At Evolution News: For Darwinism, Pregnancy Is the “Mother of all Chicken-and-Egg Problems”

And indeed the Atheist’s denial of free will does not ‘reflect reality as it really is’. Neuroscience itself, despite the atheist’s constant denial to the contrary, shows that we do indeed have free will,

Michael Egnor Shows You’re Not A Meat Robot (Science Uprising EP2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQo6SWjwQIk Michael Egnor: Is free will a dangerous myth? – October 6, 2018 Excerpt: 4.,,, the neuroscientific evidence unequivocally supports the existence of free will. The first neuroscientist to map the brains of conscious subjects, Wilder Penfield, noted that there is an immaterial power of volition in the human mind that he could not stimulate with electrodes. The pioneer in the neuroscience of free will was Benjamin Libet, who demonstrated clearly that, while there is an unconscious material predisposition to acts as shown by electrical brain activity, we retain an immaterial “free won’t,” which is the ability to veto an unconscious urge to act. Many experiments have followed on Libet’s work, most of which use fMRI imaging of brain activity. They all confirm Libet’s observations by showing what is at most a loose correlation between brain activity and volition (for example, nearly half the time the brain activity that precedes the act is on the wrong side of the brain for the activity to determine the will)—the looseness of correlation being best explained as evidence for libertarian free will. Modern neuroscience clearly demonstrates an immaterial component to volition. Harari is wrong about free will. It is not a myth. Free will is a real and fundamental aspect of being human, and the denial of free will is junk science and self-refuting logical nonsense. https://mindmatters.ai/2018/10/is-free-will-a-dangerous-myth/

In further demonstrating that the atheist’s denial of the reality of free will does not “reflect reality as it really is’, in quantum mechanics we also now find that, via their free will, “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,,”

The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/466-17/QuantumMechanicsWeinberg.pdf Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018 Excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

As newly minted Nobel Laureate Anton Zeilinger stated, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

“The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” – Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

Moreover, advances in quantum information theory, as well as the experimental realization of the Maxwell demon thought experiment, have now shown that intelligent agents do indeed have the capacity within themselves, the 'causal power', to 'thermodynamically' move a system 'uphill' towards life,

Nov. 2022 - it is now experimentally proven, (via advances in quantum information theory, and the experimental realization of the Maxwell demon thought experiment), immaterial information has a ‘thermodynamic content’, and that an immaterial mind has the capacity to infuse ‘thermodynamically meaningful’ immaterial information into a system in order move a system toward lower entropy and higher energy i.e. toward life. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/from-evolution-news-prigogines-self-organization-vs-specified-biological-complexity/#comment-770929

Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally held with the presupposition of ‘contingency’), and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the “freedom-of-choice” loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”

Oct. 2022 – And although there will never be a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’ that bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between quantum mechanics and general relativity, all hope is not lost in finding the correct ‘theory if everything’.,,,, https://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/from-iai-news-how-infinity-threatens-cosmology/#comment-766384

Verse:

Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

All in all, when we rightly, (and sanely I might add), recognize agent causality as legitimate form of causation in science, the many outstanding, seemingly irresolvable, problems in science find ready solutions. Whereas, on the other hand, denying the reality of agent causation as a legitimate form of causation in science creates situations where, as George Ellis pointed out, "we will have instances of uncaused changes in the world; I presume we wish to avoid that situation.,,,"

Recognising Top-Down Causation - George Ellis Excerpt: Causation: The nature of causation is highly contested territory, and I will take a pragmatic view: Definition 1: Causal Effect If making a change in a quantity X results in a reliable demonstrable change in a quantity Y in a given context, then X has a causal effect on Y. Example: I press the key labelled “A” on my computer keyboard; the letter “A” appears on my computer screen.,,, Definition 2: Existence If Y is a physical entity made up of ordinary matter, and X is some kind of entity that has a demonstrable causal effect on Y as per Definition 1, then we must acknowledge that X also exists (even if it is not made up of such matter). This is clearly a sensible and testable criterion; in the example above, it leads to the conclusion that both the data and the relevant software exist. If we do not adopt this definition, we will have instances of uncaused changes in the world; I presume we wish to avoid that situation.,,, Excerpt: page 5: A: Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored. The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts. Excerpt page 7:,,, The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2275.pdf

In short, and in conclusion, the denial of agent causality, and/or free will, as a legitimate form of causation by Atheistic Naturalists, is the primary, and fatal flaw, in their worldview.bornagain77

December 2, 2022

December

12

Dec

2

02

2022

03:41 AM

3

03

41

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

AF at 48: "I made an exception and glanced at rather than scrolled through your comment 40." I guess I'm suppose to be honored that AF has graciously humbled himself, and slowed down enough, to at least 'glance' at my post and spit on it ??? Oh well,,, Anyways AF continues: "It’s a mish-mash of scoffing at evolutionary strawmen. Where’s the beef? How does Intelligent Design work? You forgot that bit." AF keeps saying that as if that is suppose to make logical sense. AF apparently does not realize that if ID does not have a plausible 'causal mechanism' in which to explain the information in life, well then, AF is also left without a plausible 'causal mechanism' to explain the information he himself is writing in his posts. And in my honest opinion, this denial of agent causality, and/or free will, as a legitimate form of causation is the primary, and fatal, flaw in the Darwinist's materialistic account of nature. In their denial of free will, and/or agent causality, the Darwinist is simply left floating in mid-air without any plausible explanation as to how the words on his computer screen might 'magically' appear as he is writing them,

Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism Paul Nelson – September 24, 2014 Excerpt: Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact. “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent. https://evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set/

Indeed, in his denial of free will, and/or his denial of agent causality, the Darwinist, (instead of being 'scientific' as he adamantly insist he is doing), actually reveals that he does not have nearly as good of a grasp on the actual ’cause and effect’ relationships of reality as he seems to believe that he has,

A Professor’s Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist – University of Wyoming – J. Budziszewski “There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition.,,, ,,, To call the equations of gravity “laws” and speak of the apple as “obeying” them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the “laws” of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more. The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn’t trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn’t have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place.” – J. Budziszewski – above quote taken at the 34:30 minute mark of the following lecture https://soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/atheism-to-catholicism-a-professors-journey-out-of-nihilism-prof-j-budziszewski

To clearly demonstrate just how unscientific the Darwinist's denial of agent causality, and/or, free will actually is, “if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options.”

Physicist George Ellis on the importance of philosophy and free will – July 27, 2014 Excerpt: And free will?: Horgan: Einstein, in the following quote, seemed to doubt free will: “If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the Earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.” Do you believe in free will? Ellis: Yes. Einstein is perpetuating the belief that all causation is bottom up. This simply is not the case, as I can demonstrate with many examples from sociology, neuroscience, physiology, epigenetics, engineering, and physics. Furthermore if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options. I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense. Physicists should pay attention to Aristotle’s four forms of causation – if they have the free will to decide what they are doing. If they don’t, then why waste time talking to them? They are then not responsible for what they say. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-george-ellis-on-the-importance-of-philosophy-and-free-will/

Moreover, (as if that was not bad enough), in their denial of reality of free will, Darwinian atheists have also forsaken any claim that they are making, and/or that they are even capable of making, logically coherent arguments,,

The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It: Sam Harris’s Free Will Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. ,,, If prior physical states are all that determine our beliefs, any one physical state is no more rational than any other. It isn’t rational or irrational, it just is. https://evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre/ “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” – J.B.S. Haldane – “When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” – C.S. Lewis

Moreover, as if that was not bad enough, nobody lives their life as if they do not have free will,

The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013 Excerpt: ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. https://www.sott.net/article/260160-The-Heretic-Who-is-Thomas-Nagel-and-why-are-so-many-of-his-fellow-academics-condemning-him

Even leading Darwinian atheists themselves have honestly admitted that it impossible for them to live their lives as if they do not have free will,

Darwin’s Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails – Nancy Pearcey – April 23, 2015 Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, “Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get.” An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, “The impossibility of free will … can be proved with complete certainty.” Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. “To be honest, I can’t really accept it myself,” he says. “I can’t really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?”,,, In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots — that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one “can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free.” We are “constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots.” One section in his book is even titled “We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.”,,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine — a “big bag of skin full of biomolecules” interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, “When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, … see that they are machines.” Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: “That is not how I treat them…. I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis.” Certainly if what counts as “rational” is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks’s worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn’t. Brooks ends by saying, “I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs.” He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html

Even Richard Dawkins himself admitted that it would be ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if his atheistic materialism were actually true and that he had no free will, i.e. no moral agency,

Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html

In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.

Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. – per answers for hope

bornagain77

December 2, 2022

December

12

Dec

2

02

2022

03:40 AM

3

03

40

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

And you don’t have to take Logan Paul Gage’s, or Michael Egnor's, word for it. In 2019, a Darwinist honestly admitted that “The most important concept in all of biology, (i.e. species), is a complete mystery”

What is a species? The most important concept in all of biology is a complete mystery – July 16, 2019 https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-species-the-most-important-concept-in-all-of-biology-is-a-complete-mystery-119200

And as the following 2020 article pointed out, Darwinists simply have no rigid, ‘one size fits all’, demarcation criteria for what actually constitutes a species.

At New Scientist: Questioning The Idea Of Species – Nov. 2020 Excerpt: Take the apparently simple organising principle of a species. You might have learned at school that a species is a group of individuals that can breed to produce fertile offspring. But this is just one of at least 34 competing definitions concocted over the past century by researchers working in different fields.,,,, https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/at-new-scientist-questioning-the-idea-of-species/

The abstract concept of species simply can't be reduced to materialistic explanations. How much does the concept of species weigh? Is the concept of species positively or negatively charged? Is the concept of species closer to Minnesota or Zimbabwe? or etc.. etc..? Those questions are all, obviously, nonsensical simply because the concept of Species is an abstract, immaterial, classification of the immaterial mind. Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply have no basis in which to classify organisms into different categories, whether it be categories of species, genus, clades, phylum, or etc... Even Charles Darwin himself inadvertently admitted, (as Logan Paul Gage pointed out), that he did not have a rigid 'materialistic' definition for what a species actually was when he stated, “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience,”

“I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” – Charles Darwin

As should be needless to say, if your theory can’t even provide a rigid ‘scientific’ definition for what a ‘species’ actually is in the first place, (in your theory that adamantly claims to be the ‘be all/end all’ scientific explanation for the ‘origin of species’), well then, so much for your claim that you have scientifically explained the ‘origin of species’. i.e. Scientifically speaking, your claim is worse than useless, and as Wolfgang Pauli might have put it, your theory is, ‘Not even wrong’. Quotes and verse

“There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.,,” – Letter from Adam Sedgwick to Charles Darwin – 24 Nov 1859 “I have tried to make this intentional plan in the organization of the animal kingdom evident, by showing that the differences between animals do not constitute a material chain, analogous to a series of physical phenomena, bound together by the same law, but present themselves rather as the phases of a thought, formulated according to a definite aim. I think we know enough of comparative anatomy to abandon forever the idea of the transformation of the organs of one type into those of another.” - Letter from Louis Agassiz To A. Sedgwick. Neuchatel, June, 1845. In Elizabeth Cary Agassiz (Ed.). 1885. Louis Agassiz: His Life and Correspondence. Houghton, Mifflin and Co: Boston. P. 388 – 390 1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.

bornagain77

December 2, 2022

December

12

Dec

2

02

2022

01:47 AM

1

01

47

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

AF at 46:

Nitpick, Whales share a more recent common ancestor with hippos than they do with coyotes. Whales, hippos, and coyotes are all mammals. Whales and hippos (hindsight makes me wonder why it wasn’t always thought obvious) are now classified as members of the clade Cetartiodactyla, whereas coyotes are in the Carnivora clade.

That is all unsubstantiated speculations and 'just-so stories' on the part of Darwinists. Apparently Darwinists believe that if they can simply imagine a coyote and/or hippo morphing into a whale, well then, that qualifies as irrefutable scientific proof that it must have happened that way. Sorry, but science just does not work that way.

“... another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness... Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling... it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…” - Austin L. Hughes, The Folly of Scientism - The New Atlantis, Fall 2012

No matter how much they may imagine it to be true, Darwinists simply don't have any real time empirical evidence, nor mathematical evidence, that it is remotely possible to change one species of bacteria into another species of bacteria,

Scant search for the Maker - 2001 Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282 Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5] – per wikipedia

,,, much less do Darwinists have any real time empirical evidence, or mathematical evidence, that it is possible to change a some coyote and/or hippo into a whale,

"Well, I told you we don't have the tail in Rodhocetus. We don't know for sure whether it had a ball vertebrate indicating a (tail) fluke or not. So I speculated (that) it might have had a (tail) fluke.,,, Since then we found the forelimbs, the hands, and the front arms, the arms in other words of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn't have the kind of arms that can be spread out like flippers are on a whale.,, If you don't have flippers, I don't think you can have a fluke tail and really powered swimming. And so I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluke tail." Philip Gingerich paleontologist - Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video - fraudulent fossils revealed (11:40 minute mark) https://youtu.be/VSmO4nQ717U?t=699 Evolution And Probabilities: A Response to Jason Rosenhouse - August 2011 Excerpt: The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years – according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper, that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-and-probabilities-a-response-to-jason-rosenhouse/ Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson - (excerpted from 'Living Waters' video) (2015) https://youtu.be/0csd3M4bc0Q

Darwinists simply have no real time empirical evidence, nor mathematical evidence, to support any of their imaginary just-so stories. And as much as it may hurt Darwinists' feelings to know this, imaginary 'just-so stories' are NOT science. They are the antithesis of science. In fact, science is successful precisely because it separates the chaff of hypothetical imaginary conjectures about reality, from the wheat of what is actually true about reality. Moreover, to make it even worse for Darwinists, Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, can't even define what a species, clade, or any other biological classification, actually is. You see, in order to classify organisms into specific groups, such as species, clades, or etc.., one is forced to abandon purely materialistic explanations about reality and reach over into the immaterial realm of abstract universals. As Logan Paul Gage states in the following article, ”In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms.”,,, ” this denial (of true species) is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge.”

Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage Excerpt:,,, In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms. Denial of True Species Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes: “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,, The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow. What About Man? Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,, https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f

And as Dr. Michael Egnor explains, the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution simply doesn't do abstract, immaterial, universals. And as a result, Darwinian materialists, (with their implicit denial of the immaterial realm altogether), simply leave everything that is truly important, and interesting, about what it really means to be human on the cutting room floor.

The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals - Michael Egnor - November 5, 2015 Excerpt: Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals. Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different — ontologically different — from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,, It is a radical difference — an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference. We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm.,,, Systems of taxonomy that emphasize physical and genetic similarities and ignore the fact that human beings are partly immaterial beings who are capable of abstract thought and contemplation of moral law and eternity are pitifully inadequate to describe man. The assertion that man is an ape is self-refuting. We could not express such a concept, misguided as it is, if we were apes and not men. https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2/

bornagain77

December 2, 2022

December

12

Dec

2

02

2022

01:46 AM

1

01

46

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Seversky do you remember our recent conversation on OoL ? I wrote, that you guys (Darwinists) still believe in spontaneous generation (of life). Like in 19th century. Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia:

Spontaneous generation[1] is a superseded scientific theory that held that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular. It was hypothesized that certain forms, such as fleas, could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh.

Seversky, you have replied as follows:

Which is not what OOL research assumes. It does not propose that modern organisms spring fully-formed into existence from inanimate precursors. It is, however, what ID/creationists believe their designer/creator does. Although they have no idea how and apparently don’t care.

NO ? then look here, what a 31-year-old MIT Physicist Jeremy England claims in his "A New Physics Theory of Life" article.

You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant

If this is not a spontaneous generation of life, then what is it ? :))))))))) Full article: https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIt9mPuezY-wIVM4FQBh2sEQKhEAAYASAAEgJ45fD_BwEmartin_r

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

11:29 PM

11

11

29

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

@ BA77 Phil, I made an exception and glanced at rather than scrolled through your comment 40. It's a mish-mash of scoffing at evolutionary strawmen. Where's the beef? How does Intelligent Design work? You forgot that bit.Alan Fox

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

11:29 PM

11

11

29

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

...maybe you guys have discover a testing method since the last time I asked.

Depends when you last asked. Molecular phylogenetics is a recent addition to the evidence of common descent. It was important in confirming the relationship between Whales and hippos.Alan Fox

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

11:22 PM

11

11

22

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Actually whales share a common ancestor with hippos, not coyotes

Nitpick, Whales share a more recent common ancestor with hippos than they do with coyotes. Whales, hippos, and coyotes are all mammals. Whales and hippos (hindsight makes me wonder why it wasn't always thought obvious) are now classified as members of the clade Cetartiodactyla, whereas coyotes are in the Carnivora clade.Alan Fox

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

11:18 PM

11

11

18

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

SEV at 30 , Dont just mock Dr Tours criticism of OOL research debunk it , ah thats right you can`t CD at 44, what is that common ancestor and how do you know its the common ancestor , seeing it cannot be tested , or maybe you guys have discover a testing method since the last time I asked.Marfin

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

11:14 PM

11

11

14

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

AD/41 Actually whales share a common ancestor with hippos, not coyotes…….chuckdarwin

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

07:14 PM

7

07

14

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Ba77, In the late 1980s I stumbled across a book with a compelling title: Engines of Creation. This was a clear exposition of how nanotechnology might work to build a jet engine, among other things. A large container like an oil drum cut in half but much larger would contain water and molecule-sized "assemblers." Various metallic molecules would be injected into the water. The assemblers, under radio guidance, would begin building a scaffold and the engine. The assemblers could be be grouped to perform different tasks, building the inside and outside components of the engine. Various metals could be combined at the molecular level to create alloys as opposed to trying to melt them together at high temperatures. As the assemblers finished a section, they would back out slowly to complete what remained. The completed engine would be stronger, lightweight and better than what could be done by using more conventional construction processes. Once completed, various hooks would attach to lifting lugs. After the engine cleared the container, the remaining metal molecules would be flushed out and stored for reuse. Later, I saw a video of a computer that was built at the atomic level. It was not an actual computer but a theoretical model. The finished computer was square and about six inches on each side. It was explained that such a computer would be far more powerful than any commercial computer available. At first, the idea of nanotechnology was not accepted. The technology to create the things mentioned in the book did not exist but I was able to glimpse stories here and there about nanotechnology actually being applied as the years passed. It was being used by the military primarily. IF scientists attempt to do this with a cell, it would be a clear example of Intelligent Design, assuming they could make it work.relatd

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

04:35 PM

4

04

35

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

AD at 41, I want photos of the transformation.relatd

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

04:15 PM

4

04

15

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Why, just yesterday Alan observed nearby coyote turn into a small whale in his backyard. Good thing he had a pool!AnimatedDust

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

03:26 PM

3

03

26

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"ID advocates have such a poor hand to play." The Black Knight has spoken, "Tis but a scratch"!

Monty Python - The Black Knight - Tis But A Scratch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs

Meanwhile, a few severed limbs laying on the ground beg to differ,,

"(Although atheists accuse Theists of making extraordinary claims) The truly extraordinary claim — indeed, the wildly and irresponsibly outrageous claim — is that a highly scalable, massively parallel system architecture incorporating a 4-bit digital coding system and a super-dense, information-rich, three-dimensional, multi-layered, multi-directional database structure with storage, retrieval and translation mechanisms, utilizing file allocation, concatenation and bit-parity algorithms, operating subject to software protocol hierarchies could all come about through a long series of accidental particle collisions. That is beyond extraordinary. It is preposterous. It is laughable." Eric Anderson https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/naturalism-intelligent-design-and-extraordinary-claims-part-ii/#comment-455980 Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009 Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html "No human contrivance operates with either the degree of complexity, the precision, or the efficiency of living cells." James A. Shapiro, "21st century view of evolution: genome system architecture, repetitive DNA, and natural genetic engineering," Gene, Vol. 345: 91-100 (2005) How we could create life - The key to existence will be found not in primordial sludge, but in the nanotechnology of the living cell - Paul Davies - 11 December 2002 Excerpt: Instead, the living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer - an information processing and replicating system of astonishing complexity. DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff - hardware - but as information, or software. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won't work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/dec/11/highereducation.uk "The more I come to terms with the sheer engineering prowess of the cell, the more I am becoming convinced that the argument from biological design is perhaps the single most powerful argument for God's existence -- I now consider it to be stronger than even the cosmological and teleological arguments. It seems to be a rather under-used apologetic, however, particularly in Christian-atheist debates. ID as a scientific proposition, of course, doesn't necessitate God as designer. But it is certainly a very compelling part of a cumulative body of evidence for theism. Catching just a glimpse of the beauty and sophistication of the cell should be enough to render absolutely anyone without excuse." - Jonathan McLatchie - PhD in Evolutionary Biology. "Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 2012 Excerpt: "This is bad news. Consider a neuronal synapse -- the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse -- about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years..., even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.",,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.htmlhttp://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html Life Leads the Way to Invention – Feb. 2010 Excerpt: a cell is 10,000 times more energy-efficient than a transistor. “In one second, a cell performs about 10 million energy-consuming chemical reactions, which altogether require about one picowatt (one millionth millionth of a watt) of power.” This and other amazing facts lead to an obvious conclusion: inventors ought to look to life for ideas.,,, Essentially, cells may be viewed as circuits that use molecules, ions, proteins and DNA instead of electrons and transistors. That analogy suggests that it should be possible to build electronic chips – what Sarpeshkar calls “cellular chemical computers” – that mimic chemical reactions very efficiently and on a very fast timescale. https://crev.info/2010/02/life_leads_the_way_to_invention/ The Human Eye, Like The Human Brain, Is A Wonder https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/

etc.. etc.. etc..

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

bornagain77

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

03:08 PM

3

03

08

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

*chuckles* It's mean of me, sorry. But ID advocates have such a poor hand to play. I can summarize the basic tenets of evolutionary theory in a sentence or two. There's an expanding data base of evidence on evolutionary biology. Field observation of species on their natural habitat is incredible with developments in recording devices. Heck, I can do my own observations in my own backyard. It must be tough to be an ID proponent without even a hypothesis to promote.Alan Fox

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

01:54 PM

1

01

54

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CD at 34: The worldview precedes the scientific theory. Remember Lewontin. The commitment to materialism is absolute, for a Divine foot cannot be allowed in the door. In case you forgot.AnimatedDust

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

12:11 PM

12

12

11

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Related at 33: And the worst part is, at the moment they take their last breath, they will have to answer for their deeds. What is absolutely true is that they won't be able to claim they didn't have enough evidence.AnimatedDust

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

12:07 PM

12

12

07

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CD at 34, Are living things designed? Or do they only look designed but are not actually designed?relatd

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

11:44 AM

11

11

44

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Evolution is a religious belief that a Magical Force named Evolution turned mud to men. Sound familiar? Andrewasauber

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

11:38 AM

11

11

38

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Relatd/33 Evolution is not a “world view,” it’s a scientific theory…….chuckdarwin

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

11:19 AM

11

11

19

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Seversky at 30, So what is the solution to people who insist on holding onto a worldview called evolution? And that's all it is at this point. Regardless of what is written here that shows it to be false and usually supported by atheists and to promote atheism. You rail against God, and judge Him. JVL insists on 'unguided evolution' ONLY - no matter the evidence to the contrary. AF is the Town Rabble-Rouser whose only apparent purpose is to show off his dodging and weaving skills here. He avoids answering questions that would reveal evolution to be the wrong answer to how and why living things are the way they are. For the record, I expect all of you to soldier on. Whenever evidence contrary to unguided evolution appears, you will all continue to hold up a sign that reads 'Evolution is a fact,' as if that were true. All of you are here to cause confusion and to help sell a product called evolution. If you were not here then ID would become popular, it would get into public schools. I know none of you want that to happen.relatd

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

10:30 AM

10

10

30

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I commented on Farina's first video after Tour's first series of responses. I pointed out a factual error that was very elemental, and one of the main points of his perspective on origin of life. He just deleted it.AnimatedDust

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

09:56 AM

9

09

56

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Seversky, in regards to a belligerent and condescending manner, perhaps you might find this interesting,

civilized discourse is not Farina’s cup of tea. In the first five minutes of his new video, he calls ID proponents “clowns,” “charlatans,” “frauds,” and “liars,” and calls ID arguments “pseudo-science,” “rubbish,” “horse manure,” and “dishonest tripe.” His personal agenda is revealed by the ridiculous statement [TC 3:00] that genocide, infanticide, eugenics, and other evils are “all the heinous acts that historically have been the exclusive domain of religion.” Has he never heard of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot? Apparently, Farina thinks the best way to deal with anybody he disagrees with is to bully and berate them with hate speech and gutter language. Here is an example of what I mean from one of his comments on YouTube (I’ve replaced certain letters with asterisks to make the profanity more tolerable to read): "Um, I’m pretty sure I would make Meyer cry. He’s a f****ing moron, as I demonstrated in this video you didn’t watch. Why are all you creationist tools such cowardly sh**bags?" When a commenter on his video against Stephen Meyer criticized his harsh language, Farina responded with even more over-the-top vituperation: "They are liars. I show how they are liars. That’s all it is. And for f****’s sake, I’m exposing the agenda of what is essentially a terrorist organization that wants to drag America back to an authoritarian theocracy and ruin millions of lives, and you have the balls to call me nasty and mean-spirited for speaking out against them? You’re f****ing stupid. I suggest you work on that." [“They” refers to Discovery Institute and ID proponents.] What Is Wrong with This Guy? This is not how a sane and reasonable adult writes. Since when are academic questions and intellectual debates settled by lobbing f-words? I can only pity the school kids who suffered under such an intolerant and rude person as a science teacher. Farina seems to have some significant anger management issues. He certainly is not the type of person any reasonable parents would like to have around their kids! This has nothing to do with intelligent design vs. materialism or religion vs. science. Farina’s immature pottymouth should disqualify him from any serious discourse about anything with anyone. He really needs a “time out.” What is more, nobody who knows his stuff and is confident about his position talks or writes like Farina does. The only reason I bother to address his erroneous arguments is to equip viewers of his video with some accurate information about the scientific evidence. https://evolutionnews.org/2022/11/debunking-professor-daves-hit-piece-against-stephen-meyer/

bornagain77

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

09:40 AM

9

09

40

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Professor Tour's work as a synthetic chemist is not the issue. His attack on OOL research - and by extension, evolution - is. And for me Tour, like Egnor, displays a belligerent and condescending manner which really doesn't help his case.Seversky

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

09:22 AM

9

09

22

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I find Suppressor Dave incredibly annoying. The kind of sneering, condescending atheism I know it all attitude that he displays constantly in his videos. And he doesn't attempt to refute the science of Professor Tour.AnimatedDust

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

08:08 AM

8

08

08

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

BA77 yes, these videos are exceptional ... when you consider that such a honored and busy scientist spends his valuable time to shoot these videos. Hours of videos ....martin_r

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

01:41 AM

1

01

41

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Yes Martin. I am very much expectantly waiting for Dr. Tour's take down of the three 'experts', one by one, coming Dec. 6. I guess It is kind of like a series of world championship prize fights for geeks. :)bornagain77

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

01:34 AM

1

01

34

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

BA77 when you mentioned 'professor' Dave Farina .... As you may know, this clown attacked Dr. Tour as well. Dr. Tour will release ANOTHER series of rebuttal videos on OoL (starting DEC 6). From what i could understand, what some 'professor' Dave says doesn't matter (which is self-evident), but Dr. Tour will go after those 3 OoL experts who were mentioned in Farina's videos ... Here is a video teaser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rwPi1miWu4 PS: by the way, perhaps you missed it, but in 2020, Dr. Tour received a very prestigious Royal Society price. I learned it only yesterday (from the teaser video) https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/678304martin_r

December 1, 2022

December

12

Dec

1

01

2022

01:23 AM

1

01

23

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

OT: Professor Dave is the unfortunate recipient of a first class intellectual butt-whooping at the hands of Günter Bechly. I especially liked the closing remark, "Farina doesn’t have a grasp of the basics of cladistic terminology. Maybe he should study my online “Glossary of Phylogenetic Systematics” to learn something before he tries to teach others."

Untangling “Professor Dave’s” Confusion about the Cambrian Explosion - Günter Bechly - November 29, 2022 Excerpt: Farina doesn’t have a grasp of the basics of cladistic terminology. Maybe he should study my online “Glossary of Phylogenetic Systematics” to learn something before he tries to teach others. https://evolutionnews.org/2022/11/untangling-professor-daves-confusion-about-the-cambrian-explosion/

of related note:

The popular YouTuber, whose real name is Dave Farina, is neither a professor nor a PhD but just a failed ex-teacher who unsuccessfully tried twice to get a master’s degree in chemistry. These are simply facts about him. https://evolutionnews.org/2022/11/debunking-professor-daves-hit-piece-against-stephen-meyer/

bornagain77

November 30, 2022

November

11

Nov

30

30

2022

04:55 PM

4

04

55

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

This gem from Caspian is priceless:

The reductionism approach, while useful for gaining knowledge of the biological details, carries the risk of losing sight of the big picture.

The "biological details," indeed.........chuckdarwin

November 30, 2022

November

11

Nov

30

30

2022

03:14 PM

3

03

14

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link