American Scientific Affiliation: Some extinctions may be just as well

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 5, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I remember seeing the cover of a book by Stephen Jay Gould, lamenting the decline of species of snails* somewhere, with the species illustrated. I couldn’t tell the difference between them for beans, and that’s quite different from not being able to tell the difference between a dog and a cat – though it is said that they have a common ancestor. One thing is certain: They cannot interbreed. They parted—unamicably, I suspect—a long time ago. Now to the point: I want to write about what I take to be the extinction of the American Scientific Affiliation, which exists to promote “theistic evolution,” so far as I can see., but is probably now best employed promoting grey hair formulas for shampoo. One columnist notes, here:

… it is with some astonishment that recently I received an email asking why attendance at ASA meetings has “grayed” so much, with one reporting that only 5 in a crowd of 80-100 were below the age of 40. A mail-in survey of 53% of the members found that less than 15% were below 40, (and apparently not desirous of attending meetings.) An anecdotal survey of other Christian affiliations of scientists found them with larger percentages of young scientists. So what ailment has afflicted the ASA?

Okay, why did ASA get started, post-World War II? To tell the world that there is no conflict between Christ (“take up your cross and follow me”) and Darwin (“survival of the fittest”). Because that would be bad for up-to-date religion. Darwin sure thought there was a conflict, which is why he was a materialist atheist from long before he wrote Origin of Species, let alone Descent of Man, which – so far as I can see – is one long racist tract, never properly denounced or renounced by Darwinists. But that does not matter any more. People can promote racism today, as long as they can cite the sainted name of Darwin. Otherwise, why has Jim Watson’s Nobel Prize not been revoked, the way David Ahenakew’s Order of Canada was revoked, and for the same reasons? We do not need these hassles. In my view, those are the sorts of issues that a “theistic evolution” group – right or wrong – should have been strenuously addressing. Not trying to convince Christians that Christ and Darwin would have been pals, when everyone knows it is not true. Well, the ASA got around to conducting a survey of its members’ beliefs, reported June 1, 2010, and here are some of the results, and here are my comments.

Comments

--"Toronto: "I believe the following to be true." --"We recognize that our future generations need to be free to explore the world and universe around them without interference from those who would insist that knowledge has an absolute end which can only be reached if you are guided by an absolute truth." Plenty of people, namely Stalin and Hitler, have "believed" the opposite--that you should have no freedom at all. So, what's the problem? If you happen to be a victim of their tyranny, just remember not to judge them. They are, after all, entitled to their beliefs about the truth just as you are entitled to yours. Since you are not infallible, you cannot tell them with any moral authority that they are wrong. If you had been at the Nuremburg trials, I gather that you would have stood with Hitler and demanded that all charges against him be dropped on the grounds that his beliefs about truth and morality were no better or worse than those of his accusers.StephenB_{June 8, 2010
June
06
Jun
8
08
2010
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 40, Here's an example that may clarify things. (1) I believe I am typing an English sentence. (2) I may be having a stroke and instead be typing complete garbage. (3) My 100% "belief" in number (1) has nothing at all to do with whether I am "right or wrong" about (1). I "believe" the following to be true. -- We recognize that our future generations need to be free to explore the world and universe around them without interference from those who would insist that knowledge has an absolute end which can only be reached if you are guided by an absolute truth.-- In order for me to be "certain" it was true, I would have to be infallible. Do you personally know any human being who claims to be?Toronto_{June 8, 2010
June
06
Jun
8
08
2010
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

--Clive quoting Chesterton: ..."for if the mind is mechanical, thought cannot be very exciting, and if the cosmos is unreal, there is nothing to think about." I once asked Alan Fox why he supports scientific research if nothing meaningful can be discovered. He had no answer.StephenB_{June 8, 2010
June
06
Jun
8
08
2010
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

---Toronto: “You are trying to claim that my refusal to believe in an absolute truth is somehow an assertion that my beliefs are infallible.” No, I am saying that you are inconsistent. Either you believe your earlier comment that [a] future generations ought to be (need to be) free [agreeing with me that liberty is an absolute moral imperative, or [b] you aren’t sure [disagreeing with your earlier statement]. Please make your choice. ---“I’ve told you before, that I might be wrong, and the important point in that, is that “I” might be wrong, not an outside provider of an “absolute truth”. If you only think that future generations ought to be free, but are not really sure, then how do you explain your earlier comments, where you wrote: ---“We recognize that our future generations need to be free to explore the world and universe around them without interference..” So, do you “recognize” that future generations ought to be free or do you think you “might be wrong about that?” Please make your choice. ---“If we were playing poker, I’d be the guy who goes all in, and you’d be the guy who folds instead of risking his chips” On the contrary, I am all in for the first principles of right reason and the existence of the objective moral law. You say you don’t know whether moral truth exists--except that you “recognize” that future generations ought to be free,--yet, you aren’t sure. Clearly, you are the one who is hedging your bets, not to mention the fact that you are all over the map.StephenB_{June 8, 2010
June
06
Jun
8
08
2010
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

StephenB, Pertaining to your discussion with Toronto. "There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed. It only appears at the end of decadent ages like our own: and already Mr. H.G.Wells has raised its ruinous banner; he has written a delicate piece of scepticism called "Doubts of the Instrument." In this he questions the brain itself, and endeavours to remove all reality from all his own assertions, past, present, and to come. But it was against this remote ruin that all the military systems in religion were originally ranked and ruled. The creeds and the crusades, the hierarchies and the horrible persecutions were not organized, as is ignorantly said, for the suppression of reason. They were organized for the difficult defence of reason. Man, by a blind instinct, knew that if once things were wildly questioned, reason could be questioned first. The authority of priests to absolve, the authority of popes to define the authority, even of inquisitors to terrify: these were all only dark defences erected round one central authority, more undemonstrable, more supernatural than all--the authority of a man to think. We know now that this is so; we have no excuse for not knowing it. For we can hear scepticism crashing through the old ring of authorities, and at the same moment we can see reason swaying upon her throne. In so far as religion is gone, reason is going. For they are both of the same primary and authoritative kind. They are both methods of proof which cannot themselves be proved. And in the act of destroying the idea of Divine authority we have largely destroyed the idea of that human authority by which we do a long-division sum. With a long and sustained tug we have attempted to pull the mitre off pontifical man; and his head has come off with it. Lest this should be called loose assertion, it is perhaps desirable, though dull, to run rapidly through the chief modern fashions of thought which have this effect of stopping thought itself. Materialism and the view of everything as a personal illusion have some such effect; for if the mind is mechanical, thought cannot be very exciting, and if the cosmos is unreal, there is nothing to think about. But in these cases the effect is indirect and doubtful. In some cases it is direct and clear; notably in the case of what is generally called evolution." G.K. Chesterton, OrthodoxyClive Hayden_{June 8, 2010
June
06
Jun
8
08
2010
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

gpuccio @ 36, I stated in another post that I cannot justify making lengthy replies from the moderation queue but I do appreciate the work you put into your responses. If you keep them short, we can interact on a single point basis.
Or are you thinking that there can be some form of guided mutation? I agree, but that would be an ID scenario!
This is something we could agree on. If there was an intelligent designer, why not design something that can adapt to whatever nature throws at it? What we are talking about in evolution is simply biological feedback. If a mutation results in a body plan that reproduces more often than another, that body plan becomes more prevalent in the environment. As a designer, that's what I would consider good design, something that doesn't require attention from me constantly. Good software is designed that way with components that can to a large degree change without requiring the architect to be there after the system is already designed.
[Toronto:]Here we see that the Evo position, that environmental feedback and random mutation are quite capable of modifying “information”, is viable.
[gpuccio:]In this form, it is perfectly viable. Single point mutations modify biological information all the time. What do you think monogenic diseases are? Or do you believe that in ID we deny genetic diseases?
So in a million generations, a million bits have changed in the life-form. At 20 years per generation, that's only 20 million years.Toronto_{June 8, 2010
June
06
Jun
8
08
2010
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 34, You are trying to claim that my refusal to believe in an absolute truth is somehow an assertion that my beliefs are infallible. I've told you before, that I might be wrong, and the important point in that, is that "I" might be wrong, not an outside provider of an "absolute truth". You are having a conversation with me while I am talking to the group that provides you with your absolute truth. If we were playing poker, I'd be the guy who goes all in, and you'd be the guy who folds instead of risking his chips.Toronto_{June 8, 2010
June
06
Jun
8
08
2010
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

Toronto: For some reason I cannot get access to post a comment on the Ayala thread (maybe because the thread is too long), so I am profiting of your presence here to answer your last post there (after all, our discussion is OT on both threads :) ). What are the odds of getting from DNA_1 to DNA_2 with a population of 1 million? I say it is likely that you will hit your target with the very next generation. Notice that there is no lower-level detail involving real-world chemistry required at all since the example works on the same level as the Dembski-Marks papers. I perfectly agree with you on your example. A single bit transition is relatively easy to attain. And there is no detail required involving chemistry here. Anyway, I am not sure I understand the reference to Dembski and Marks. But let's go on. This comment addresses only the one single ID point, that evolution cannot generate information without intelligent intervention. I am afraid there is some misunderstanding on your part. That is not an ID point at all. The ID point is that random variation cannot generate complex specified information without intelligent intervention. Can we agree at least on that? I am rather tired of having to answer about things that ID has never said, so please follow me in the following explanation. We consider two different scenarios: 1)First of all, let's consider the generation from scratch of a digital string. In that case, the search space is easily calculated (alphabet^length). If there is compressibility, we must take that into account. Then we must evaluate if we can find a functional specification in the string. If yes, we must define the function, setg up a text to assess its presence, and evaluate, directly or by approximation, the functional target space. Then we consider the ratio (target space/search space). That is the functional complexity, which can be expressed in bits (or fits, if you want), exactly as in Shannon's H. Starting form that number, we can calculate the median numer of trials to reach the target space by an unassisted search. 2) Now, let's consider the transition, by unassisted random search, form an existin sequence to a new one. In this case, the search space is the search space of the transition, if we assume (and we certainly can) that the remaining positions will be fixed by negative selection. The calculation of dFSCI is the same as in 1), but it is made only on the part which is subject to change. In other words, let's say we have to go from A to B, which are two binary strings of length 100 bits. Let's say that there is a 50% homology. So, if we assume that the 50 homologue bits can be fixed by some process of negative selection, we can say that we have to search for a new 50 bits string. And we can go ob with our calculations from there like in point 1). Two important points about that: a) the functional complexity will be referred only to the transition, and it must satisfy our conventional threshold. b) the transition must generate a new function, otherwise there is no functional specification. In both our scenarios we are assuming that the variation is completely random, and that NS cannot intervene (in other words, there are no selectable intermediates). As you can see, in your example there is no generation of dFSCI. Only one bit has to change, which is certainly below any conventional threshold of complexity, and we have no information about functions, both old and new. Your example is perfectly in the range of what RV can perfectly attain. Indeed, it is a good model of microevolution, like in antibody resistance by target mutation, which usually implies a single mutation, and which has always been completely accepted by ID. Here we see that the Evo position, that environmental feedback and random mutation are quite capable of modifying “information”, is viable. In this form, it is perfectly viable. Single point mutations modify biological information all the time. What do you think monogenic diseases are? Or do you believe that in ID we deny genetic diseases? Single point mutations are perfectly in the range of random variation, both in biology and in binary strings. We all agree about that. Behe has also argued that the empirical limit of what RV can do is about 2 coordinated mutations. Any argument refuting the sudden appearance of a one million bit string of data from a “random starting point” is not refuting evolution, since it is addressing the random mutation component only. Evolution is not random at all, only mutation can be considered in some way, random. That is another point you misunderstand. The ID analysis is applied to random searches. Algorithmic procedures can certainly attain different results, provided they have enough information to do that. We are at the Weasel again! If you input enough information in an algorithmic procedure, you can find what you want. If you input a phrase, it's easy to "find" it by some algorithmic process (the simplest I can think of: take the first letter and copy it; take the second letter and copy it; and so on). Now, the neo-darwinian model (yes, it is a model!) is made of two parts: RV and NS. They do different things. The role of NS is not in discussion, provided we interpret it for what it really can do: fix existing information by negative selection, and expand new functional information by positive selection. But, in both cases, negative or positive variation must have the property to significantly affect reproduction, otherwise the effect is not visible to NS. Now, let's go to RV. RV can do 3 things: deteriorate information (and, if the effect is big enough, it will be counteracted by NS). Or be neutral (it will probably remain, but not expand). Or create new function (or at least a refinement of existing function). Now, let's put aside the second case (refinement) which is more in the range of mijcroevolution, and let's speak of the generation of a new function. And I mean a new function, such as a new fold, a new enzymatic activity, and so on. This is exactly the case where we can calculate the dFSCI of a transition which has to go on exclusively by RV. NS cannot act. Or, if we can demonstrate the existence of selectable intermediates, again we shift the analysis to the smaller transition to the first intermediate, and then to the second, and so on. That's why I argue that the best model scenario for ID, at present, is the generation of a new protein domain. You mat remember that in one of my posts I reported that in the proteome as we know it at present there are at least 6258 domains with less than 10% homology. That means that, if a new domain appears at some point of evolution, either it is generated form scratch (which is not tghe usual model), or it comes out by RV from something which already exists (that is, another domain). So, let's say that one of the 6258 domain appears first in metazoa. It can only derive form some sequence which has less than 10% homology with the new result. So, if the domain is 150 AAs long (a perfectly average length), and it comes form a previous domain which is 150 AAs long (for simplicity of calculation), and just to be on the safe side we assume that there is a 10% homology, we can conclude that the transition fron one function to the other will require a change of about 135 AAs. Which brings us in the full range of dFSCI, and of ID. Regarding your last statement, I would say thjat evolution (I suppose you mean: the model of neo-darwinian evolution) is not completely random: RV is random, while NS is a mechanism based on necessity. I hope we can agree on that. But what do you mean when you say that "only mutation can be considered in some way, random"? Why "in some way"? In the neo-darwinian model, mutation is always random. Or are you thinking that there can be some form of guided mutation? I agree, but that would be an ID scenario!gpuccio_{June 8, 2010
June
06
Jun
8
08
2010
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

Lock @30: Thanks for the kind words.StephenB_{June 8, 2010
June
06
Jun
8
08
2010
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

---Toronto: "We recognize that our future generations need to be free to explore the world and universe around them without interference..." Is it an absolute moral truth that future generations ought to be free? Or, is it just a feeling that you have? ---"from those who would insist that knowledge has an absolute end." What is the end of knowledge if not truth? ---"which can only be reached if you are guided by an absolute truth." When you are trying to defend against the charge that Darwinists are irrational, you claim that you are just as aligned with reason's principles as anyone else. At all other times, such as now, you sneer at those very same principles. Thus, we have our summary of Darwinism: It is absolutely true that no absolute truths exist. All the principles of right reason are negotiable except for the non-negotiable principle which states that there are no non-negotiable principles of right reason.StephenB_{June 8, 2010
June
06
Jun
8
08
2010
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

Toronto,
All the Evos who come here do so for a very serious reason.
No they don't, I've been moderator here long enough to know that this statement, as an absolute truth, is absolutely wrong. Plenty come here to be snide and try to get laughs from their cohorts at the "after the bar closes" asylum.
We recognize that our future generations need to be free to explore the world and universe around them without interference from those who would insist that knowledge has an absolute end which can only be reached if you are guided by an absolute truth.
Good luck exploring when the map changes depending on who you ask, they will never know where they are if there is not really such a thing as "knowing". And you say this is something that is recognized? "Recognized" as if it were true? and should be a guiding principle in how future generations explore the world? and yet unaided by truth? Are you being serious? Do you sincerely not see all of your intertwined absolute truth statements in your assertions? Do you not see the contradiction?Clive Hayden_{June 8, 2010
June
06
Jun
8
08
2010
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

In general, I only quoted what ASA people said about their own beliefs. I did not attribute to them beliefs they do not have. In a number of cases, these beliefs simply do not do not coincide with any reasonable interpretation of Christianity. I agree that the Order of Canada and the Nobel Prize are separate issues, but my real concern is why the promotion of Darwinism is so important and the opposition to racism not so important. While I would not agree, I would be comfortable with the existence of a lobby of Christian scientists asking that the Nobel be revoked in such cases. It stands as a reminder of our real values, even if it doesn't quite work out in a given case, so we must say no in the end.O'Leary_{June 8, 2010
June
06
Jun
8
08
2010
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 27,
“At the moment, I am less concerned about the wall between us and more concerned about your aggressive attempts to render my son uneducable.
You took the words right out of my mouth. All the Evos who come here do so for a very serious reason. We recognize that our future generations need to be free to explore the world and universe around them without interference from those who would insist that knowledge has an absolute end which can only be reached if you are guided by an absolute truth.Toronto_{June 8, 2010
June
06
Jun
8
08
2010
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

StephenB @27 That was marvelous... simply marvelous.Lock_{June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

Here is a very interesting exchange between Stephen Meyer and Steve Matheson at Biola University: Stephen Meyer Has Even His Critics Agreeing: Intelligent Design Makes Sense http://www.idthefuture.com/2010/05/stephen_meyer_has_even_his_cri.html http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-05-19T18_08_39-07_00bornagain77_{June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

There once was a little boy who loved to explore the world around him. His father celebrated his son’s passion for truth and encouraged him to continue his search even in the face of numerous setbacks. Each day he fortified his son with these words: “Just sit at the feet of nature and she will ultimately reveal her secrets.” Inspired and motivated, the young lad pressed on, overcoming every obstacle and deepening his knowledge of the world around him. One day a stranger wandered by and noticed the young lad working on an experiment. Partly amused and partly irked, he asked, “What exactly do you think you are doing?” Without hesitation, the boy answered, “I am reverse engineering creation so I can discover the secrets of the universe?” Unable to contain his laughter, the stranger unloaded his cynical assessment: “You young little fool! Is that what your father told you? The universe has no secrets, no meaning, or no rationality. It just is. Not only was it not created, it has no purpose at all and neither do you. Come to my house of learning where we have eliminated all such nonsensical notions and have “expelled” religious fundamentalists like your father who offer false hopes and dreams to young skulls full of mush such as yours. We do real science at our house. Demoralized and weeping, the boy ran into his father’s arms. Perplexed and disturbed, the father confronted the stranger. “What is all this talk about doing “real” science? Do you not understand that it makes no sense to investigate a purposeless nature, or to reverse engineer a universe that which was not first engineered, or to probe for secrets that are mere illusions? In effect, you are trying to mislead my child with your cynicism and illogical philosophy?” The stranger would have none of it. “You are building walls between us. Why can’t we all just get along?” Exasperated that father responded, “At the moment, I am less concerned about the wall between us and more concerned about your aggressive attempts to render my son uneducable. And so it was in those days that the stranger sued the father for a hate crime. Because the adjudicator of the court case had been steeped in the stranger’s philosophy, the father was convicted and sent to jail. His son, disillusioned and confused, abandoned his search for nature’s secrets and set up a pornographic website.StephenB_{June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Proponentist "The atheistic-materialist worldview establishes as a first principle that “there is no ultimate purpose”. It’s from that starting point that we have to evalutate things. All actions are reduced to an ultimate value of purposeless, nothingness. Thus, the meaning of those actions cannot ultimately be assessed or judged." Can you explain why having no ultimate purpose means that individual lives and actions don't have purpose or meaning? I really don't get this argument. It's self-evidently untrue anyway.zeroseven_{June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

The atheistic-materialist worldview establishes as a first principle that "there is no ultimate purpose". It's from that starting point that we have to evalutate things. All actions are reduced to an ultimate value of purposeless, nothingness. Thus, the meaning of those actions cannot ultimately be assessed or judged. Whatever truths or temporal meanings one establishes are "attached" to the first principle that they are ultimately purposeless and meaningless. Mathematically we have: a(x)=y a = the total of temporal meanings we create x = ultimate purpose y = value (success, goal-acheivement, worth) So, we're trying to solve for y. What is the ultimate moral worth or value of the proposed action? Let's say that we have 1,000 temporal meanings, truths, values. We "make our own purpose" to that degree. To determine the ultimate value, we fill in the variable: In the atheistic model, x=0 So, 1,000(0) = 0 The value will always be zero. A thousand clusters of zero is zero. We can say that "we had 1,000 temporal values and truths, though". But these encounter a great equalizer which is the multiplication by zero. So, this first princple, affects every proposed meaning or value given later. We have to measure the meaning of the thing from the end-state. With materialism, we know from the beginning that the final value is nothing. Thus, everything is reduced to that value ultimately. To ignore this and proclaim some temporal values in place of an ultimate value is to dismiss the most important aspect of the atheistic worldview, which is that there is nothing of ultimate importance, meaning, purpose or value. So, we'd have an amoral worldview expressing ironic concern about the supposed lack of morality found in worldview that does find purpose and meaning.Proponentist_{June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Toronto speaks of us (IDers) building a wall, which of course another absurdity from materialists, since the only wall that exists is the current one that prevents, and even persecutes, reasoned discourse of these matters in the classroom: Shoot a the "wall" of Darwinism is so obvious that a whole documentary was based on it: EXPELLED - No Intelligence Allowed http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-518637672896741579# A wall to freedom of inquiry that is so obvious that it also brings to mind this fairly bold prediction: In 2013, the Berlin Wall of Darwinism Will Fall. Here’s Why. http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/2013/ Myself, though I surely hope it is true, I find the prediction too optimistic. My own personal prediction falls in line with this famous quote by Max Planck: "A new scientific truth does not establish itself by its enemies being convinced and expressing their change of opinion, but rather by its enemies gradually dying out and the younger generation being taught the truth from the beginning."bornagain77_{June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Lock @ 23,
Do whatever you want Toronto. You were always going to do it anyway.
You of all people here should know better than to accuse me of that. As far as the courts go, that's all I or anyone who cares about the ID/Evolution debate has left. You, StephenB and others have decided not only that we're wrong about our position in this, but also that there is something wrong with us. As soon as you tell us that we cannot be reasoned with, you're also telling us that there is no point in trying to reason with you. Our side is not building a wall, yours is. How can anyone reason with someone who says this?
Since you yourself don’t really believe that your own position is true, there is no sense in defending it with any conviction. In other words, since you don’t believe even what you are talking about, why correct or contradict at all?
Toronto_{June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

Toronto#20 LOL Over the years I have heard many people forward subjective beliefs on different subjects. Not one of them threatens let alone takes such absolute action. If they are truely subjective in their beliefs, they just don't know what to say or do. Such is not the case with those who hide behind philosophical spells of postmodern drivel to charm the masses while they deconstruct a society. Do whatever you want Toronto. You were always going to do it anyway.Lock_{June 7, 2010
June
06
Jun
7
07
2010
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Very good video btw...Lock_{June 6, 2010
June
06
Jun
6
06
2010
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

His post popped up today sometime. They moderate him for whatever reason, so it was delayed...Lock_{June 6, 2010
June
06
Jun
6
06
2010
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

Lock @ 18,
Bear in mind, I ask those questions rhetorically, please do not respond.
You are building a wall. If that's what you want, then our answer has to be to keep you out of the schools with the courts, since it is your position that reasoned debate with our side, is impossible.Toronto_{June 6, 2010
June
06
Jun
6
06
2010
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

Lock, if you are interested I reworked this video so that is has better quality: Take Me In (Holy Of Holies) - Kutless http://www.metacafe.com/w/4716801 Thanks for answering toronto, I didn't even see his post.bornagain77_{June 6, 2010
June
06
Jun
6
06
2010
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @4 writes, "The endless absurdity of materialists never ceases to fascinate me." Toronto @5 "As one of those “materialists” I have two questions. 1)Why would my disagreeing with you be absurd instead of just wrong? 2)Why do my subjective truths not allow me to treat you with the disrespect your absolute transcendent truths allow you to treat me? Allow me to answer Toronto... 1> The absurdity he is talking about is the illogical and self contradicting nature of many your's and Seversky's propositions and deductions. They are also wrong, but not based on opinion or subjection but logic. Saying they are absurd is actually putting it midly and quite ammicably. Some (even I) would regard them as evil spells; or as serpents and poison whose home is rightly in the abyss of hell rather than your mind. In some cases (but not necessarily yours) that is the same difference. 2> First off the premise does not follow. If I tell my children that they are being foolish or absurd, it does not follow logically that it is disrespectful just because they refuse correction. That being said, let me answer your question in spite of its faulty premise: Since you yourself don't really believe that your own position is true, there is no sense in defending it with any conviction. In other words, since you don't believe even what you are talking about, why correct or contradict at all? And what is 'disrespect' except some subjective individual or collective convention (according to you)? Is your 'subjective truth' truely subjective, or is it only subjectively subjective? Bear in mind, I ask those questions rhetorically, please do not respond.Lock_{June 6, 2010
June
06
Jun
6
06
2010
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

It's just the last 2 minutes of this 7 minute clip that I wanted to 'share': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R53A4cQcE3M&feature=relatedLock_{June 6, 2010
June
06
Jun
6
06
2010
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

bornagain77, you are a man after my own heart. I probably don't even need to tell you... but those such as Seversky are not here to debate IMO. They are here for attention. Worse yet, they in effect (intended or not) wear down, taunt, and frustrate. I have seen it many times elsewhere. They get tremendous satisfaction from the attention we give them. And if we are busy arguing with them, then we are not spending our time in fruitful pastures with those who genuinely want to learn, think, and debate objectively. I am sometims compelled to think that they are jealous! And that creates within me a sympathy for their sad souls. But that would be to give them qualities reserved for human beings ;) I suppose it all serves a larger purpose, so do what you think is right. I am just sick to death of such personalities. The term rebellion does not quite cover it, descriptions such as 'The Mystery of Babylon', or 'the mystery of lawlessness' come close.Lock_{June 6, 2010
June
06
Jun
6
06
2010
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

Seversky "My view is that there is an objective, material/physical reality outside me... ...Even so, the data we have, while vast and growing, is still partial, often fragmentary, confusing and contradictory. To try and make sense of it we do what we have probably always done, we tell stories." likely story... I am beyond weary of such Witches brews. Seversky, when you or anyone else can tell me and demonstrate for me what/who energy is (and therefore what the foundation of material and physicality is), then you will be telling me something other than a story. On the other hand (whether you believe it or not is irrelevant) Jesus has done and is doing just that and demonstrated these truths (as opposed to merely philosophizing about them)in the lives of untold millions. Until then, you really should consider praising God for the inhuman virtues of temperance, patience, kindness, charity and humility that I witness being shown to you and so many others here and elsewhere regularly and repeatedly. You think Denyse is rash and intemperate in some form? LOLOLOL When I see these people here at UD, I am astounded at how disciplined they carry on in the face of utter obstinance and incompetence. The Lord rebuke you for your cheap taunts. Jesus reserved 'special words' for you and yours. When you see His eyes, as they are 'like blazing fire'. You, as illustrated superbly by the White Witch having been pinned under the claws of Aslan, will have a look of understanding at last. And your mouth will be stopped. Then you be able to put such virtues into actual objective context. In the mean time, it is clear you have not the slightest idea what you are taling about.Lock_{June 6, 2010
June
06
Jun
6
06
2010
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Seversky, Though information forms the basis of reality, or more precisely the basis to how we interact with "reality" in our space-time dimension, as Wheeler and Zeilinger have pointed out,,,, "It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom - at a very deep bottom, in most instances - an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin." John Archibald Wheeler Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/8638/Default.aspx ,,, and even though those "bits of its" themselves arise from the primary infinite transcendent information framework,,,,,,,, Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf ,,,,,,, the Information, specifically coded functional information, as is continually stressed by many on this blog, especially by Dr Dembski, and as you already well know, is certainly not free for the taking and certainly was not "lying around just waiting to become alive." In fact it can be inferred that the primary transcendent information framework which created this universe, and all life in it, has always been alive. How can we know this? Well As Dr. William Lane Craig does a very good job of explaining in this video,,,, 7 Reasons God Exists and 3 Reasons It Makes A Difference http://www.vimeo.com/12208081 ,,, it is impossible for the cause of the universe, which is completely transcendent of time and space, to not always give rise to an effect within time and space unless that cause in fact exercised a free will decision to create and is in fact Alive".. i.e. John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. But the greatest thing of all Seversky, far greater than you, or I, can possibly imagine right now, is that it is possible for us mere, speck of nothing, humans to have a eternal relationship with "The Living Word" that created this universe, and indeed created all humanity. Kutless- Take Me In Music Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfua4nRKDEUbornagain77_{June 6, 2010
June
06
Jun
6
06
2010
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply