RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (432) < ... 390 391 392 393 394 [395] 396 397 398 399 400 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 12164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2019,08:54   

That was for the phrase Background Stupidity.  :D

Edited by stevestory on May 21 2019,09:54

   
stevestory



Posts: 12164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2019,10:19   

Quote
64
DaveS May 21, 2019 at 8:54 am
Ah, the riotously marked-up Lewontin article makes yet another appearance.


linky

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1949
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2019,15:27   

Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2019,08:54)
That was for the phrase Background Stupidity.  :D

:)

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2478
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2019,19:42   

Quote
Brother Brian
May 21, 2019 at 6:39 pm
As to BA77@2, 3 and 4, if any of that nonsense addresses the fact that racism was rampant long before Darwin, when society was largely Christian, I would love to read it. But if I have to wade through 7,000+ words of word salad to read the nugget of valid argument, I have much better things to do with my time. Things like lancing boils, picking lice, applying preparation H, scraping dead skin..,

Banination in 3, 2, 1..,,

  
stevestory



Posts: 12164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2019,20:12   

SCREENSHOTTED BECAUSE ACARTIA IS TOO LAZY TO BOTHER TYPICAL A/MAT DARWINIST PUSHING OILED STRAWMEN OFF SLIPPERY SLOPES




   
stevestory



Posts: 12164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2019,20:18   

I'm not going to spend 15 minutes fixing the formatting but just to appreciate the sheer bulk of Batshit77 glossolalia here are comments 2 3 and 4

Quote
2
Bornagain77 May 21, 2019 at 5:59 pm
as to:

“can be achieved by the Darwinist only by continually and ruthlessly suppressing a built-in tendency. It requires bad faith: fooling himself about his own way of thinking. Like an irremediable birth defect, it’s never going to go away.”
– David Klinghoffer

Enter Brother Brian to prove David Klinghoffer’s exact point.

And the “irremediable birth defect” of racism is far deeper and more flawed to their theory than Darwinists will ever honestly admit in public.

In fact, the amorality inherent within atheistic materialism,,,

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
– Richard Dawkins

,, coupled with the ‘anti-morality’ inherent in ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking,,,

“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
– Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

,,, In fact, the amorality inherent within atheistic materialism, coupled with the ‘anti-morality’ inherent in ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking, actually provides yet another falsification of Darwin’s theory.

In fact, Darwin himself offered this following ‘anti-altruism’ standard as a falsification criteria for his theory, “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”… and even stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”

“Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
– Charles Darwin – Origin of Species
http://darwin-online.org.uk/Va.........59.html

And yet, directly contrary to Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species” or it would annihilate his theory, it is now known that ” “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.”

Plant Galls and Evolution
How More than Twelve Thousand1 Ugly Facts are Slaying a Beautiful Hypothesis: Darwinism2
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – 7 September 2017
Excerpt: in the case of the galls, in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it. The galls are not ‘useful to the possessor’, the plants. There is no space for these phenomena in the world of “the selfish gene” (Dawkins). Moreover, the same conclusion appears to be true for thousands of angiosperm species producing deceptive flowers (in contrast to gall formations, now for the exclusive good of the plant species) – a topic which should be carefully treated in another paper.
http://www.weloennig.de/PlantGa....lls.pdf

Moreover, the falsification of ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking goes even deeper than that. If evolution by natural selection were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only life that should be around should be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most ‘mutational firepower’, since only they, (since they greatly outclass multi-cellular organism in terms of ‘reproductive success’ and ‘mutational firepower’), would be fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution ruled and only the fittest are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here in this following Richard Dawkins’ video:

Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video
Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....6....31.html

In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and highly efficient reproduction, be realistically ‘selected’ for? Darwin himself stated, “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”

“every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”
– Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – pg. 66

The logic of natural selection is nicely and simply illustrated on the following graph:

The Logic of Natural Selection – graph
http://recticulatedgiraffe.wee.....35.jpg?308/....jpg....jpg?308

As you can see, any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, abstract thinking, and especially morally noble altruistic behavior of any sort, would be highly superfluous and even detrimental to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a ‘survival of the fittest’ Darwinian view, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since it obviously would slow down successful reproduction.

Yet, contrary to this central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, instead of eating us, time after time we find micro-organisms helping each other, and us, in ways that have nothing to with their own ‘survival of the fittest’’ concerns.

The following researchers said they were ‘banging our heads against the wall’ by the contradictory findings to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking that they had found. And they even stated that “,,, Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.”

Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists – April 28, 2014
Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true.
Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin’s theory — at least in one case.
“It was completely unexpected,” says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan’s school of natural resources & environment. “When we saw the results, we said ‘this can’t be.”‘ We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?”
The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,,
The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. “We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale says. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”,,,
Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale says. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected.
“,,, Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.”
http://www.livescience.com/452........ts.html

And again, directly contrary to the central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, we find that bacteria are also directly helping us in essential ways that have nothing to do with their own survival of the fittest concerns:

NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012
Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival.
http://www.nih.gov/news.......-13.htm

We are living in a bacterial world, and it’s impacting us more than previously thought – February 15, 2013
Excerpt: We often associate bacteria with disease-causing “germs” or pathogens, and bacteria are responsible for many diseases, such as tuberculosis, bubonic plague, and MRSA infections. But bacteria do many good things, too, and the recent research underlines the fact that animal life would not be the same without them.,,,
I am,, convinced that the number of beneficial microbes, even very necessary microbes, is much, much greater than the number of pathogens.”
http://phys.org/news.......#ajTabs

Moreover, it is now known that “Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.”

The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles – Paul G. Falkowski – 2008
Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v.....8....ype=pdf
– Paul G. Falkowski is Professor Geological Sciences at Rutgers

Darwin’s theory simply has no explanation for such behavior and in fact such behavior is completely contrary to the central assumption of ‘survival of the fittest’ that lays at the heart of Darwin’s theoretical framework.

3
Bornagain77 May 21, 2019 at 6:00 pm
Moreover, to dive even deeper than bacteria, the falsification of this ‘survival of the fittest’, i.e. ‘selfish’, thinking occurs at the molecular level too.

Dawkins’ ‘selfish gene’ concept is more of less directly based on Darwin’s own ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking about competition. Yet genes are now found to be anything but selfish. Instead of being ‘selfish’, genes are now found to be existing in a holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation (the antithesis of selfishness).

What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything? – JUN 16, 2017
Excerpt: If you told a modern geneticist that a complex trait—whether a physical characteristic like height or weight, or the risk of a disease like cancer or schizophrenia—was the work of just 15 genes, they’d probably laugh. It’s now thought that such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert. The vast majority of them have only tiny effects, but together, they can dramatically shape our bodies and our health. They’re weak individually, but powerful en masse.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science....ce....2

Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait – June 20, 2018
Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis.
But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,,
One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out.
Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigen....0180620

Gene Pleiotropy Roadblocks Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. – Dec. 8, 2016
Excerpt: Before the advent of modern molecular biology, scientists defined a gene as a single unit of inheritance. If a gene was found to influence multiple externally visible traits, it was said to be pleiotropic—a term first used in 1910.2 During this early period of genetic discovery, pleiotropy was considered to be quite rare because scientists assumed most genes only possessed a single function—a simplistic idea that remained popular throughout most of the 20th century. However, as our understanding of genetics grew through DNA science, it became clear that genes operate in complex interconnected networks. Furthermore, individual genes produce multiple variants of end products with different effects through a variety of intricate mechanisms.2,3 Taken together, these discoveries show that pleiotropy is a common feature of nearly every gene.,,,
The pleiotropy evolution problem is widely known among secular geneticists, but rarely discussed in the popular media. In this new research report, the authors state, “Many studies have provided evidence for the ability of pleiotropy to constrain gene evolution.”,,,
“Our study provided supportive evidence that pleiotropy constraints the evolution of transcription factors (Tfs).”,,,
The authors state, “We showed that highly pleiotropic genes are more likely to be associated with a disease phenotype.”,,,
http://www.icr.org/article........747

Such ‘holistic cooperation’ is, needless to say, the exact polar opposite of being ‘selfish’ as Dawkins had envisioned with his ‘selfish gene’ concept. (And should, if Darwinism were a normal science instead of being basically a religion for atheists, count as another direct falsification of the theory).

In fact, on top of genes being in a holistic web of mutual cooperation, the genetic responses of humans are designed in a very sophisticated way so as to differentiate between hedonic (selfish) and ‘noble’ (altruistic) moral happiness:

Human Cells Respond in Healthy, Unhealthy Ways to Different Kinds of Happiness – July 29, 2013
Excerpt: Human bodies recognize at the molecular level that not all happiness is created equal, responding in ways that can help or hinder physical health,,,
The sense of well-being derived from “a noble purpose” may provide cellular health benefits, whereas “simple self-gratification” may have negative effects, despite an overall perceived sense of happiness, researchers found.,,,
But if all happiness is created equal, and equally opposite to ill-being, then patterns of gene expression should be the same regardless of hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. Not so, found the researchers.
Eudaimonic well-being was, indeed, associated with a significant decrease in the stress-related CTRA gene expression profile. In contrast, hedonic well-being was associated with a significant increase in the CTRA profile. Their genomics-based analyses, the authors reported, reveal the hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,,
“We can make ourselves happy through simple pleasures, but those ‘empty calories’ don’t help us broaden our awareness or build our capacity in ways that benefit us physically,” she said. “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.........952.htm

Given that Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ processes are grossly inadequate for explaining where even a single gene and/or protein came from, I consider the preceding finding of ‘morally noble’ gene networks to be yet another particularly direct and damning falsification of Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ theory.

Moreover on top of all that, if anything ever went against Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”, it is the notion that a single cell can somehow become tens of trillions of cells that cooperate “exclusively for the good of other cells” in a single organism for the singular purpose of keeping that single organism alive.

To claim that one cell transforming itself into the tens of trillions cells, (of extremely cooperative, even altruistic, cells that make up our ONE human body), is anything less than a miracle is either sheer arrogance or profound ignorance (most likely both).

One Body – animation – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....q6eqEM4

Mathematician Alexander Tsiaras on Human Development: “It’s a Mystery, It’s Magic, It’s Divinity” – March 2012
Excerpt: ‘The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It’s a mystery, it’s magic, it’s divinity.’
https://evolutionnews.org/2012.......ician_a

“The mere fact that a firefly comes from a single cell that then develops into a firefly puts it in a completely different league [from an iPhone]. That doesn’t happen with smartphones. Factories make smartphones. Fireflies come from fireflies and come from an initial fertilized cell. It’s absolutely mind-boggling. We have no idea how a single cell produces an adult. These things are marvelous.”
– Doug Axe PhD. molecular biology – The Problem with Theistic Evolution – video – 1:00 minute mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....UyW6EbM

4
Bornagain77 May 21, 2019 at 6:00 pm
Moreover, David Klinghoffer stated in his article that humans are equal because “humans,,, are uniquely endowed with souls bearing some sort of exceptional quality,”

And indeed that was the exact thinking that lay behind the declaration of independence, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,”

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—”
http://www.civiced.org/resourc....to-know

But more than that, we now have scientific evidence, via quantum biology, than all men really are ‘created equal’ and that we really do have a transcendent component to our being, i.e. we now have scientific evidence, via quantum biology, that all men really do have “a soul” that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies, (i.e. we each have a soul that makes each of us ‘created equal’):

Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – video
https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am....2Am1g5Y

How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate (27:15 minute mark – how quantum information theory relates to molecular biology)
https://youtu.be/4f0hL3N....?t=1635

Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....NPgjM4w

In the following video, entitled Quantum Entangled Consciousness, Stuart Hameroff states that ‘the quantum information,,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul’.

“Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
– Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark)
https://youtu.be/jjpEc98....o?t=300

I concider the present day empirical verification of “a soul”, via quantum biology, to be of no small importance:

Verses:

Mark 8:37
Is anything worth more than your soul?

Psalm 139:13
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

Matthew 22:37
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’


Jesus Fuckin' Christmas. 3,427 words.

Edited by stevestory on May 21 2019,21:19

   
stevestory



Posts: 12164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2019,20:23   

And then this fuckin' idiot has to add his 2¢

Quote
6
AaronS1978 May 21, 2019 at 6:49 pm
I would just like to summarize one thing the reason why Darwinism most likely cannot escape racism is because racist will use its logic to justify their point of view.

And they often do jump through hoops and try to connect the dots to prove that another race has a selective advantage over the other therefore showing both scientifically and physically the inferiority of the other race

Black people are less intelligent than white Europeans
Black people are not intelligent enough to understand what white Europeans are thinking

The same can be said for white Europeans versus Asians and finally Asians versus a particular group of Jews

As long as they can show that they have something that is a selective advantage like high levels of intelligence they can use that as leverage to prove that they are superior race and justify that the inferior don’t have a say

The reality is there’s 1 million different factors that play into intelligence, one of the biggest factors is environment and if you live in a bad environment the odds of you being very unintelligent are very high and unfortunately people of African American dissent have a tendency to of been forced into horrible environments

The environmental factor more than explains the difference in intelligence

But I would venture a guess that this is the main reason why Darwinism cannot escape racism it is a combination of humans using its logic to justify their means, and it does that very well
durr

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 4387
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2019,22:12   

Joke (ET) is back vomiting his usual idiotic anti-science one liners.  Brother Brian quietly slips him the knife.  :)

Quote
Brother Brian May 21, 2019 at 7:47 pm

ET, did anyone mention how much you were missed over the last week? Not even KF? I didn’t think so.


--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"I'm a female retired marine biologist"

Whizz-dumb from Joe "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest female impersonator YEC.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3230
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2019,23:15   

Quote
I would just like to summarize one thing the reason why Darwinism most likely cannot escape racism is because racist will use its logic to justify their point of view.


Exhibit A: "The Curse of Ham".

IDiots, indeed.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
stevestory



Posts: 12164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2019,07:43   

Quote
2
Vmahuna May 21, 2019 at 3:17 pm
Oh, on the Racism stuff. I also read, and strongly believe, the writings of Charles Murray, who was WIDELY condemned for writing “The Bell Curve” back when I was in college, and Professor Murray didn’t yet have his PhD. What he PROVED in “Bell Curve”, and has CONTINUOUSLY reinforced over the last 40 years, is the Standard Distribution of IQ varies by RACE. In general, IQs of people of European descent have a Mean of 100 and a Standard Deviation of 15. I think you have to have an IQ more than 3 Standard Deviations above Normal (45 points, IQ>145) to be a “Genius”. However, people of African descent (I think North Africans get included in “European”) have a Mean IQ = 85 and a Standard Deviation of 10. So any number of “Normal” Europeans (with IQs of 130) would rank as African geniuses. And any number of “Normal” Africans would rank darn close to “Moron” (since IQ = 55 would still be classed as Normal).
But this has been researched and reported MANY many times, and, like Intelligent Design, it CAN’T be true (otherwise “Affirmative Action” is in fact Racial Discrimination). And even if it IS true, WHY WOULD YOU BRING IT UP?
I’ve read 4 of Professor Murray’s books, including “Coming Apart” in which he shows, through statistics generated by various Government agencies, that the social programs stupidly enacted since the 1960s are DESTROYING American society. Murray offers NO HOPE for preventing the USA from becoming Somalia, or perhaps Mexico or Venezuela (from a government effectiveness/economic health point of view). This because what should have been the next generation of the Middle Class has instead adopted the “Urban Contemporary” lifestyle: drop out before finishing high school, produce children without the benefit of marriage (this is VITAL: any child without 2 parents is worth PILES of State and Federal money every single month), refuse work when it is offered (getting PAID reduces your welfare checks), and supplement your income by committing crimes (on average, individuals now being convicted and sent to prison for a felony have PREVIOUSLY committed 100 OTHER felonies for which the government did not convict them).
So, I mean facts is facts. But WHY would you wanna BRING IT UP? (Oh, statistical analysis also shows that “North Asians” have a IQs significantly higher than Europeans.)


well then

   
stevestory



Posts: 12164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2019,14:27   

Quote
15
Brother Brian May 22, 2019 at 12:58 pm
BA77
       
Quote
   
For crying out loud, if any point has been made clear in this thread it is that racism, despite many people trying to twist scriptures to suit their racism, is completely antithetical to Christian morality,…
         

And yet many people who consider themselves to be Christian have used scripture to justify their racism. That is an easily proven fact.
       
Quote
 
In fact, as was shown, the ‘anti-altruistic’ morality inherent in the central Darwinian principle of ‘survival of the fittest’ is now show to be falsified by numerous lines of evidence, i.e. posts 2, 3, and 4.
   
   
I, like many others, don’t read your extensive posts. I did so when I first arrived here but I did not find the ones I read to be of any great interest, and were often completely off topic.
     
Quote
   
BB. you are either being purposely obtuse or you are irredeemably clueless. Perhaps both.
       

Nice talking to you. I might do so again if you can refrain from the personal attacks.



ETA linky

Edited by stevestory on May 22 2019,15:29

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2377
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2019,07:38   

Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2019,20:18)
I'm not going to spend 15 minutes fixing the formatting but just to appreciate the sheer bulk of Batshit77 glossolalia here are comments 2 3 and 4

   
Quote
2
Bornagain77 May 21, 2019 at 5:59 pm
as to:

...
Matthew 22:37
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’


Jesus Fuckin' Christmas. 3,427 words.

Can we have a "read less" button here, please?

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
k.e..



Posts: 5337
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2019,08:33   

Quote (stevestory @ May 22 2019,22:27)
Quote
15
Brother Brian May 22, 2019 at 12:58 pm
BA77
         
Quote
   
For crying out loud, if any point has been made clear in this thread it is that racism, despite many people trying to twist scriptures to suit their racism, is completely antithetical to Christian morality,…
         

And yet many people who consider themselves to be Christian have used scripture to justify their racism. That is an easily proven fact.
         
Quote
 
In fact, as was shown, the ‘anti-altruistic’ morality inherent in the central Darwinian principle of ‘survival of the fittest’ is now show to be falsified by numerous lines of evidence, i.e. posts 2, 3, and 4.
   
   
I, like many others, don’t read your extensive posts. I did so when I first arrived here but I did not find the ones I read to be of any great interest, and were often completely off topic.
       
Quote
   
BB. you are either being purposely obtuse or you are irredeemably clueless. Perhaps both.
       

Nice talking to you. I might do so again if you can refrain from the personal attacks.



ETA linky

Thou dost slappest one with thine damp lettuce leaf plucked from a crack in the concrete pavement of thoust own asylum's quadrangle.

Or mouse with Napoleon complex attempts to gnaw a normal persons chair leg.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
k.e..



Posts: 5337
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2019,08:48   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 22 2019,06:12)
Joke (ET) is back vomiting his usual idiotic anti-science one liners.  Brother Brian quietly slips him the knife.  :)

 
Quote
Brother Brian May 21, 2019 at 7:47 pm

ET, did anyone mention how much you were missed over the last week? Not even KF? I didn’t think so.

ncht! ....Jo3G don't worry, everyone's a critic. Your antiscience rhetoric is welcome here anytime. I for one miss giving you a wedgie on a daily basis. And STOP praying for kf to give you a blow job ffs.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
stevestory



Posts: 12164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2019,10:32   

Quote
164
Brother Brian May 23, 2019 at 7:14 am
KF
Quote

DS, the lockouts are notorious.

You keep repeating this. How many ID research papers have been rejected for publication in peer reviewed journals? I have asked this before and the only response I ever get is that there would be no point submitting them because they wouldn’t be excepted. And the editors of BioComplexity, ID’s pet journal, aren’t being worked very hard given the very low number of papers published.
linky

Maybe the editors of Biocomplexity are just overwhelmed by so much science that they went catatonic. Maybe that explains why they've published nothing so far this year.

   
stevestory



Posts: 12164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2019,10:39   

Quote
“Race realism” (Darwinian racism) pops up again: the John Derbyshire commemorative edition
An American conservative thinkmag published geneticist Razib Khan, glorifying Darwinism, and he turned out to have apparent racist links. Then someone with even more pronounced apparent racist links rose to defend him.

Posted on May 21, 2019 AuthorNews Comments(9)


Some american conservatives are racist, and it's Darwin's fault.

(yawn) Boring.

   
KevinB



Posts: 472
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2019,12:38   

Quote (Bob O'H @ May 23 2019,07:38)
 
Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2019,20:18)
I'm not going to spend 15 minutes fixing the formatting but just to appreciate the sheer bulk of Batshit77 glossolalia here are comments 2 3 and 4

     
Quote
2
Bornagain77 May 21, 2019 at 5:59 pm
as to:

...
Matthew 22:37
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’


Jesus Fuckin' Christmas. 3,427 words.

Can we have a "read less" button here, please?

The nearest you'll get to one around "here" (at AtBC) is one that pops up the message "Please do not press this button again".

Over at UD, they've already got an Omphalos, so they don't need any more buttons.

  
stevestory



Posts: 12164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2019,17:50   

Quote
3
Goodusername May 23, 2019 at 4:11 pm
News,

I’m pretty sure that the river analogy for genes originates from the 1995 book “River Out of Eden” – by Richard Dawkins:

“To be good at surviving, a gene must be good at working together with the other genes in the same species – the same river. To survive in the long run, a gene must be a good companion. It must do well in the company of, or against the background of, the other genes in the same river.”

“I have spoken of a river of genes, but we could equally well speak of a band of good companions marching through geological time. All the genes of one breeding population are, in the long run, companions of each other.”

Dawkins thought of the analogy because genes all work together to form a single organism – like a river (and can also “branch”, forming new rivers, akin to speciation).

Yet, you seemed to think that this analogy was un-Darwinian, or at least contrary to what has been taught by Darwinians: “if you went through a Darwinian biology curriculum in school, do you think it would have sounded quite the same way if this kind of thing were generally known?”
And so I was wondering if you got the analogy from Dawkins (which seemed unlikely), or, if not, where you had seen it (or maybe you thought of it).


Dude points out Denise is unknowingly using a Dawkins metaphor and claiming that it doesn't sound very darwinian.

linky

Edited by stevestory on May 23 2019,18:51

   
Ptaylor



Posts: 1143
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2019,18:33   

I’m still getting used to this Background Stupidity thing. Does this…
     
Quote
135
OLV
May 22, 2019 at 11:44 am
KF,
Regardless of how we look at the current state of affairs in biology research.
This is like watching a basketball match between a professional team (ID) and a college team (Darwinian), the score showing 500 : 1 (one point scored early for devolutionary adaptation/microevolution). A couple of minutes left but the pro team keeps scoring 3-pointers at an increasing rate. Game over.
(from the ID Breakthrough thread, linky)

…qualify as Background Stupidity, or is it merely Utterly Deluded? :D

Edited by Ptaylor on May 24 2019,12:05

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
stevestory



Posts: 12164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2019,20:01   

Quote (Ptaylor @ May 23 2019,19:33)
I’m still getting used to this Background Stupidity thing. Does this…
       
Quote
135
OLV
May 22, 2019 at 11:44 am
KF,
Regardless of how we look at the current state of affairs in biology research.
This is like watching a basketball match between a professional team (ID) and a college team (Darwinian), the score showing 500 : 1 (one point scored early for devolutionary adaptation/microevolution). A couple of minutes left but the pro team keeps scoring 3-pointers at an increasing rate. Game over.
(from the ID Breakthrough thread, linky)

…qualify as Background Stupidity, or is it merely Utterly Deluded? :D

We'll need Texas Teach to answer that question. It's clearly delusional though, if publishing research is equivalent to hitting those three pointers, the biology team is hitting thousands a month, and the ID team isn't even scoring in their practice gym .

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 4387
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2019,22:53   

Quote (stevestory @ May 23 2019,20:01)
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 23 2019,19:33)
I’m still getting used to this Background Stupidity thing. Does this…
         
Quote
135
OLV
May 22, 2019 at 11:44 am
KF,
Regardless of how we look at the current state of affairs in biology research.
This is like watching a basketball match between a professional team (ID) and a college team (Darwinian), the score showing 500 : 1 (one point scored early for devolutionary adaptation/microevolution). A couple of minutes left but the pro team keeps scoring 3-pointers at an increasing rate. Game over.
(from the ID Breakthrough thread, linky)

…qualify as Background Stupidity, or is it merely Utterly Deluded? :D

We'll need Texas Teach to answer that question. It's clearly delusional though, if publishing research is equivalent to hitting those three pointers, the biology team is hitting thousands a month, and the ID team isn't even scoring in their practice gym .

Maybe the score is 500 to 1 IDiots but the IDiots don't realize we're playing golf.   :)

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"I'm a female retired marine biologist"

Whizz-dumb from Joe "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest female impersonator YEC.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1949
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2019,05:53   

Quote (stevestory @ May 23 2019,20:01)
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 23 2019,19:33)
I’m still getting used to this Background Stupidity thing. Does this…
       
Quote
135
OLV
May 22, 2019 at 11:44 am
KF,
Regardless of how we look at the current state of affairs in biology research.
This is like watching a basketball match between a professional team (ID) and a college team (Darwinian), the score showing 500 : 1 (one point scored early for devolutionary adaptation/microevolution). A couple of minutes left but the pro team keeps scoring 3-pointers at an increasing rate. Game over.
(from the ID Breakthrough thread, linky)

…qualify as Background Stupidity, or is it merely Utterly Deluded? :D

We'll need Texas Teach to answer that question. It's clearly delusional though, if publishing research is equivalent to hitting those three pointers, the biology team is hitting thousands a month, and the ID team isn't even scoring in their practice gym .

That’s fairly stupid, but not really up there with the big boys.  We may need to do some signal processing to see it better.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2478
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2019,06:05   

BB is really getting under KF’s skin. If you can’t convince them with evidence and facts, drown them in word salad.
[QUOTE]May 24, 2019 at 3:25 am
BB, 160:

When Darwin proposed his theory of evolution he didn’t state that the mechanisms of its action was off limits. But when asked what the mechanisms behind ID we are told that we shouldn’t be asking that question.

I again underscore that design is by its nature not a mechanism but an intelligent act, one that directs configuration of parts or components or portions towards a goal. A Michaelangelo carves a flawed marble into a David. A Ford builds a car, An Edison investigates the many possible materials for his light bulb. The researchers above used computer controlled synthesisers, manipulators etc to compose a recoded genome and to insert same into an E coli bacterium, leading to Syn61.

Accordingly, we discuss DETECTION of design on empirically observable, reliable signs (what has been a sticking point in the face of ideologically deeply entrenched refusal to consider as a serious possibility). We examine, reverse engineer and study actual or possible methods and methodologies. We study, explore, develop, improve techniques and technologies, including machines, instruments and tools.

All of these are well known and none of them are mysteriously, arbitrarily forbidden by ID researchers or thinkers. Indeed, had judge Jones listened to him, he might have learned much from Scott Minnich and from gene knockout experiments on irreducible complexity in bacteria. For that matter gene knockouts are a major technique used to identify the function of genes.Similarly, Behe’s investigations on the interactions of malaria and drugs show the power of statistical and epidemiological tools in drawing out patterns and principles through observational studies. And more.

Again, the first major line of resistance has been the issue of detecting the empirically credible presence of design, in cases where direct observation is infeasible. A familiar task in many fields, including forensics, archaeology [vs “natural”], medical studies, etc. Part of that has been refusal to entertain the possibility of design in ideologically sensitive contexts, relevant to OoL and origin of body plans. That is now decisively broken through, thanks to an emerging pattern of cases of actual designs such as the OP headlines.

Of course, that also immediately shatters the talking point that somehow, mysteriously there is a pretence that one is forbidden to investigate “mechanisms.” Mechanisms is not relevant, but methods and technologies certainly are. Lo, behold: it is the demonstration of successful methods and technologies as reported in Nature, that breaks the ideological line of resistance.

The breakthrough is real.

And once design is at the table, the readily shown challenge of needle in haystack search challenge shows why blind chance and/or mechanical necessity are maximally implausible once the explicit or implied functionally specific, configurational information exceeds 500 – 1,000 bits. Namely atomic level search resources in the Sol system [~ 10^57 atoms] or the — the only actually — observed cosmos [~ 10^80 atoms] and timeline ~ 10^17 s since singularity are such that no appreciable fraction of such a config space can be blindly explored. Likelihood of blind search success falls to negligible levels.

However, through insight, knowledge, skill and imagination, designers are known to be able to get configurations right or nearly so, then refine through test and development. This drastically cuts down search challenge and then enables incremental improvement. Which last can be by hill-climbing “evolutionary” steps up a slope of function. However, as the OP also illustrates, that then faces the challenge of bridging to other islands of functionality. This pattern being a natural result of the requisites of correct, matched properly arranged and coupled parts. Such as we may readily see from text here vs random gibberish: fhystucfjhp[79556vksaroxdfzested.

(Notice, how the above shows that simple cases are reachable by chance, but complex ones are a different matter as the random document experiments show.)

Again, we are at breakthrough.

KF

—————

BB,

The patterns of the broken through line of ideological resistance are predictable and are predictably fallacies of irrelevance.

We have in hand a direct demonstration by actual case, that intelligent design using lab methods and techniques can carry out genome scale intelligent design. That needs to be frankly faced and acknowledged.

Next, we see effective methods and technologies, which answers to what is the mechanism.

Now, we are on to, but who designed the designers and its cousins.

Irrelevant.

From direct demonstration, we know designers exist, that design is possible, that it cannot then be arbitrarily ideologically ruled out and mischaracterised as religion — pronounced here as an epithet — dressed up in a lab coat. (That invites the highly relevant rejoinder that science, to preserve its integrity must turn from being atheism in a lab coat.)

The chain of reasoning is, we identify empirically reliable signs of design. Thus, we can detect presence of design as process. As that process is about intelligently directed configuration, its presence warrants inference that relevantly capable designers were active. Just as with an arson or burglary investigation. This is not rocket science . . . a capital case of learning from expensive, successive mistakes.

In that context, we have in hand already a milestone. That needs to be acknowledged, this is not rhetorical sink the battleship, any hole will do so pepper away.

Once design is credible, candidates to be designers (much as arson suspects) can be considered. As we have shown molecular nanotech labs can do the work with suitable staff, methods, technologies and equipment, such a candidate is on the table. Whether by panspermia and seeding or presence of say an orbital platform. Those are just ideas as to how such could be. Another candidate is at a higher level, it is possible that the physics of our cosmos was, in Hoyle’s words, monkeyed with:

>>[Sir Fred Hoyle, In a talk at Caltech c 1981 (nb. this longstanding UD post):] From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? . . . I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.]>>

. . . also, in the same talk at Caltech:

>>The big problem in biology, as I see it, is to understand the origin of the information carried by the explicit structures of biomolecules. The issue isn’t so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties, which other orderings wouldn’t give. The case of the enzymes is well known . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrange-ments that would be useless in serving the pur-poses of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link,it’s easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. [ –> 20^200 = 1.6 * 10^260] This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be? This is, as I see it, the biological problem – the information problem . . . .

I was constantly plagued by the thought that the number of ways in which even a single enzyme could be wrongly constructed was greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe. So try as I would, I couldn’t convince myself that even the whole universe would be sufficient to find life by random processes – by what are called the blind forces of nature . . . . By far the simplest way to arrive at the correct sequences of amino acids in the enzymes would be by thought, not by random processes . . . .

Now imagine yourself as a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a living cell was a feasible construct? Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use: Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix. >>

. . . and again:

>> I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the [–> nuclear synthesis] consequences they produce within stars. [“The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12]>>

Another approach is perhaps best seen through John Leslie’s eyes:

“One striking thing about the fine tuning is that a force strength or a particle mass often appears to require accurate tuning for several reasons at once. Look at electromagnetism. Electromagnetism seems to require tuning for there to be any clear-cut distinction between matter and radiation; for stars to burn neither too fast nor too slowly for life’s requirements; for protons to be stable; for complex chemistry to be possible; for chemical changes not to be extremely sluggish; and for carbon synthesis inside stars (carbon being quite probably crucial to life). Universes all obeying the same fundamental laws could still differ in the strengths of their physical forces, as was explained earlier, and random variations in electromagnetism from universe to universe might then ensure that it took on any particular strength sooner or later. Yet how could they possibly account for the fact that the same one strength satisfied many potentially conflicting requirements, each of them a requirement for impressively accurate tuning?” [Our Place in the Cosmos, The Royal Institute of Philosophy, 1998 (courtesy Wayback Machine) Emphases added.]

AND:

“. . . the need for such explanations does not depend on any estimate of how many universes would be observer-permitting, out of the entire field of possible universes. Claiming that our universe is ‘fine tuned for observers’, we base our claim on how life’s evolution would apparently have been rendered utterly impossible by comparatively minor alterations in physical force strengths, elementary particle masses and so forth. There is no need for us to ask whether very great alterations in these affairs would have rendered it fully possible once more, let alone whether physical worlds conforming to very different laws could have been observer-permitting without being in any way fine tuned. Here it can be useful to think of a fly on a wall, surrounded by an empty region. A bullet hits the fly Two explanations suggest themselves. Perhaps many bullets are hitting the wall or perhaps a marksman fired the bullet. There is no need to ask whether distant areas of the wall, or other quite different walls, are covered with flies so that more or less any bullet striking there would have hit one. The important point is that the local area contains just the one fly.” [Emphasis his.]

Noting also Walker and Davies:

In physics, particularly in statistical mechanics, we base many of our calculations on the assumption of metric transitivity, which asserts that a system’s trajectory will eventually [–> given “enough time and search resources”] explore the entirety of its state space – thus everything that is phys-ically possible will eventually happen. It should then be trivially true that one could choose an arbitrary “final state” (e.g., a living organism) and “explain” it by evolving the system backwards in time choosing an appropriate state at some ’start’ time t_0 (fine-tuning the initial state). In the case of a chaotic system the initial state must be specified to arbitrarily high precision. But this account amounts to no more than saying that the world is as it is because it was as it was, and our current narrative therefore scarcely constitutes an explanation in the true scientific sense.

We are left in a bit of a conundrum with respect to the problem of specifying the initial conditions necessary to explain our world. A key point is that if we require specialness in our initial state (such that we observe the current state of the world and not any other state) metric transitivity cannot hold true, as it blurs any dependency on initial conditions – that is, it makes little sense for us to single out any particular state as special by calling it the ’initial’ state. If we instead relax the assumption of metric transitivity (which seems more realistic for many real world physical systems – including life), then our phase space will consist of isolated pocket regions and it is not necessarily possible to get to any other physically possible state (see e.g. Fig. 1 for a cellular automata example).

[–> or, there may not be “enough” time and/or resources for the relevant exploration, i.e. we see the 500 – 1,000 bit complexity threshold at work vs 10^57 – 10^80 atoms with fast rxn rates at about 10^-13 to 10^-15 s leading to inability to explore more than a vanishingly small fraction on the gamut of Sol system or observed cosmos . . . the only actually, credibly observed cosmos]

Thus the initial state must be tuned to be in the region of phase space in which we find ourselves [–> notice, fine tuning], and there are regions of the configuration space our physical universe would be excluded from accessing, even if those states may be equally consistent and permissible under the microscopic laws of physics (starting from a different initial state). Thus according to the standard picture, we require special initial conditions to explain the complexity of the world, but also have a sense that we should not be on a particularly special trajectory to get here (or anywhere else) as it would be a sign of fine–tuning of the initial conditions. [ –> notice, the “loading”] Stated most simply, a potential problem with the way we currently formulate physics is that you can’t necessarily get everywhere from anywhere (see Walker [31] for discussion). [“The “Hard Problem” of Life,” June 23, 2016, a discussion by Sara Imari Walker and Paul C.W. Davies at Arxiv.]

Our cosmos is fine tuned in ways that facilitate C-chem, aqueous medium, cell-based, terrestrial planet in galactic habitable zone life. That means that biology and cosmology are inescapably integrated, hence we see exobiology tied to the search for exoplanets. Which last is telling us a lot about just how privileged and unusual our own Sol system is. So, the cosmological inference to design and the biological inference to design constrain our thinking.

We have a cosmos in which by fine tuning cell based life is possible, and on our planet actual. We cannot rule such pout across the observed cosmos. So, the nanotech lab is a possibility though we do not presently have more than demonstration of a possibility. Duty to evidence does not rule out on ideological grounds. At the same time, we have reason to believe our cosmos was designed in ways that facilitate such life. This suggests such an intent on the part of a designer capable of building a cosmos. Again, this cannot be ruled out. Where also, there is good reason to reject infinite regress of successive causes. We have good reason to hold to a finitely remote root of reality that is independent of external causes, i.e. is a necessary being. An intelligent, necessary being with capability to be wellspring of the cosmos is a serious candidate root of reality. But that properly belongs over the border in logic of being, ontology.

So, it is not that we cannot address or arbitrarily lock out the question, it is just that it belongs to another discipline; one, that you were most dismissive of when it was on the table. But, one that is capable of showing fairly significant results. Especially, when one factors in that we are morally governed creatures, starting with our rationality itself. That puts the IS-OUGHT gap on the table, which, post-Hume, points to the only level where it can be bridged without falling into ungrounded ought. The source of reality must be inherently good, fusing is and ought. A cosmos-designing, enormously powerful, inherently good, rational, intelligent necessary being is clearly on the table as a candidate.

So, in the end, but where did any such come from is the tactic of pocketing then dismissing the milestone in hand. We have a pair of birds in the hand, worth a flock in the bush. Let us work with the evidence.

KF

———-

May 24, 2019 at 4:23 am
F/N: It is worth the while to ponder Newton in his general scholium to Principia:

. . . This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another.

This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator , or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present; and by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, co-existent puts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him are all things contained and moved [i.e. cites Ac 17, where Paul evidently cites Cleanthes]; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always, and every where. [i.e accepts the cosmological argument to God.] Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, or touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. [Cites Exod 20.] We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of any thing is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colours, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savours; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause [i.e from his designs]: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. [i.e necessity does not produce contingency] All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. [That is, implicitly rejects chance, Plato’s third alternative and explicitly infers to the Designer of the Cosmos.] But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from. the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.

KF

  
stevestory



Posts: 12164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2019,06:28   

Quote
180
Brother Brian May 24, 2019 at 4:57 am
KF
Quote

Again, we are at breakthrough.

Really? Let’s test that theory. If this “designed” bug got into the wild and survived, and this paper was never published, how would you use your claimed design detection procedure to conclude that this bug was designed as opposed to a wild strain?


linky

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2478
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2019,06:39   

Quote (stevestory @ May 24 2019,06:28)
Quote
180
Brother Brian May 24, 2019 at 4:57 am
KF
Quote

Again, we are at breakthrough.

Really? Let’s test that theory. If this “designed” bug got into the wild and survived, and this paper was never published, how would you use your claimed design detection procedure to conclude that this bug was designed as opposed to a wild strain?


linky

That’s hitting below the belt.

  
stevestory



Posts: 12164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2019,06:50   

Still nothing at Evolution News and Views about what KF is calling an ID Breakthrough.

Weird.

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2478
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2019,06:51   

Quote (stevestory @ May 24 2019,06:50)
Still nothing at Evolution News and Views about what KF is calling an ID Breakthrough.

Weird.

It’s almost like nobody takes him seriously.

  
stevestory



Posts: 12164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2019,07:57   

Quote
184
ET May 24, 2019 at 6:54 am
Brother Brian:
     
Quote
 
Does this mean that your proven design detection tools can’t distinguish between human designed E. coli and wild E. coli?
     
     
LoL! You don’t have a mechanism- other than intelligent design- capable of producing any E coli.


Poor Sherrie-Joe never gets any smarter, does he?

   
stevestory



Posts: 12164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2019,07:59   

Quote
182
DaveS May 24, 2019 at 6:31 am
KF,

Any echoes of your argument elsewhere in the ID-sphere yet? I don’t see anything at Evolution News yet.


(Looking around suspiciously)

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 4387
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2019,08:13   

Quote (stevestory @ May 24 2019,07:57)
 
Quote
184
ET May 24, 2019 at 6:54 am
Brother Brian:
         
Quote
 
Does this mean that your proven design detection tools can’t distinguish between human designed E. coli and wild E. coli?
     
     
LoL! You don’t have a mechanism- other than intelligent design- capable of producing any E coli.


Poor Sherrie-Joe never gets any smarter, does he?

You left out the best part.

 
Quote
Joke/ET:  "LoL! You don’t have a mechanism- other than intelligent design- capable of producing any E coli. So any and all design detection techniques would say that the wild strain was intelligently designed.


Everything is "Designed" so all you have to do to determine design is find an object.  I assume that includes gravity-resistant water molecules.    :)

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"I'm a female retired marine biologist"

Whizz-dumb from Joe "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest female impersonator YEC.

  
  12936 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (432) < ... 390 391 392 393 394 [395] 396 397 398 399 400 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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