RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 136 137 138 139 140 [141] 142 143 144 145 146 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2012,01:46   

Did anyone read Todd Wood's response to Dembski (Part I, Part II)?

I'm not very interested in the compatibility stuff, not my problem. Darrell Falk's response was not at all what I had expected, though, it was basically a 'This is what I believe' declaration, and for the main part, he was kissing Dembski's backside agreeing with Dembski. One difference between the two was their take on human exceptionalism. Dembski seems to believe that humans should be qualitatively different than animals in a scientifically detectable way, and if science says otherwise, too bad for science. Falk OTOH says that God cares for us makes us exceptional, so no problem.

Both seem to agree that if science doesn't agree with something they believe, science must be dismissed.

I just don't get it.

Anyway, this is from Todd's response:
 
Quote
Even odder, though, are the non-negotiables* for Darwinism: Common ancestry of all organisms, natural selection as the primary mechanism of evolution, humans continuous with other animals, and methodological naturalism. For an evolutionary biologist, however, the first three of those non-negotiables are entirely derived from interpretations of evidence. Could you have an evolutionary biologist who doubted the efficacy of natural selection to explain most of evolution? Sure, there have already been such evolutionists. Could you have an evolutionary biologist who thinks humans (or maybe some other critters) did not come from the same ancestor as everything else? Of course. Here's a famous one:
 
Quote
I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. ... Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.

So if Darwin himself equivocated on one of the non-negotiables of Darwinism, does that make him not a Darwinist?

And that brings me to my final concern: The ubiquitous use of "Darwinist" and "Darwinism." The way Dembski uses it implies that it is some kind of dogmatism, as if it actually had non-negotiables. Since three of Dembski's four non-negotiables are contingent on evidence, I'm not sure what a "Darwinist" could be philosophically. Dogmatically committed to an untenable scientific position? I am dubious such a creature would exist (present company excepted, of course). If we think of Darwinism as the version of evolution that Darwin believed, then there are no Darwinists left, since science has advanced much in 150 years.

and
 
Quote
A consistent methodological naturalist when confronted with Christ's resurrection (or any miracle) could only say that science is extremely limited in such cases to understand what happened or how. There is no way that methodological naturalism could rule out the miraculous. That's what philosophical naturalism does. Dembski insists that evolutionary creationists "have to confront why this naturalism [i.e., methodological] shouldn’t extend to salvation history as well." Frankly, I'm not sure what the problem would be. If methodological naturalism means that science limits itself to naturalistic explanations (as Dembski himself asserts), then science would merely have nothing to say about Christ's resurrection. How is that incompatible with Christian theology? It sounds like Dembski is conflating methodological and philosophical naturalism.

This is what Falk should've said, instead of his own version of the Nicene creed.

*According to Dembski:
 
Quote
Non-Negotiables of Christianity:

(C1) Divine Creation: God by wisdom created the world out of nothing.
(C2) Reflected Glory: The world reflects God’s glory, a fact that ought to be evident to humanity.
(C3) Human Exceptionalism: Humans alone among the creatures on earth are made in the image of God.
(C4) Christ’s Resurrection: God, in contravention of nature’s ordinary powers, raised Jesus bodily from the dead.

Non-Negotiables of Darwinism:

(D1) Common Descent: All organisms are related by descent with modification from a common ancestor.
(D2) Natural Selection: Natural selection operating on random variations is the principal mechanism responsible for biological adaptations.
(D3) Human Continuity: Humans are continuous with other animals, exhibiting no fundamental difference in kind but only differences in degree.
(D4) Methodological Naturalism: The physical world, for purposes of scientific inquiry, may be assumed to operate by unbroken natural law.


--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Woodbine



Posts: 684
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2012,02:41   

Quote
Non-Negotiables of Christianity:

(C1) Divine Creation: God by wisdom created the world out of nothing.
(C2) Reflected Glory: The world reflects God’s glory, a fact that ought to be evident to humanity.
(C3) Human Exceptionalism: Humans alone among the creatures on earth are made in the image of God.
(C4) Christ’s Resurrection: God, in contravention of nature’s ordinary powers, raised Jesus bodily from the dead.

Non-Negotiables of Darwinism:

(D1) Common Descent: All organisms are related by descent with modification from a common ancestor.
(D2) Natural Selection: Natural selection operating on random variations is the principal mechanism responsible for biological adaptations.
(D3) Human Continuity: Humans are continuous with other animals, exhibiting no fundamental difference in kind but only differences in degree.
(D4) Methodological Naturalism: The physical world, for purposes of scientific inquiry, may be assumed to operate by unbroken natural law.

This highlights a post I made a few weeks back.

When Demski says C1 is non-negotiable - which sense of the term 'world' is he using? The cosmos as a whole or just our Earth?

If it really is the case that to be a Christian you need to believe in a specially created Earth, then he's marginalising himself even further from a) the scientific community (Christian or otherwise) who are studying planet formation, and b) the liberally minded theological community who have no problem in reconciling discovery with faith and who don't seem as hell-bent as Dembski et al in drawing ideological lines in the sand.

It's refreshing to hear Dembski openly admit he's a plain ol' creationist after the years of humming and harring. My guess is he's accepted that his scientific credibility is zero - therefore he's in the process of building his theological reputation among those who really couldn't give a shit what the science says.

In other words he's come home.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 579
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2012,10:21   

My suspicion is that Dembski's recent interests in "non-negotiables" stems from the doctrinal statement at  Southern Evangelical Seminary, "We believe in the special creation of the entire space-time universe and of every basic form of life in the six historic days of the Genesis creation record. We also believe in the historicity of the biblical record, including the special creation of Adam and Eve as the literal progenitors of all people, the literal fall and resultant divine curse on the creation, the worldwide flood, and the origin of nations and diverse languages at the tower of Babel." Also, "Resurrection. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ arose from the dead in the same physical body, though glorified, in which He had lived and died, and that His resurrection body is the pattern of that body that will be given to all believers at the return of Christ."

IOW, he's just trying to hang on to his latest job.  After all, the mind boggles at what sort of a career move might be downhill from SES.  The next place might not even rate a parking lot.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 684
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2012,10:42   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 05 2012,16:21)
IOW, he's just trying to hang on to his latest job.  After all, the mind boggles at what sort of a career move might be downhill from SES.  The next place might not even rate a parking lot.

Not rate a parking lot? Have you seen where his next gig is?

It is a parking lot.



Oh, BTW....stop posting at ARN!

:angry:

There's only you and that bonkers literalist keeping the lights on over there!

  
N.Wells



Posts: 579
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2012,11:27   

Exactly: the next one, after he's expelled from the new place, probably won't even have such a lovely parking lot.  

His options after this next one tanks will presumably run the gamut from such luminary places as Patriot Bible University to perhaps a job at a prestigious think-tank like the Department of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics at the Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc.

(Check out Patriot Bible University's parking lot in the last picture in http://www.durangobill.com/Patriot....ty.html )

Also, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....s_a.php

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng....ndation

And re ARN, once festering swamps are cleared out, it's useful to help keep them sterilized, viz. the recent return and rapid retreat of Salvador.

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2012,14:38   

Oh goody, KF discovered the loudspeaker in the ceiling. Now he can post two responses and insert his drivel into the comment with which he disagrees.
 
Quote
9
tragic mishap

I posted Scripture with no comment whatsoever, much less any twisting, and I never once mentioned violence. If you think I was talking about violence, you’re putting words in my mouth. I was talking about free speech. I think you’re the one who needs to chill.

[--> TM, you knew exactly what you were doing by snipping out of context like that, following the general context and style of the now increasingly common web version of village skeptic tactics. Your attempts to pretend otherwise simply underscore the force of the point. Sorry, we were not born just this morning. KF]

DANGER ++ UD linky ++ DANGER

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
The whole truth



Posts: 964
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2012,15:27   

Quote (JLT @ May 05 2012,12:38)
Oh goody, KF discovered the loudspeaker in the ceiling. Now he can post two responses and insert his drivel into the comment with which he disagrees.
 
Quote
9
tragic mishap

I posted Scripture with no comment whatsoever, much less any twisting, and I never once mentioned violence. If you think I was talking about violence, you’re putting words in my mouth. I was talking about free speech. I think you’re the one who needs to chill.

[--> TM, you knew exactly what you were doing by snipping out of context like that, following the general context and style of the now increasingly common web version of village skeptic tactics. Your attempts to pretend otherwise simply underscore the force of the point. Sorry, we were not born just this morning. KF]

DANGER ++ UD linky ++ DANGER

So the god zombies at UD are now eating each other?

The more that site is ignored by rational people, the more the lunatics there will come apart at the seams. Authoritarians need someone to boss around, and if there are no "Darwinists" to attack, the IDiots will turn on each other.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
REC



Posts: 539
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2012,15:43   

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 04 2012,08:35)
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 04 2012,06:08)
Matteo sums it up:    
Quote
Although I’m an ID supporter, I do need to point out that conflating the flagella of bacteria and those of Protozoa constitutes a rookie mistake.

but not before Nick Matzke gives a link to a devastating review of the original press release PaV's post is based on.

PaV, meanwhile, he don't say so much any more.

This couldn't possibly imply that there is more than one kind of flagellum or that flagella have evolved in different ways or that the icon of ID is reducible or at least buildable in different ways.

PaV decides NOT to do a google search, and double downs on the stupid:

Quote
Now, as to why they know it is a eukaryote, I would again (presume—since it’s not stated) that it is because they see a nuclear membrane, which, by definition, gives you a eukaryote.

So, why do they call it “The Protozoa”? Mystifying, really.


For the record, the first hit in google, without even clicking through is: "'Protozoa', a diverse group of unicellular eukaryotic organisms"

Quote
Well, if all of what you say is true, then, again, why do they call it “The Protozoa”? Is it possible that this is a eukaryote that has flagella? I don’t know. But, in the article they don’t call it “cilia”; they call it “flagella”. So how do you know for sure that it is “cilia”?


He actually links to a Wiki article, which if he read, should have cleared things up: "A 9+2 organelle is an intracellular projection of a eukaryotic cell containing a microtubule array. Both eukaryotic flagella and eukaryotic cilia are considered undulipodia.[1] Eukaryotic cilia are structurally identical to eukaryotic flagella, although distinctions are sometimes made according to function and/or length."

Reading comprehension.

Quote
whether it is a “flaggellum”, or a “cilium” that this organism has, doesn’t really matter: either way it is “irreducible”. Why? Because there are no antecedents of the genes that account for either, and both are complex.


PaV doesn't know what it is, or where it came from. Therefore, irreducibly complex, therefore God.

  
Henry J



Posts: 3964
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2012,19:18   

Quote
Non-Negotiables of Darwinism:


Negotiable??

He thinks that how reality works can be negotiated? By people?

Henry

  
REC



Posts: 539
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2012,22:32   

What a little shitstain Sal is-

He says--"Top Johns Hopkins Surgeon Persecuted for being a Creationist" in a "witch hunt at Emory."

Real story:
Dr. Ben Carson is scheduled to give Emory's Commencement, and receive a honorary degree.

Professors and students wrote a letter: “deeply concerning  . . . That he equates the acceptance of evolution with a lack of ethics and morality.” And that “not only encourages the insertion of unnecessary and destructive wedges between Americans but stands against many of the ideals of this university.”

“Dr. Carson was a childhood hero of mine, and he still is a hero of mine,” said Arri Eisen, Ph.D., Emory University Department of Biology. “What worried me the most was the fact that he said if you do accept evolution that you’re somehow ethically lacking.”

"The professors say this is no protest and they still want Carson to speak at the commencement.

They say they simply want to draw attention to Carson’s stance."

“I credit my university with being open to and engaging in these conversations because it’s not having those conversations where that can lead to many dangerous situations in politics and beyond that we see in our country today,” Eisen said.

Lions at the Colosseum, I tell ya....

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012....versity

  
sparc



Posts: 1651
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2012,23:22   

Quote (REC @ May 05 2012,15:43)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 04 2012,08:35)
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 04 2012,06:08)
Matteo sums it up:    
Quote
Although I’m an ID supporter, I do need to point out that conflating the flagella of bacteria and those of Protozoa constitutes a rookie mistake.

but not before Nick Matzke gives a link to a devastating review of the original press release PaV's post is based on.

PaV, meanwhile, he don't say so much any more.

This couldn't possibly imply that there is more than one kind of flagellum or that flagella have evolved in different ways or that the icon of ID is reducible or at least buildable in different ways.

PaV decides NOT to do a google search, and double downs on the stupid:

Quote
Now, as to why they know it is a eukaryote, I would again (presume—since it’s not stated) that it is because they see a nuclear membrane, which, by definition, gives you a eukaryote.

So, why do they call it “The Protozoa”? Mystifying, really.


For the record, the first hit in google, without even clicking through is: "'Protozoa', a diverse group of unicellular eukaryotic organisms"

Quote
Well, if all of what you say is true, then, again, why do they call it “The Protozoa”? Is it possible that this is a eukaryote that has flagella? I don’t know. But, in the article they don’t call it “cilia”; they call it “flagella”. So how do you know for sure that it is “cilia”?


He actually links to a Wiki article, which if he read, should have cleared things up: "A 9+2 organelle is an intracellular projection of a eukaryotic cell containing a microtubule array. Both eukaryotic flagella and eukaryotic cilia are considered undulipodia.[1] Eukaryotic cilia are structurally identical to eukaryotic flagella, although distinctions are sometimes made according to function and/or length."

Reading comprehension.

Quote
whether it is a “flaggellum”, or a “cilium” that this organism has, doesn’t really matter: either way it is “irreducible”. Why? Because there are no antecedents of the genes that account for either, and both are complex.


PaV doesn't know what it is, or where it came from. Therefore, irreducibly complex, therefore God.

I wonder if PaV knows where to find 18SA and 28S rDNA genes that are mentioned in the abstract he is refering to.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Henry J



Posts: 3964
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2012,00:06   

Quote
Lions at the Colosseum, I tell ya....

Roar?

  
sparc



Posts: 1651
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2012,00:39   

Quote (Woodbine @ May 05 2012,01:38)
UD are reporting JAD has died*.




RIP you crazy bastard.

These blog posts seem to be his final dispatches....



* Considering the source there's every chance JAD is actually in the rudest of health.

Why did these hypocrites link to DaveScot's 2005 post when he was a JAD fan still? Has Davison ever been un-banned after DaveScot kicked him out from UD? At least not until 2009:
Quote
Barry Arrington, if your moderation policy is truly honest, you’d reinstate John A. Davison back into participation mode here on this fine weblog. I’m an occasional poster at UD, an ID proponent who understands ID, its goals and intentions as much as anyone else. If John A. Davison does not act accordingly with UD’s moderation policy, than I was wrong and should be banned too. Please take this under consideration. Thanks!

Seemingly, the same was still true in 2010 because he asked VMartin to comment for him at UD:
Quote
Professor Davison who is mentioned in this incentive article just commented on the issue on his blog. He asked me to inform you about his opinion.
For those who are interested here is the link:

http://jadavison.wordpress.com.....mment-2569/....nt-....nt-2569


--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
The whole truth



Posts: 964
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2012,01:49   

Quote (REC @ May 05 2012,20:32)
What a little shitstain Sal is-

He says--"Top Johns Hopkins Surgeon Persecuted for being a Creationist" in a "witch hunt at Emory."

Real story:
Dr. Ben Carson is scheduled to give Emory's Commencement, and receive a honorary degree.

Professors and students wrote a letter: “deeply concerning  . . . That he equates the acceptance of evolution with a lack of ethics and morality.” And that “not only encourages the insertion of unnecessary and destructive wedges between Americans but stands against many of the ideals of this university.”

“Dr. Carson was a childhood hero of mine, and he still is a hero of mine,” said Arri Eisen, Ph.D., Emory University Department of Biology. “What worried me the most was the fact that he said if you do accept evolution that you’re somehow ethically lacking.”

"The professors say this is no protest and they still want Carson to speak at the commencement.

They say they simply want to draw attention to Carson’s stance."

“I credit my university with being open to and engaging in these conversations because it’s not having those conversations where that can lead to many dangerous situations in politics and beyond that we see in our country today,” Eisen said.

Lions at the Colosseum, I tell ya....

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012.......versity

And of course the acceptance of natural evolution is the acceptance that we humans descended from an ape-like ancestor and many other ancestors, all the way back to star stuff, which just won't do with the egotistical god zombies. They arrogantly believe that humans (and especially themselves) were specially created by their chosen god in its image, and that absolutely everything else is inferior and was provided for god worshiping humans to exploit.

If it weren't for science's position that humans evolved like other life forms, from other life forms, I doubt that godbots would have any disagreement with the ToE. To the god pushers it's all about setting themselves above nature.

To thumpers, nature is crude and amoral. Ethics, morality, altruism, love, intelligence, etc., just couldn't have come from apes, fish, and molecules in a primordial swamp, so that stuff must have come from their chosen god and was given to humans out of loving generosity and in exchange for blind faith and worship. Anyone who disagrees with that is seen as a blaspheming, ungrateful enemy of their chosen god that must be converted or wiped out.

The human ego can be a terrible thing.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2012,04:13   

Quote (Henry J @ May 06 2012,01:18)
Quote
Non-Negotiables of Darwinism:


Negotiable??

He thinks that how reality works can be negotiated? By people?

Henry

It's all part of his spin. The impression he wants to give is that "Darwinism" is just some world view that has its own dogmas*, just like Christianity, and you can pick the side that appeals more to you. Only in the last paragraph does he mention that there's such a thing as evidence for "Darwinism" (which he, of course, doesn't accept).





*(and prophet, aka Darwin, as if you have to subscribe to everything Darwin had ever said, to be a proper "Darwinist")

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
The whole truth



Posts: 964
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2012,16:58   

Speaking of dogma/world views, etc., I started a thread on my site to ask what the acceptance of "ID" would change in science. A couple of people have responded, and to me their responses show that they are only concerned with giving "the designer" (god) credit, regardless of whether that does anything useful for science.

I'm bringing it up here because some of you might want to stop by and comment in the thread. I think it's very important to keep pressing the IDiots about why "ID" or the "ID inference" should be accepted by science and exactly what it would do to change (in a positive, useful way) the way science is done.

Click here to go to the thread

Edited by The whole truth on May 06 2012,15:07

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2012,17:23   

I can't believe Slimey Sal brings this up again*:
   
Quote
so the Darwinists at Emory complained about Dr. Carson associating evolutionism with the lack of ethics. Why then don’t they write letters of complaint to their own! Consider the words of evolutionists themselves.

So the Darwinists at Emory complain about Dr. Carson associating Darwinism with lack of ethics. Consider what the pseudoscience of evolutionism has to say according to evolutionists themselves:

Evolutionism says rape is as natural as the leopard’s spots:
   
Quote
“Just as the leopard’s spots and the giraffe’s elongated neck are the result of aeons of past Darwinian selection, so also is rape.” — Randy Thronhill and Criag Palmer

It says about the same about murder
   
Quote
“over the eons of human evolution murder was so surprisingly beneficial in the intense game of reproductive competition” — David Buss

and
   
Quote
“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.” — William Provine

and
       
Quote
“No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life.” — William Provine

And here are some other delicious quotes from Darwinists:
       
Quote
We assume that cannibalism is always an aggressive, barbaric and degrading act,
   …
   But that is a serious over-simplification, one that has kept us from realizing that cannibalism can have positive meanings

   Beth Conklin
   Vanderbilt University

and
   
Quote
Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets.

Skatje Myers

And that my friends are what the Darwinists at Emory advocate, and that is what Dr. Carson fights against. God bless you Dr. Carson!



*UD link, reader discretion advised

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 868
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2012,00:17   

Awww, poor Gil can't go anywhere - even the now largely evilutionist-free UD - without getting a smackdown. Neil Ricket (yes, UD alert):
   
Quote
   
Quote
   You’ve completely ignored probabilistic resources.


I have studied probability theory in a mathematics department. I have studied graduate textbooks in probability theory. I have taught classes in probability theory. I have a published research paper (jointly with another author) in the field.

I have never come across the term “probabilistic resources” until I started following ID sites.


--------------
“To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.” - Isaac Asimov

"Grow up, assface" - Joe G., Grown up, ID spokesperson, Sandwalk, April 2014

  
Woodbine



Posts: 684
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2012,01:25   

Quote (JLT @ May 06 2012,23:23)
I can't believe Slimey Sal brings this up again*

Coincidently I'm in the middle of re-reading the Origin and I've just finished the section that examines organisms that 'revert to type'. I reckon Slimy Sal is undergoing a similar process.

His latest vomit-inducing reincarnation has either been completely ignored (ARN), or ripped to shreds (Skeptic Zone). And so he's left with no option but to employ his innate quality.....being a fucking scumbag.

He'll crawl back under his rock soon enough. Even Sal can't have failed to notice that his beloved ID movement lies in ruins.....there really isn't any place left for him.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer bloke.

:D

Edited by Woodbine on May 07 2012,07:26

  
The whole truth



Posts: 964
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2012,02:39   

Quote (Woodbine @ May 05 2012,08:42)
Quote (N.Wells @ May 05 2012,16:21)
IOW, he's just trying to hang on to his latest job.  After all, the mind boggles at what sort of a career move might be downhill from SES.  The next place might not even rate a parking lot.

Not rate a parking lot? Have you seen where his next gig is?

It is a parking lot.



Oh, BTW....stop posting at ARN!

:angry:

There's only you and that bonkers literalist keeping the lights on over there!

dembski's 'office' will probably be one of the parking spaces, complete with a portable outhouse for him to do his research in.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
The whole truth



Posts: 964
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2012,04:12   

Quote (JLT @ May 04 2012,23:46)
Did anyone read Todd Wood's response to Dembski (Part I, Part II)?

I'm not very interested in the compatibility stuff, not my problem. Darrell Falk's response was not at all what I had expected, though, it was basically a 'This is what I believe' declaration, and for the main part, he was kissing Dembski's backside agreeing with Dembski. One difference between the two was their take on human exceptionalism. Dembski seems to believe that humans should be qualitatively different than animals in a scientifically detectable way, and if science says otherwise, too bad for science. Falk OTOH says that God cares for us makes us exceptional, so no problem.

Both seem to agree that if science doesn't agree with something they believe, science must be dismissed.

I just don't get it.

Anyway, this is from Todd's response:
   
Quote
Even odder, though, are the non-negotiables* for Darwinism: Common ancestry of all organisms, natural selection as the primary mechanism of evolution, humans continuous with other animals, and methodological naturalism. For an evolutionary biologist, however, the first three of those non-negotiables are entirely derived from interpretations of evidence. Could you have an evolutionary biologist who doubted the efficacy of natural selection to explain most of evolution? Sure, there have already been such evolutionists. Could you have an evolutionary biologist who thinks humans (or maybe some other critters) did not come from the same ancestor as everything else? Of course. Here's a famous one:
   
Quote
I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. ... Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.

So if Darwin himself equivocated on one of the non-negotiables of Darwinism, does that make him not a Darwinist?

And that brings me to my final concern: The ubiquitous use of "Darwinist" and "Darwinism." The way Dembski uses it implies that it is some kind of dogmatism, as if it actually had non-negotiables. Since three of Dembski's four non-negotiables are contingent on evidence, I'm not sure what a "Darwinist" could be philosophically. Dogmatically committed to an untenable scientific position? I am dubious such a creature would exist (present company excepted, of course). If we think of Darwinism as the version of evolution that Darwin believed, then there are no Darwinists left, since science has advanced much in 150 years.

and
   
Quote
A consistent methodological naturalist when confronted with Christ's resurrection (or any miracle) could only say that science is extremely limited in such cases to understand what happened or how. There is no way that methodological naturalism could rule out the miraculous. That's what philosophical naturalism does. Dembski insists that evolutionary creationists "have to confront why this naturalism [i.e., methodological] shouldn’t extend to salvation history as well." Frankly, I'm not sure what the problem would be. If methodological naturalism means that science limits itself to naturalistic explanations (as Dembski himself asserts), then science would merely have nothing to say about Christ's resurrection. How is that incompatible with Christian theology? It sounds like Dembski is conflating methodological and philosophical naturalism.

This is what Falk should've said, instead of his own version of the Nicene creed.

*According to Dembski:
   
Quote
Non-Negotiables of Christianity:

(C1) Divine Creation: God by wisdom created the world out of nothing.
(C2) Reflected Glory: The world reflects God’s glory, a fact that ought to be evident to humanity.
(C3) Human Exceptionalism: Humans alone among the creatures on earth are made in the image of God.
(C4) Christ’s Resurrection: God, in contravention of nature’s ordinary powers, raised Jesus bodily from the dead.

Non-Negotiables of Darwinism:

(D1) Common Descent: All organisms are related by descent with modification from a common ancestor.
(D2) Natural Selection: Natural selection operating on random variations is the principal mechanism responsible for biological adaptations.
(D3) Human Continuity: Humans are continuous with other animals, exhibiting no fundamental difference in kind but only differences in degree.
(D4) Methodological Naturalism: The physical world, for purposes of scientific inquiry, may be assumed to operate by unbroken natural law.

I just read Wood's response to dembski and I grimaced when I saw this paragraph:

"For those still not quite sure what to make of me, let me say again that I'm a young-age creationist, and I have profound and troubling disagreements with evolutionary creationism. I also happen to believe that the disagreement over evolution isn't getting anywhere and that the strategies creationists have employed to debate the issue have been colossal failures. Insofar as Dembski's essay is yet another unsatisfactory rehash of old arguments, I think it too will fall on deaf ears. Resolving this conflict (which I think is quite possible) will require much more than just more of the same."

I wonder what "evolutionary creationism" is. I wonder even more about why creationists need "strategies" of any kind, for any reason. If their chosen god actually exists, and is as powerful as they claim it is, then why doesn't that so-called god just show its fucking face to everyone on Earth and settle the "conflict"? A being that could create an entire universe could EASILY prove its existence.

All the crap about "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter", and especially concealing itself, and all the other bullshit spewed by religious kooks who make every excuse imaginable as to why their so-called god hides itself is just plain lame and diversionary. A couple thousand years ago their chosen god (and its illegitimate son) allegedly did lots of awesome things right out in the open to prove its existence and powers, but lately it must be taking an extended nap or is just too chicken to show up. And don't forget that the christian god, and most or all other gods, are depicted as demanding, jealous, vengeful, petty, murderous, violent, genocidal, all powerful tyrants that won't tolerate any disobedience. Would such a god hide from us lowly humans?

Edited by The whole truth on May 07 2012,02:36

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Woodbine



Posts: 684
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2012,04:14   

Quote (The whole truth @ May 07 2012,08:39)
dembski's 'office' will probably be one of the parking spaces, complete with a portable outhouse for him to do his research in.





Edited by Lou FCD on May 08 2012,11:41

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2012,06:02   

Quote (The whole truth @ May 07 2012,10:12)
Would such a god hide from us lowly humans?



 
Quote
I just read Wood's response to dembski and I grimaced when I saw this paragraph:

If that made you grimace, you shouldn't read Darrell Falk's response (Part I, Part II). Todd Wodd at least is honest and able of making fun of himself ("Dogmatically committed to an untenable scientific position? I am dubious such a creature would exist (present company excepted, of course)."
He states openly that he is a creationist not because he finds the evidence for evolution lacking but because his belief demands it in his opinion.
Dembski's post is a load of BS but at least it is clear what he means.
After finishing Falk's piece I was wondering what kind of stuff he's smoking. He seems to believe in intelligent falling:
 
Quote
But what are the natural laws? Are not the the laws of nature simply a description of God’s ongoing and non-ceasing activity in the universe? The Law of Gravity, for example, is not something that God set up in the beginning, thereafter recusing himself from further involvement and exiting from the scene. Instead, the Law of Gravity works as it does because of the ongoing activity of God’s Spirit in the universe. So consistent is that activity that it can be described mathematically through scientific analysis. If God ceased to be active, however, then not only would the matter of this universe no longer function in a way which enables a mathematical description of gravity, matter itself would cease to exist.

That is not much better than this:
Quote
But if Darwin was wrong, that beardy fella on a cloud must have made us, right? Well, no.

The latest science suggests we are intelligently designed - not by some sentient humanistic being from on high - moreover a higher, energetic, source intelligence. Einstein's Unified Field theory equation was completed in 2007. The breakthrough proves everything: matter (which derives from energy, which is what we're made from) all natural laws and processes link to one underlying, unifying consciousness - aka, God, Source, Allah, Yaweh - pick your favourite.


--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Amadan



Posts: 1230
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2012,06:40   

Quote (Woodbine @ May 07 2012,10:14)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 07 2012,08:39)
dembski's 'office' will probably be one of the parking spaces, complete with a portable outhouse for him to do his research in.


POTW

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
k.e..



Posts: 2815
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2012,07:41   

Quote (Amadan @ May 07 2012,14:40)
Quote (Woodbine @ May 07 2012,10:14)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ May 07 2012,08:39)
dembski's 'office' will probably be one of the parking spaces, complete with a portable outhouse for him to do his research in.


POTW

That'll be five cents please.... ntch

Buy my book

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
rossum



Posts: 167
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2012,09:06   

Quote (Amadan @ May 07 2012,06:40)
Quote (Woodbine @ May 07 2012,10:14)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ May 07 2012,08:39)
dembski's 'office' will probably be one of the parking spaces, complete with a portable outhouse for him to do his research in.


POTW

Can someone please add the appropriate Judge Jones style sound effects.

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1249
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2012,11:31   

Quote (rossum @ May 07 2012,09:06)
Can someone please add the appropriate Judge Jones style sound effects.

rossum


http://tinyurl.com/bq4l47t....bq4l47t

Give 10 seconds to load.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2012,04:00   

Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition! (UD link)
Quote
All he [Falk] has to say, to turn off the heat, is that he believes that God guided/steered evolution, or front-loaded/preprogrammed it, and he’s off the hook.


--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1634
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2012,04:49   

This is kinda cute.  Bully Arrington has a few words about Those Pesky Ads on UD:  
Quote
Some of you have written privately to complain about some of the ads that show up on this site.  Believe me, we are not always thrilled with them ourselves.  However, we have a contract with an online ad company and the revenue we receive from these ads is a major factor in helping us keep this site operating.
And also, please buy my book.

Barry also notes that different people see different ads.  Which is true, the ads are targeted.  Which ads you see depend mostly on what you've been looking at recently on the intertubes.  Remember a few months ago when someone [male] complained about all the ads for women's lingerie?

Here's our old friend, Robert Byers, today:  
Quote
6 Robert Byers May 8, 2012 at 2:27 am
The Asian chicks look cute but are they creationists??


--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.   Edward Feser

‘Anything is a “real possibility” in the mind of one seeking to deny the obvious.’ – William J Murray

  
k.e..



Posts: 2815
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2012,05:28   

Quote (CeilingCat @ May 08 2012,12:49)
This is kinda cute.  Bully Arrington has a few words about Those Pesky Ads on UD:    
Quote
Some of you have written privately to complain about some of the ads that show up on this site.  Believe me, we are not always thrilled with them ourselves.  However, we have a contract with an online ad company and the revenue we receive from these ads is a major factor in helping us keep this site operating.
And also, please buy my book.

Barry also notes that different people see different ads.  Which is true, the ads are targeted.  Which ads you see depend mostly on what you've been looking at recently on the intertubes.  Remember a few months ago when someone [male] complained about all the ads for women's lingerie?

Here's our old friend, Robert Byers, today:    
Quote
6 Robert Byers May 8, 2012 at 2:27 am
The Asian chicks look cute but are they creationists??

Indubitably. It's the ID alternative theosophical/ scientifical predilection.

If BA likes LBFMs who am I to criticize? Is RB a preacher?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < ... 136 137 138 139 140 [141] 142 143 144 145 146 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]