universe because of<br /><br />1) the finality entailed in FREE creation<br /><br />2) the ability to EXPLAIN the validity of induction itself--at least teleologically.<br /><br />No atheistic explanation of the validity of induction IS possible. It would involve circular reasoning. Because atheistic explanation is not only deductive, using only initial conditions and event regularities as premises, but it requires the non-existence of inductive-inferential thought as an entailment in those very premises. Prove from such premises that induction is valid, big boy. I'm all ears.<br /><br />On the other hand, if you posit a libertarianly-free godhead that can think the kind of "inductive" universe we infer and the modes of inference we infer it by, you just posit the necessary attributes (including capacities), desires, and choice to the godhead, and the rest (including the validity of induction) follows deductively.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17581019933625097552013-02-11T07:59:09.455-08:002013-02-11T07:59:09.455-08:00Lino Di Ischia February 10, 2013 at 9:11 AM
[......<i><b>Lino Di Ischia</b> February 10, 2013 at 9:11 AM<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />So, if ID can't explain why children die, then it must be discarded; but if Darwinism can't even begin to explain some things, there's no reason to set it aside.<br /><br />Cognitive dissonance. Oh my.</i><br /><br />No, equivocation by you on "explanation". <br /><br />EID isn't discarded because it can't explain why children die - which it can't - but because it doesn't <i>explain</i> anything. It's just a label for some putative unknown and undefined intelligent agency which is alleged to be the author of all our misfortunes.<br /><br />Evolution, on the other hand, has a comprehensive theory, specific mechanisms, successful predictions and supportive research. No, it has not yet been able to provide a step-by-step pathway for every evolutionary event since the beginning of time. That'll take more time. What it <i>does</i> have going for it is still way more than the opposition.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12530791404287709412013-02-11T07:41:05.370-08:002013-02-11T07:41:05.370-08:00Lino Di Ischia February 10, 2013 at 9:02 AM
[......<i><b>Lino Di Ischia</b> February 10, 2013 at 9:02 AM<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />This is exactly the problem. According to the dogma of neo-Darwinism, directional selection should drive evolution. However, genomes reveal way, way, way too much variation for directional selection to account for. Hence the development of the Neutral Theory of Kimura---which is, essentially, non-Darwinian.</i><br /><br />That's right. The theory of evolution has moved on somewhat since Darwin's day. Natural selection is now just one component of a much broader explanatory framework. Which raises the question of why anti-evolutionists are so obsessed with "Darwinism". It couldn't be because of religious objections, could it? <br /><br /><i>Then you have the Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe which catches nature in a titanic struggle for survival, with the bottom line being that in a huge number of replications (of the malarial parasite) ONLY TWO a.a.s end up being substituted for.</i><br /><br />I haven't read Behe's book. Did he also mention this study carrying out further research into microbes that have <i>evolved</i> the ability to metabolize the byproducts of nylon manufacture? It concluded: <br /><br /><i>In the present study, it was shown that microorganisms can acquire an entirely new ability to metabolize xenobiotic compounds such as a by-product of nylon manufacture through the process of adaptation. The artificial expansion of the metabolic diversity of microorganisms toward various unnatural compounds would be important in terms of biodegradation of environmental pollutants.</i><br /><br />Prijambada ID, Negoro S, Yomo T, Urabe I (May 1995). "Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution". <i>Appl. Environ. Microbiol.</i> 61 (5): 2020–2. PMC 167468. PMID 7646041.<br /><br /><i>The proposed mechanisms, when looked at properly, don't have even the slightest chance of explaining what we see. OTOH, intelligent design easily accomplishes the task.</i><br /><br />Actually, proposed mechanisms such as the above have a better chance of explaining what we see than EID because they are the only <i>mechanisms</i> on the table. EID doesn't tell us anything at all about <i>how</i>.<br /><br /><i>So, which of the two proposed mechanisms should science settle on? Be honest.</i><br /><br />Be honest and admit that there is only one proposed <i>mechanism</i> available that could do the job so there really isn't much of a choice for science to make.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78308893173303093842013-02-10T23:03:39.086-08:002013-02-10T23:03:39.086-08:00jeff, you really like gibberish, don't you?
T...jeff, you really like gibberish, don't you?<br /><br />Tell me something, why doesn't sympathetic/competent theism (which you changed from benevolent/competent theism) involve an infinite set of ad-hoc hypotheses? Is it because you believe that 'God just is' and 'God always has been' and 'God is uncaused' and 'God-did-it' answers all questions and therefor ends the need for more answers?<br /><br />I am uncaused. I just am. I always have been. I did it. I am the one and only designer-creator. It's a done deal and no more questions or answers are necessary. I may or may not be benevolent, sympathetic, or competent (it's a secret and I'm not telling). How's that for an alternative?<br /><br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63999292702549041562013-02-10T21:23:15.314-08:002013-02-10T21:23:15.314-08:00Yes the designer is God. Yes the designer is God. Marcushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05905104887549850614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15947480415089566302013-02-10T15:40:26.941-08:002013-02-10T15:40:26.941-08:00What's that? I was just about to get that Rip ...What's that? I was just about to get that Rip Van Winkle nap really going? But you say you've got a link to that paper I requested? What is it, again?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6039276852777933242013-02-10T15:28:26.632-08:002013-02-10T15:28:26.632-08:00Liar for Jesus Jeff
My stupidity is awe-inspiring...<i>Liar for Jesus Jeff<br /><br />My stupidity is awe-inspiring.</i><br /><br />Yes LFJJ, it really is. Your lack of self-awareness about how totally ignorant in evolutionary theory you really are boggles the mind. You're a classic example of the internet Fundy Creationist: no brains no headaches!Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68045941851809776952013-02-10T15:01:31.745-08:002013-02-10T15:01:31.745-08:00Better yet, give us a link to a paper where even o...Better yet, give us a link to a paper where even one of those "professional biologists" explains how they've demonstrated the correspondence of tree generation rules to the phenotypical/morphological/extinction effects of mutations. I'll take a Rip Van Winkle nap waiting on that one.<br /><br />Your stupidity is awe-inspiring.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23414008252677879652013-02-10T13:12:19.127-08:002013-02-10T13:12:19.127-08:00Liar for Jesus Jeff
Tree generation rules are not...<i>Liar for Jesus Jeff<br /><br />Tree generation rules are not known to correspond to the phenotypical/morphological/extinction effects of mutations, so cladistics has no known relevance to the logical possibility of naturalistic UCA.</i><br /><br />LOL! Maybe you should write to all those tens of thousands of successful professional biologists, geneticists, and paleontologists who do cladistic analysis and tell them everything they base their careers on is wrong.<br /><br />You blithering idiot Creationists just crack me up.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57769270613396828392013-02-10T12:41:05.475-08:002013-02-10T12:41:05.475-08:00Once again:
"... George Ellis provides a ba...Once again: <br /><br />"... George Ellis provides a balanced criticism of not only the science, but as he suggests, the scientific philosophy, by which multiverse theories are generally substantiated. He, like most cosmologists, accepts Tegmark's level I “domains”, even though they lie far beyond the cosmological horizon. Likewise, the multiverse of cosmic inflation is said to exist very far away. It would be so far away, however, that it's very unlikely any evidence of an early interaction will be found. He argues that for many theorists, the lack of empirical testability or falsifiability is not a major concern."<br /><br />This is why science is no longer demarcatable. It has devolved, in many instances, to speculation for which "empirical testability or falsifiability is not a major concern." But it's the nature of status-quo cowards to kiss up to the powers-that-be to prop up some illusory prestige and to keep the tax money pouring in. It's welfare for speculators that happen to be narcissistic idiot-savants of various sorts. <br /><br />Falsifiability and inductive plausibility criteria is out the window. Once every theory requires (because of atheistic, epistemological axioms) an infinite set of ad-hoc hypotheses, there is no clear way to adjudicate which is less implausible than another. <br /><br />In an infinite past void of teleology, there is no way to rule out even regularities in event sequences for finite periods of time that aren't caused at all, rendering all causal inference just as probably dead wrong as not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49704914969664232022013-02-10T12:14:12.777-08:002013-02-10T12:14:12.777-08:00Moron, you haven't sequenced all living ORGANI...Moron, you haven't sequenced all living ORGANISMS. You make analogical inferences just like the rest of us. IOW, you're a pathetic hypocrite that uses induction only when it suits your juvenile fancy.<br /><br />Tree generation rules are not known to correspond to the phenotypical/morphological/extinction effects of mutations, so cladistics has no known relevance to the logical possibility of naturalistic UCA.<br /><br />Your stupidity is as unfathomable as your arrogance is vast.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64056108056101828642013-02-10T11:59:35.602-08:002013-02-10T11:59:35.602-08:00Liar for Jesus Jeff
The point is all such inferen...<i>Liar for Jesus Jeff<br /><br />The point is all such inference requires at least SOMETHING we think is an observation, from which we analogically extrapolate</i><br /><br />So the sequenced genomic data from 21,500 species we have which forms a <a href="http://itol.embl.de/" rel="nofollow">single unambiguous best-fit phylogenetic tree </a> <b>aren't</b> observations in LFJJ-world.<br /><br />That's why we know you're a scientifically illiterate incompetent moron.<br /><br />BTW moron, you might be interested to know that the National Science Foundation now has an online databank with detailed measurements of over 4500 animal morphological characteristics to aid researchers doing phylogenetic or cladistic analyses.<br /><br /><a href="http://morphobank.org/" rel="nofollow">MorphoBank</a><br /><br />But of course none of that data counts as observations in idiot-Jeff landGhostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13359777976718094692013-02-10T09:55:43.957-08:002013-02-10T09:55:43.957-08:001) I didn't say sequence. The point is all suc...1) I didn't say sequence. The point is all such inference requires at least SOMETHING we think is an observation, from which we analogically extrapolate, blithering tool.<br /><br />2) the number of genomes that have existed compared to the number that have been sequenced or whatever is enormous. Thus, it is ONLY analogical extrapolation that gets us to such warranted belief. But of course idiots like you hate induction, because induction is what renders your blind faith non-sense the very idiocy that it is.<br /><br />3) Even if it was a fusion, which I'm happy to concede, it doesn't follow from common ancestry nor depend on the truth of common ancestry. But of course idiots like you hate inductive parsimony because ... (see above), blithering tool.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84905800738471418672013-02-10T09:38:11.357-08:002013-02-10T09:38:11.357-08:00PaV Lino
The proposed mechanisms, when looked at ...<i>PaV Lino<br /><br />The proposed mechanisms, when looked at properly, don't have even the slightest chance of explaining what we see. OTOH, <b>MAGIC!</b> easily accomplishes the task.</i><br /><br />Fixed it for you PaV.<br /><br /><i>So, which of the two proposed mechanisms should science settle on? Be honest.</i><br /><br />The one that has the 150+ years of consilient positive evidence. Guess which one that is PaV.<br /><br />Now when will you be describing those created "kinds" you say existed in the Cambrian?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27768323118747498372013-02-10T09:30:31.633-08:002013-02-10T09:30:31.633-08:00Normally I just ignore Liar for Jesus Jeff because...Normally I just ignore Liar for Jesus Jeff because he's such an incompetent boob, but I had to correct a few of his latest boners<br /><br /><i>LFJJ: "You see, we've looked at relatively few genomes under the microscope to even observe the "same DNA code" you're talking about.</i><br /><br />No LFJJ. As of 2012 the total number of species with their genomes sequenced is over 21,500. That includes over 4,100 completely sequenced and 17,400 partially sequenced. All use the identical form of DNA code.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.genomesonline.org/cgi-bin/GOLD/index.cgi" rel="nofollow">Genomes OnLine Database</a><br /><br />There are samples for every animal and plant order on the planet, from most every family. Oh, and you don't sequence DNA by 'looking at it under a microscope'. Blithering tool.<br /><br /><i>LFJJ: "If there is nothing about the chromosome that LOOKS like a fusion occurred, there's no reason to INFER a fusion occurred. </i><br /><br />There's plenty of evidence the fusion occurred. Not only do analogous chromosomes line up precisely in the human 2 and chimp 2p, 2q genomes, the human 2 genome has telomeres (genome 'end caps') in the middle precisely where the fusion took place.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm" rel="nofollow">Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes</a><br /><br />But it's way too much to expect a clueless Creationist like LFJJ to actually read and understand a topic before cranking up the blithering machine.<br /><br />Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87518377390228950682013-02-10T09:11:47.125-08:002013-02-10T09:11:47.125-08:00This is just a portion of the cognitive dissonance...This is just a portion of the cognitive dissonance that exists in Darwinian thought:<br /><br />the whole truth:<br /><i>LINO: "An "Artist" might make an heroic effort simply for the sake of the 'art' that's involved."<br /><br />TWT: I'll keep that in mind the next time I see dog poop, or hear of a child dying of cancer. </i><br /><br /><br />Ian Spedding:<br /><i>The simple answer is that, at present, we simply don't know exactly how it happened. Perhaps we never will, but that doesn't negate the evidence for evolution from other sources.</i><br /><br />Notice that TWTruth can't understand why a child might die of cancer, and since he can't conceive of any idea why, then a Designer must not exist. (Even though this is an argument against a Good Designer, not just a Designer), while Ian Spedding tells us that just because everything can't be explained that doesn't NEGATE the evidence for evolution from other sources.<br /><br />So, if ID can't explain why children die, then it must be discarded; but if Darwinism can't even begin to explain some things, there's no reason to set it aside.<br /><br />Cognitive dissonance. Oh my.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13306488683846665512013-02-10T09:02:19.763-08:002013-02-10T09:02:19.763-08:00Ian Spedding:
As I wrote above, we don't know...Ian Spedding:<br /><br /><i>As I wrote above, we don't know what happened in the specific case of the salmon. But that does not mean that it didn't or couldn't happen, particularly if we have evidence from other sources that the proposed mechanism - or something like it - does work.</i><br /><br />This is exactly the problem. According to the dogma of neo-Darwinism, directional selection should drive evolution. However, genomes reveal way, way, way too much variation for directional selection to account for. Hence the development of the Neutral Theory of Kimura---which is, essentially, non-Darwinian.<br /><br />Then you have the <i>Edge of Evolution</i> by Michael Behe which catches nature in a titanic struggle for survival, with the bottom line being that in a huge number of replications (of the malarial parasite) ONLY TWO a.a.s end up being substituted for.<br /><br />If this result is applied across species, you would basically have "stasis."<br /><br />The proposed mechanisms, when looked at properly, don't have even the slightest chance of explaining what we see. OTOH, intelligent design easily accomplishes the task.<br /><br />So, which of the two proposed mechanisms should science settle on? Be honest.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64082148444415873352013-02-10T07:54:53.938-08:002013-02-10T07:54:53.938-08:00Here's how clueless even Paul Davies can be:
...Here's how clueless even Paul Davies can be:<br /><br />"For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith."<br /><br /> — Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse<br /><br />Now, Paul, seriously, it's equally ad-hoc to posit an infinite set of beings over a few?<br /><br />Then, the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Criticism) continues:<br /><br />"Taking cosmic inflation as a popular case in point, George Ellis provides a balanced criticism of not only the science, but as he suggests, the scientific philosophy, by which multiverse theories are generally substantiated. He, like most cosmologists, accepts Tegmark's level I “domains”, even though they lie far beyond the cosmological horizon. Likewise, the multiverse of cosmic inflation is said to exist very far away. It would be so far away, however, that it's very unlikely any evidence of an early interaction will be found. He argues that for many theorists, the lack of empirical testability or falsifiability is not a major concern. “Many physicists who talk about the multiverse, especially advocates of the string landscape, do not care much about parallel universes per se. For them, objections to the multiverse as a concept are unimportant. Their theories live or die based on internal consistency and, one hopes, eventual laboratory testing.” Although he believes there's little hope that will ever be possible, he grants that the theories on which the speculation is based, are not without scientific merit. He concludes that multiverse theory is a “productive research program”:[17]<br /><br />I love it: "for many theorists, the lack of empirical testability or falsifiability is not a major concern." You people are so pathetic in your epistemological hypocrisy I put absolutely NOTHING past you. Any adult who can insult the intelligence of their fellow-men with such transparent hypocrisy is utterly immoral.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44417974090681526902013-02-10T07:34:33.413-08:002013-02-10T07:34:33.413-08:00TWT, relative plausibility criteria works the same...TWT, relative plausibility criteria works the same whether an explanation is less implausible or more plausible. As for whether sympathetic/competent theism is an epistemological done deal, that depends on whether an alternative can be conceived of that doesn't involve an infinite set of ad-hoc hypotheses. I'm all ears. Go for it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45675028410852284492013-02-10T07:24:29.903-08:002013-02-10T07:24:29.903-08:00See what I mean about evasive, verbose, convoluted...See what I mean about evasive, verbose, convoluted answers?<br /><br />Uh, jeff, would you like to try that again and this time in straight, honest English?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9460635816297013562013-02-10T06:51:03.204-08:002013-02-10T06:51:03.204-08:00TWT: Why don't you all just be honest and say ...TWT: Why don't you all just be honest and say 'God-did-it, I believe it, and as far as I'm concerned that settles it.' That is what you believe, isn't it?<br /><br />J: I've answered that many times. You just don't believe me. That's your prerogative. But again:<br /><br />1) Teleology grounds the intelligibility of normativity in thought and deed, which most people seem to naturally believe in.<br /><br />2) Positing design limits ad-hoc hypotheses (which are inevitable for finite human beings) to a finite number.<br /><br />3) Sympathetic/competent theism provides AT LEAST a teleological explanation of the inferred fit of the means to our satisfaction to the way things are. Naturalistic axioms don't imply or render probable that knowledge of extra-self substances and their attributes ever occurs at all. Thus, the only inductive criteria that applies to naturalistic and teleological epistemologies is parsimony: the epistemology that can explain the most using the least assumptions (intuitions and ad-hoc hypotheses) is more plausible. Sympathetic/competent theism wins hands down. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com