tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post8844990840631326684..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Move Along, Nothing to See Here—Identical DNA Sequences Not a Problem, Back to Your DrinksUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29191790122495511362012-04-12T07:48:41.668-07:002012-04-12T07:48:41.668-07:00What causal method does ID propose to create desig...What causal method does ID propose to create design?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22374721993515565922012-04-12T07:23:01.080-07:002012-04-12T07:23:01.080-07:00Vel, of first concern, besides the complete discor...Vel, of first concern, besides the complete discordance of Darwinian predictions to empirical data, Darwinists have completely failed in their primary claim that material processes can generate functional information.,,, There is a null hypothesis in place that reflects this fact:<br /><br />The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel - August 2011<br />Summary: “The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness” states that inanimate physicodynamics is completely inadequate to generate, or even explain, the mathematical nature of physical interactions (the purely formal laws of physics and chemistry). The Law further states that physicodynamic factors cannot cause formal processes and procedures leading to sophisticated function. Chance and necessity alone cannot steer, program or optimize algorithmic/computational success to provide desired non-trivial utility.<br />http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness.html<br /><br />Whereas every time you write a few sentences you demonstrate the ability of intelligence to produce functional information:<br /><br />Book Review - Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.<br />Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren't chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome.<br />So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it's a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail.<br />http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_726.html<br /><br />Therefore, using Charles Darwin's own criteria for reasoning from 'presently acting cause' known to produce effect in question,, intelligent design is thus found to be the most 'casually adequate' scientific explanation for life on earth:<br /><br />Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design - video<br />http://vimeo.com/32148403bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33123749801720951092012-04-12T07:03:57.554-07:002012-04-12T07:03:57.554-07:00Thanks for the link,but I am not arguing bad desig...Thanks for the link,but I am not arguing bad design. Rather ,apart from this argument is the any other data which supports evolutionary theory? And conversely what evidence supports ID beyond,it looks like it is designed and as far as we know nature might be incapable of producing the structure. OT ,I haven't had a chance to read one of your google docs links,I will.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5265724986619123792012-04-12T07:03:30.894-07:002012-04-12T07:03:30.894-07:00Evolutionary theory is based on pure ignorance (tr...Evolutionary theory is based on pure ignorance (tree of life) of biology, a narrow religious definition of what God would have done, and weak fossil data. Empirical evidence of evolution being observed does not exist. <br />It is rationalism alone. It's devotees are so sure of the soundness of their logic that evidence is not actually needed. That's why whatever data is found is never allowed to falsify evolution. That it could be false is unthinkable, no matter what the data says. As long as someone doesn't question the fact of evolution they can speculate as to how it happened.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6022133924819520392012-04-12T02:52:22.707-07:002012-04-12T02:52:22.707-07:00Vel,
Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' v...Vel, <br /><br />Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZgbornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23146884028447318992012-04-11T18:50:12.332-07:002012-04-11T18:50:12.332-07:00So is the only proof of evolutionary theory that G...So is the only proof of evolutionary theory that God wouldn't have done it that way?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18615732864818555022012-04-11T18:15:56.837-07:002012-04-11T18:15:56.837-07:00So in the view of ID, evolutionary biology has alr...<i>So in the view of ID, evolutionary biology has already been completely disproven?</i><br /><br />I've never heard an IDer say that. ID focuses less on overthrowing evolution than on providing another view.<br /><br />If you're looking for extreme positions that are scientifically undefendable, then check out evolution, which insists it is a fact.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8585856721285966162012-04-11T17:07:59.530-07:002012-04-11T17:07:59.530-07:00So in the view of ID, evolutionary biology has alr...So in the view of ID, evolutionary biology has already been completely disproven?Bradfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16653186120668053844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41457467881211194032012-04-11T16:05:49.786-07:002012-04-11T16:05:49.786-07:00If ID proponents simply stop at that very broad as...<i>If ID proponents simply stop at that very broad assertion, what happens when/if they attempt to advance?</i><br /><br />I don't know. Here's an idea:<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/here-is-completely-different-way-of.html<br /><br />Curing cancer would be nice but you seem to be unable to answer my question.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34464577453038148922012-04-11T15:08:41.757-07:002012-04-11T15:08:41.757-07:00If ID proponents simply stop at that very broad as...If ID proponents simply stop at that very broad assertion, what happens when/if they attempt to advance?Bradfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16653186120668053844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-989072827803714512012-04-11T14:22:55.505-07:002012-04-11T14:22:55.505-07:00you are being disingenuous by refusing to acknowle...<i>you are being disingenuous by refusing to acknowledge the religiosity of ID</i><br /><br />No I'm not refusing to acknowledge religious premises where they occur. I simply pointed out that, for example, viewing a code, which requires encoded data and an decoding device, from a design perspective doesn't seem to be religious to me. Where's the religion? It is not a dogmatic claim. It can be refuted scientifically. What is the religious premise that is so obvious to you?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27166488840802789722012-04-11T13:52:39.853-07:002012-04-11T13:52:39.853-07:00ID makes simple, broad claims...
Broad claims eve...<i>ID makes simple, broad claims...</i><br /><br />Broad claims eventually need to be fleshed out and further explained, otherwise why should said claims be held as valuable? If I accept a broad claim as it is and do not seek further explanation, that sounds quite religious to me. Therefore ID proponents are indeed religious, and your argument <i>could</i> boil down to "Hey look! You're just as stupid as I am because you're being religious too!"<br /><br />However, in your case it does not seem to boil down to that because you are being disingenuous by refusing to acknowledge the religiosity of ID thought (and so it's humorously ironic that you are accusing evolution proponents of refusing to acknowledge their alleged religiosity)Bradfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16653186120668053844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77544981007735024002012-04-11T12:27:25.653-07:002012-04-11T12:27:25.653-07:00Velikovskys, "How do you know the mind of God...Velikovskys, "How do you know the mind of God?"<br /><br />Charles Darwin and evolutionists for the last 150 years boldly told us in no uncertain terms ...<br /><br />...what God should have done (if He created life). However, since we don't see it done that way, then evolution is the only explanation.<br /><br /> You've got 150 years of backpeddling to do... having told us what a creator would and wouldn't have done as the foundation for Darwinism (as documented by the British Journal of history). <br /><br />Now, even those claims are falsified. The question is will evolutionists stop turning the question around and allow their theory to be falsified based on their own religious criteria that they argued in support of for 150 years?<br /><br />Regarding intelligent design, CH said it well... "ID makes simple, broad claims like: if we find a code, or a complex machine, etc, then it can be described in terms of design. You can disagree and point out that such codes and machines can be described in terms of law. Evolutionists have largely failed in their attempts, but in principle it is possible. In other words, ID can be addressed with scientific rebuttal. No scientific rebuttal is possible with evolution, for it appeals to personal, religious belief, not open to scientific analysis or discussion. Evolutionary arguments are unfalsifiable. There is literally no come-back, no rebuttal possible."<br /> <br />Darwinists want to have it both ways. If you're going to judge creationism or intelligent design then at least stick with your criteria. Darwinists can't even do that anymore. It looks like God has a sense of humor and the jokes on Darwin by their own devices. <br /><br />Darwinists dug the hole, advertised it, and then fell into the hole of their own making.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68287234273982177932012-04-11T11:17:29.517-07:002012-04-11T11:17:29.517-07:00NickM, instead of joking around, and being blatant...NickM, instead of joking around, and being blatantly dishonest with the evidence, perhaps you should provide the falsification of the null hypothesis asked for to 'prove' that neo-Darwinism is anything other than pseudo-scientific crap that is maintained by heavy doses of deception!<br /><br />Science and Pseudoscience - Imre Lakatos - exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’, as a pseudoscience, using Lakatos's rigid criteria for falsification<br />https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit<br /><br />Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information<br />https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_USbornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63725315251117744682012-04-11T11:05:43.521-07:002012-04-11T11:05:43.521-07:00Thanks for that imageThanks for that imagevelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87519461949083530862012-04-11T11:02:37.546-07:002012-04-11T11:02:37.546-07:00Just curious, but how exactly do you know what the...Just curious, but how exactly do you know what the process of creation entails?<br />How do you know the mind of God? Is there a verse which details the God's design technique of reusing parts?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44463045564392804072012-04-11T11:01:42.521-07:002012-04-11T11:01:42.521-07:00You're missing the joke. Please compare the fo...You're missing the joke. Please compare the following words: "presuppositional apologetics", "evidence", "proof".NickMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765417807335152285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88094898946622799502012-04-11T10:53:40.739-07:002012-04-11T10:53:40.739-07:00In your dreams ,Neal. Perhaps they choose not to w...In your dreams ,Neal. Perhaps they choose not to waste their time trying to get you to create the imfamous iPod nested hierarchyvelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82266144473149988712012-04-11T10:30:46.553-07:002012-04-11T10:30:46.553-07:00"Evolutionists had explained that this sort o..."Evolutionists had explained that this sort of finding would completely falsify evolution. And of course, as usual, that was Darwinian Doublespeak as we were told to move along yet again."<br /><br />Life was so much easier for evolutionists in the old days when they could invent and manipulate their tree of life based on morphology and use it as the primary evidence for evolution being a fact. <br /><br />At the nuts and bolts level of the genome, they are finding just what that said they should find IF THERE WAS A CREATOR. Of course, that was before they found out that there is a great deal of mixing and matching of components. So, again, there really isn't anything that can be found that would be allowed to falsify evolution in the minds of its devotees.<br /><br />It seems that all the strong supporters of the "objective nested hierarchy" on this blog have been driven off by the question to explain the phylogeny of the lowly Sea Squirt. As long as the Darwinists can selectively pick their own cherries their always very bold.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34866987916048808372012-04-11T08:11:14.524-07:002012-04-11T08:11:14.524-07:00As Steve says ,just basically disingenuous to put ...As Steve says ,just basically disingenuous to put it mildlyvelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1243178221811440252012-04-11T07:41:03.415-07:002012-04-11T07:41:03.415-07:00Yo, bonobo face. What does Dawkins' posterior ...Yo, bonobo face. What does Dawkins' posterior smell like today?<br /><br />ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31085422014367285892012-04-11T07:23:38.944-07:002012-04-11T07:23:38.944-07:00Wow Batspit77, that's some massive bowel outpu...Wow Batspit77, that's some massive bowel output you're producing today. Did someone give you a box of Ex-Lax and tell you it was Easter candy?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19973426710657550602012-04-11T07:20:15.882-07:002012-04-11T07:20:15.882-07:00NickM, please do tell me how universal transcenden...NickM, please do tell me how universal transcendent 'logic' can be grounded in a material basis? Indeed please falsify any of the following null hypothesis:<br /><br />Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation)<br />1) Mathematical Logic<br />2) Algorithmic Optimization<br />3) Cybernetic Programming<br />4) Computational Halting<br />5) Integrated Circuits<br />6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium)<br />7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics)<br />8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system<br />9) Language<br />10) Formal function of any kind<br />11) Utilitarian work<br />http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag<br /><br />Is Life Unique? David L. Abel - January 2012<br />Concluding Statement: The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. Neither can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems, the integration of circuits, computation, categorizations, results tabulation, the drawing and discussion of conclusions. The prevailing Kuhnian paradigm rut of philosophic physicalism is obstructing scientific progress, biology in particular. There is more to life than chemistry. All known life is cybernetic. Control is choice-contingent and formal, not physicodynamic.<br />http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74340272414076084992012-04-11T07:15:06.077-07:002012-04-11T07:15:06.077-07:00NickM, perhaps you should establish that a benefic...NickM, perhaps you should establish that a beneficial mutation can even arrive at fixation before you start drawing up imaginary trees?<br /><br />Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010<br />Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator.<br />http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies<br /><br />NickM, it is simply completely dishonest of you to ignore this evidence!bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63157522946385698882012-04-11T07:13:39.573-07:002012-04-11T07:13:39.573-07:00Presuppositional Apologetics – easy to use interac...<i>Presuppositional Apologetics – easy to use interactive website<br />http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php</i><br /><br />That's the funniest contrast between title and link that I've seen all day.NickMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765417807335152285noreply@blogger.com