It’s getting to the point where a quality broadcasting group could make a palatable film series about the Neanderthals. Now that we are long past the Ooga! Ooga! thing.
But they’ve ended up making themselves look foolish, not the ID community. Maybe a lesson in that.
If the facts are failing Darwinism and smart people are now safe to just plain doubt the claims of people like Dawkins and Ruse, what is left but blind faith?
Meanwhile, William Lane Craig replies, God Is the Best Explanation for the Applicability of #Mathematics to the Physical World.
Why it isn’t: Biomedical engineer Yuri Danilov: Again, it is a separate discussion, extremely painful for many but it is something that is happening right now.
Petteri Talalas: “The IPCC reports have been read in a similar way to the Bible: you try to find certain pieces or sections from which you try to justify your extreme views. This resembles religious extremism.”
John Rapley: That’s something that ‘physics envy’ can’t capture – that the social nature of human beings makes any laws of behaviour tentative and contextual. In fact, the very term ‘social science’ is probably best seen as an oxymoron.
Gelernter: But why is it [Facebook] so valuable? Because we have all given it our information. It just seems to us that if this information makes Facebook such a huge amount of money, why don’t we make some of the money… we, meaning the users?
News just tagged this on to a news post but this is worth headlining: Blurb: Discovery Science In this bonus interview footage from Science Uprising, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor discusses the evidence against materialism and explains how materialism undercuts rather than supports genuine science. Be sure to visit https://scienceuprising.com/ to find more videos and explore related Read More…
In a current thread, frequent objector, Seversky, posed a one liner objection intended to dismiss an OP: “Argumentum ad consequentiam.“ This raises an obvious issue on logic and linked epistemology, as argument by reduction to absurdity (which is broader than simple logical contradiction) is a well recognised argument type. Where, also, the issue is not Read More…
At Youtube, here: Note, the assumption that the cosmos is a closed system, which is philosophically loaded. Let us monitor — note, several hours from the beginning. END
One question mark is whether the stones are really tools. It’s hard to tell, especially because there are so few. A classic design inference problem.
It’s almost like the land plants were given a kit when they started out or something. But nah… 😉
The Atlantic writer professed herself “a little skeptical” of a claim made by a Darwin lobbyist. As if she has the right. Something’s changing for sure.
“And hybridization — long considered an evolutionary dead end — instead acts as a catalyst for combining old gene variants in new ways, fueling rapid diversification.” Surely, it was long considered a dead end because Darwinism was supposed to account for these changes.