Darwinism Devolution Intelligent Design

At Evolution News: Mammoth Support for Devolution

Spread the love

Michael Behe writes:

The more science progresses, the more hapless Darwin seems.

In my 2019 book Darwin Devolves I showed that random mutation and natural selection are powerful de-volutionary forces. That is, they quickly lead to the loss of genetic information. The reason is that, in many environmental circumstances, a species’ lot can be improved most quickly by breaking or blunting pre-existing genes. To get the point across, I used an analogy to a quick way to improve a car’s gas mileage — remove the hood, throw out the doors, get rid of any excess weight. That will help the car go further, but it also reduces the number of features of the car. And it sure doesn’t explain how any of those now-jettisoned parts got there in the first place.

Image credit: Thomas Quine, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.

The Bottom Line

The same goes for biology. Helpful mutations that arrive most quickly are very much more likely to degrade genetic features than to construct new ones. The featured illustration in Darwin Devolves was the polar bear, which has accumulated a number of beneficial mutations since it branched off from the brown bear a few hundred thousand years ago. Yet the large majority of those beneficial mutations were degradative — they broke or damaged pre-existing genes. For example, a gene involved in fur pigmentation was damaged, rendering the beast white — that helped; another gene involved in fat metabolism was degraded, allowing the animal to consume lots of seal blubber, its main food in the Arctic — that helped, too. Those mutations were good for the species in the moment — they did improve its chances of survival. But degradative mutations don’t explain how the functioning genes got there in the first place. Even worse, the relentless burning of genetic information to adapt to a changing environment will make a species evolutionarily brittle and more prone to extinction. The bottom line: Although random mutation and natural selection help a species adapt, Darwinian processes can’t account for the origins of sophisticated biological systems.

In Darwin Devolves, I also mentioned work on DNA extracted from frozen woolly mammoth carcasses that showcased devolution: “26 genes were shown to be seriously degraded, many of which (as with polar bear) were involved in fat metabolism, critical in the extremely cold environments that the mammoth roamed.” It turns out that was an underestimate. A new paper1 that has sequenced DNA from several more woolly mammoth remains says the true number is more than triple that — 87 genes broken compared to their elephant relatives. 

There’s Lots More

The point is that these gene losses aren’t side shows — they are the events that transformed an elephant into a mammoth, that adapted the animal to its changing environment. A job well done, yes, but now those genes are gone forever, unavailable to help with the next change of environment. Perhaps that contributed to eventual mammoth extinction.

As quoted above, the mammoth authors note that gene losses can be adaptive, and they cited a paper that I hadn’t seen before. I checked it out and it’s a wonderful laboratory evolution study of yeast.2 Helsen et al. (2020) used a collection of yeast strains in which one of each different gene in the genome had been knocked out. They grew the knockout yeast in a stressful environment and watched to see how the microbes evolved to handle it. Many of the yeast strains, with different genes initially knocked out, recovered, and some even surpassed the fitness of wild-type yeast under the circumstances. The authors emphasized the fact of the evolutionary recovery. However, they also clearly stated (but don’t seem to have noticed the importance of the fact) that all of the strains rebounded by breaking other genes, ones that had been intact at the beginning of the experiment. None built anything new, all of them devolved.

Well, Duh

That’s hardly a surprise. At least in retrospect, it’s easy to see that devolution must happen — for the simple reason that helpful degradative mutations are more plentiful than helpful constructive ones and thus arrive more quickly for natural selection to multiply. The more recent results recounted here just pile more evidence onto that gathered in Darwin Devolves showing Darwin’s mechanism is powerfully devolutionary. That simple realization neatly explains results ranging from the evolutionary behavior of yeast in a comfy modern laboratory, to the speciation of megafauna in raw nature millions of years ago, and almost certainly to everything in between.

References

  1. Van der Valk, Tom, et al. 2022. Evolutionary consequences of genomic deletions and insertions in the woolly mammoth genome. iScience 25, 104826.
  2. Helsen, J. et al. 2020. Gene loss predictably drives evolutionary adaptation. Molecular Biology and Evolution 37, 2989–3002.

Behe’s conclusions have significant implications: evolutionary adaptation seems to progress by breaking existing genes in such a way as to confer a survival advantage in a niche environment; the result is a more “brittle” species with fewer options for surviving further environmental stresses; the mystery of the origin of the original genes is in no way explained by natural means at any step in the process. Rather than Darwinian evolution providing a mechanism for the “origin of the species,” it more adequately explains the demise of species.

528 Replies to “At Evolution News: Mammoth Support for Devolution

  1. 1
    asauber says:

    Darwinian Evolution has devolved into a population of Brittle Trolls who break when new info is presented to them. 😉

    Andrew

  2. 2
    chuckdarwin says:

    Behe writes:

    The point is that these gene losses aren’t side shows — they are the events that transformed an elephant into a mammoth, that adapted the animal to its changing environment.

    I don’t think that elephants “transformed” into mammoths. Elephants and mammoths diverged from a common ancestor 6 mya. There are two extant species, the African and Asian elephant. There’s no evidence that this so-called gene loss has had a detrimental impact on either species.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    The full quote,

    In Darwin Devolves, I also mentioned work on DNA extracted from frozen woolly mammoth carcasses that showcased devolution: “26 genes were shown to be seriously degraded, many of which (as with polar bear) were involved in fat metabolism, critical in the extremely cold environments that the mammoth roamed.” It turns out that was an underestimate. A new paper1 that has sequenced DNA from several more woolly mammoth remains says the true number is more than triple that — 87 genes broken compared to their elephant relatives.

    There’s Lots More

    The point is that these gene losses aren’t side shows — they are the events that transformed an elephant into a mammoth, that adapted the animal to its changing environment. A job well done, yes, but now those genes are gone forever, unavailable to help with the next change of environment. Perhaps that contributed to eventual mammoth extinction.

    To which our Darwinian apologist, ChuckyD, responds, “There’s no evidence that this so-called gene loss has had a detrimental impact on either species.”

    LOL, the peer reviewed paper that Michael Behe cited not withstanding of course, 🙂

    Evolutionary consequences of genomic deletions and insertions in the woolly mammoth genome – 2022
    Highlights
    •Two new high-quality woolly mammoth genomes have been generated

    •A new method was used to identify deletions and insertions in woolly mammoths

    •At least 87 genes have been affected by deletions or indels in the mammoth lineage

    •Genes involved in skeletal morphology and hair growth are affected by deletions

    Summary
    Woolly mammoths had a set of adaptations that enabled them to thrive in the Arctic environment. Many mammoth-specific single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) responsible for unique mammoth traits have been previously identified from ancient genomes. However, a multitude of other genetic variants likely contributed to woolly mammoth evolution. In this study, we sequenced two woolly mammoth genomes and combined these with previously sequenced mammoth and elephant genomes to conduct a survey of mammoth-specific deletions and indels. We find that deletions are highly enriched in non-coding regions, suggesting selection against structural variants that affect protein sequences. Nonetheless, at least 87 woolly mammoth genes contain deletions or indels that modify the coding sequence, including genes involved in skeletal morphology and hair growth. These results suggest that deletions and indels contributed to the unique phenotypic adaptations of the woolly mammoth, and were potentially critical to surviving in its natural environment.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004222010987

    I think someone ought to study the genomes of Darwinian atheists to find out which deletions are causing such stunning intellectual blindness on their part. 🙂

  4. 4
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 3,

    “I think someone ought to study the genomes of Darwinian atheists to find out which deletions are causing such stunning intellectual blindness on their part.”

    I have accumulated enough evidence that shows no ‘intellectual blindness’ actually exists. My conclusion is simply a pattern of denial and constant reference to blind, unguided chance, which is not goal oriented, as the ONLY possible answer.

    That’s like saying blind, unguided chance designed and built your computer, which is very primitive when compared to living things in terms of function.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    R: my tongue was planted firmly in cheek.

  6. 6
    Mark from CO says:

    It would seem to me that Covid and its many variants would be a good subject to see the effects of the mutations on function. I believe something like this was done with the Spanish Flu virus.

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    If Dr Dr Dembski’s conservation law for information is true, meaning information can neither be created nor destroyed then genetic information cannot be lost, just relocated.

    If Dr Behe is correct and genes can only be broken not constructed then, rather like with Sanford’s genetic entropy, how is it we’re still here? Shouldn’t all life have collapsed into catastrophic genetic failure long ago? In fact, if it is so prone to degradation, how did it ever get started in the first place?

    And why would any designer in his/her/its right mind ever use such a failure-prone system to transmit information of any kind at all?

  8. 8
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 7,

    You pretend to not get it. Facts matter not criticism of God and how He works. Dr. Dembski has shown data that others are free to examine as well. But here? Denial after denial. Followed by more denial.

  9. 9
    Caspian says:

    Seversky @7:
    Dembski’s law of conservation of information doesn’t mean that information cannot be lost (natural forces destroy information all the time – just try to read a newspaper that’s been lying in a mud puddle for a while), but that natural processes cannot generate more information than already exists in the system to begin with. And by the way, this principle isn’t just Dembski’s idea, it also arises out of the physics of quantum statistical thermodynamics.
    One of the remarkable things about the reproductive process of all living things is how few degradative errors occur. The Designer (referring to Genesis) designed living things to reproduce “after their kind”, and that’s consistent with all the observational evidence of nature that we have available, granting that small variations preserve the original “kind.”

  10. 10
    Belfast says:

    Chuck and Seversky – why don’t you write to Behe raising your doubts and telling objections? I wrote to him a couple of times and had a fast response each time.

  11. 11
    doubter says:

    Seversky@7

    If Dr Behe is correct and genes can only be broken not constructed then, rather like with Sanford’s genetic entropy, how is it we’re still here? Shouldn’t all life have collapsed into catastrophic genetic failure long ago? In fact, if it is so prone to degradation, how did it ever get started in the first place?

    Dr. Behe isn’t saying that. He is saying that the Darwinistic mechanism of random genetic variation+NS can only break genes, not construct novel and complicated new ones with adaptive advantages, as indicated by much recent research. Outside intervention by some sort of very high intelligence(s) is the only viable candidate for that role, which obviously exists because over the history of life countless species have existed for a time (fixed genetically as far as there being no new information), until genetic degradation or other catastrophe cut their life short.

    Also obviously, in order for the evolutionary process to continue, occasionally a species is genetically “meddled with” by this outside high intelligence, inserting novel adaptively functional new genetic information.

    This is a very rough model, but something along these lines must be the case. Unless you can cite plenty of cases of experimentally induced Darwinistic evolution of truly novel adaptive complex genetic structures, and/or incontrovertible fossil evidence of the long Darwinistic succession of minute incremental changes leading to complex novel new adaptive genetic changes (rather than the actual fossil record of abrupt transitions of species with no gradual transformations). Or you can cite evidence for some other undirected purposeless mechanism of “evolution”. We’re waiting.

  12. 12
    chuckdarwin says:

    Caspian/9

    I’m almost afraid to ask, but here goes. At what taxonomic level does the biblical “kind” referenced in Genesis occur?

  13. 13
    Querius says:

    Chuckdarwin @12,

    First, enlighten us about what precisely defines a species? How about a subspecies? Or family or genus? Does similarity of proteins or the changes in DNA currently determine taxonomic classification?

    -Q

  14. 14
    Alan Fox says:

    Querius:

    First, enlighten us about what precisely defines a species? How about a subspecies? Or family or genus?

    Here’s a useful introduction to cladistics

    .Does similarity of proteins or the changes in DNA currently determine taxonomic classification?

    In some cases. The additional tool of molecular phylogenetics has certainly refined the taxonomic approach. The consilience is a powerful indication that evolutionary theory fits the evidence.

  15. 15
  16. 16
    ET says:

    Cladistics doesn’t support evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. And evolutionary relationships are assumed.

  17. 17
    chuckdarwin says:

    Querius/12
    My question was directed to Caspian.

  18. 18
    ET says:

    The “kind” depends on the organism. Some kinds are at the level of Family whereas others are at Genus.

  19. 19
    ET says:

    The “kinds” are based on body plans…

  20. 20
    Caspian says:

    CD @ 12
    An interesting question, but I would only be able to answer with this: It seems that if natural processes can bring something about, then God allows that process to work. If a natural process cannot bring something about that is desired for God’s purposes in creation, then it is logical that he would intervene to bring it about. People do the same thing. If I want water to gradually collect in a barrel, I could just place under a downspout and wait for the rain to fill it. But if I want to maintain a full supply of water in a tank on top of a tower, I’ll need to intervene and build a pumping system.

  21. 21
    PaV says:

    Alan Fox @ 14:

    Your link is, in my view, unresponsive to what Querius was asking. There is mention of “species,” in the most general of ways. There is no mention whatsoever of “subspecies,” for example. There is really no definition of what a species is.

  22. 22
    Querius says:

    PaV @21,

    Yes, exactly!

    In some cases, DNA and protein similarity can be estimated, but in most cases, taxonomy was based simply on appearance (together with miraculous parallel or repeated evolution). Anyone, who’s ever tried to key yellow composites appreciates the problem.

    And “following the science” was sacrificed for historical continuity and synthesized support for a 19th century racist theory that’s been repeatedly falsified. Perhaps, someday the biological sciences will be able to pry off Charles Darwin’s cold dead hands from its throat.

    In the 1700s, Carl Linneaus warned against hyper-rigid “fixity” of species. There seems to be a fluidity that includes genetic and genomic variability among different kinds of organisms. For example, see
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1874391915301378?via%3Dihub

    And AF and CD are blissfully (or perhaps willfully) ignorant of these issues. Instead, CD wants to bait Caspian on what the Bible means by “kind,” force-fitting it into a clearly inadequate taxonomic hierarchy. One also wonders where they stand on the controversies between “lumpers” and “splitters.”

    -Q

  23. 23
    doubter says:

    Seversky and Chuck and AF,

    I notice there is no response to or engagement with my request at #11 to “put up or shut up” with something substantial other than bluster and argument by assertion. The challenge:

    …something along these lines (of outside intervention) must be the case. Unless you can cite plenty of cases of experimentally induced Darwinistic evolution of truly novel adaptive complex genetic structures, and/or incontrovertible fossil evidence of the long Darwinistic succession of minute incremental changes leading to complex novel new adaptive genetic changes (rather than the actual fossil record of abrupt transitions of species with no gradual transformations). Or you can cite evidence for some other undirected purposeless mechanism of “evolution”.

    We’re still waiting.

  24. 24
    Alan Fox says:

    There is really no definition of what a species is.

    Nonsense. There are too many definitions, though the basic concept for sexually reproducing populations is easy to grasp. A species is a group of organisms that share genes within their population. It becomes problematic for extinct species and asexual organisms.

  25. 25
    Alan Fox says:

    @ Doubter,

    You first. Tell me something other than bluff or bluster about ID.

  26. 26
    doubter says:

    AF,

    I’ve outlined a conceptual scheme including a little information about it and the data backing it up elucidated by Dr. Behe. You and your colleagues have not responded. It’s as simple an issue as that.

  27. 27
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Flash News: Nobody understands what life is. To know it is to reproduce it but nobody can do that. To observe and describe few sub-components of life is not the same as understanding life.

  28. 28
    Querius says:

    Alan Fox asserts in 24,

    Nonsense. There are too many definitions {for species} . . .

    No kidding. Now, why should that be the case? O.o

    -Q

  29. 29
    Alan Fox says:

    Now, why should that be the case?

    Because “species” are a dynamic concept. Change over time is the central element of evolution, species are not fixed in stone.

  30. 30
    Alan Fox says:

    Doubter:

    I’ve outlined a conceptual scheme including a little information about it and the data backing it up elucidated by Dr. Behe.

    Where? I’d be very interested in raw data for a change. It’s usually a case of assumed conclusions here.

    [Behe] is saying that the Darwinistic mechanism of random genetic variation+NS can only break genes, not construct novel and complicated new ones with adaptive advantages…

    Yes, I have heard this, but he’s wrong. I’ll just mention Lenski’s ongoing Long-term Evolution Experiment. 75,000 generations and counting.

    …as indicated by much recent research.

    Much recent research? Can you cite a paper or two?

    Outside intervention by some sort of very high intelligence(s) is the only viable candidate for that role..

    Only if you reject evolutionary explanations and claim that an ID explanation exists for observed biological phenomena and assume this is the only alternative by default. (The Sherlock Holmes fallacy – overlooking the explanation you don’t know and haven’t considered). Do you have a mechanism for how this intervention occurs? Where is this very high intelligence, when does it act? Is it like God performing miracles or is it more observable and verifiable, not just a default assumption?

    …which obviously exists because over the history of life countless species have existed for a time (fixed genetically as far as there being no new information), until genetic degradation or other catastrophe cut their life short.

    That makes no sense to me. 99% of species of life on Earth are extinct. Life has almost died out several times in the history of the Earth. The Permian extinction was quite a disaster. The scientific explanation is that there was a rapid warming of the climate. ID explanation? What was the very high intelligence doing?

    You and your colleagues have not responded. It’s as simple an issue as that.

    You should get out more.

  31. 31
    ET says:

    Alan Fox:

    There are too many definitions, though the basic concept for sexually reproducing populations is easy to grasp.

    Your position cannot account for the existence of sexual reproduction.

  32. 32
    ET says:

    Earth to Alan Fox- you and yours do not have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes from the given populations of prokaryotes. You don’t have any methodology to test the claims of your position. You think that you win. You are clueless with respect to science.

    You and your do NOT have a scientific explanation for our existence. You don’t have a scientific explanation for the existence of the earth. You have nothing beyond denying reality. You are nothing but a coward.

  33. 33
    ET says:

    “First, DNA is not self-reproducing, second, it makes nothing and third, organisms are not determined by it” (Lewontin, 1992). Lewontin, Richard C. (1992). “The Dream of the Human Genome”, The New York Review, May 28, 31-40.

    Evolutionists don’t have a viable mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life

  34. 34
    relatd says:

    AF at 25,

    You’ve got nothing. I’ve also got a sock with your name on it. Don’t make me use it.

  35. 35
    Querius says:

    Alan Fox @29,

    Because “species” are a dynamic concept. Change over time is the central element of evolution, species are not fixed in stone.

    Ah, I get what you’re saying!

    The definition of “species” evolves over time just as the concept of “Darwinian evolution” evolves over time. Thus, the evolution of these concepts proves evolution.

    Thanks for the clarification.

    -Q

  36. 36
    relatd says:

    AF at 29,

    False, as in false. Change over time? Tell us how. I have two photos: One shows a skyscraper, the other shows a pile of bricks. You make it sound like “evolution” built the skyscraper. At best, it can only produce a pile of bricks that sit, unchanged, forever.

  37. 37
    Alan Fox says:

    Ah, I get what you’re saying!

    I actually think there is a glimmer there. Seriously.

  38. 38
    Alan Fox says:

    You’ve got nothing. I’ve also got a sock with your name on it. Don’t make me use it.

    You’re all talk, man.

  39. 39
    Alan Fox says:

    At best, it can only produce a pile of bricks that sit, unchanged, forever.

    What links living systems and distinguishes them from piles of bricks? (The effect is only temporary, I’ll concede.)

  40. 40
    relatd says:

    AF at 39,

    I watched on TV as a voiceover explained that if a planet was the right distance from its sun, had water, and the “building blocks of life” – amino acids – that life would appear there. Really?

    I’ve seen a guy pull a rabbit from a hat. Does that mean hats generate rabbits? Full grown? I think not.

  41. 41
    Alan Fox says:

    I’ve seen a guy pull a rabbit from a hat.

    Did you think you witnessed a miracle or a well-practiced sleight-of-hand. Or is there another explanation?

  42. 42
    relatd says:

    AF at 41,

    Intelligent Design. Always Intelligent Design.

  43. 43
    Alan Fox says:

    No answer to my question regarding living organisms and bricks, Relatd? I promise it’s not a trap.

  44. 44
    Alan Fox says:

    Intelligent Design. Always Intelligent Design.

    Not God? The Catholic version?

  45. 45
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Change over time? Tell us how

    Not sure what you want, as in: what can we say that you haven’t heard before or could find yourself. What in particular about the standard explanation doesn’t seem correct to you? If we can address a particular concern then we might get somewhere.

  46. 46
    Alan Fox says:

    If we can address a particular concern then we might get somewhere.

    To dream the impossible dream…

  47. 47
    relatd says:

    AF at 44,

    Yes God, the Catholic version. That is why the Church is accused so much. When a Cardinal had an op-ed published in the New York Times titled “Finding Design in Nature,” two scientists decided to send a letter to the Vatican. They were concerned that the Church would “come down on the wrong side of history.” So, the Darwin idea cannot be replaced by the Design idea. People might start thinking about God. Can’t have that. Why? Because the atheist-materialist idea has to be sold to the American people, to Western Europe and everywhere else if possible. The attempts to create an Atheist-Marxist wannabe dictatorship in the U.S. will not succeed because many people can see both sides. They are:

    1) Nothing made me. No God. No rules except for whatever men come up with.

    2) God created. He made the “natural” laws and He is the lawgiver. You are responsible.

  48. 48
    Alan Fox says:

    There’s more than two sides.

    The attempts to create an Atheist-Marxist wannabe dictatorship in the U.S.will not succeed because many people can see both sides.

    As an outsider, I see a very unappealing tribalism that makes me glad I don’t live there. I do have to chuckle at your fear mongering over secular and socialist trends. It’s much more relaxed where I live and my social security contributions pay for my medical needs, including teeth, glasses and hearing aid.

  49. 49
    JVL says:

    Relatd: People might start thinking about God. Can’t have that. Why? Because the atheist-materialist idea has to be sold to the American people, to Western Europe and everywhere else if possible.

    This article was published in 2010:

    https://www.christianpost.com/news/some-christians-declare-evolution-faith-are-compatible.html

    The Church of England’s governing body on Friday approved a motion that emphasizes the compatibility of belief in both God and science.

    Dr. Peter Capon, a former computer science lecturer, introduced the motion arguing that “rejecting much mainstream science does nothing to support those Christians who are scientists … or strengthen the Christian voice in the scientific area.”

    He urged Christians to take scientific evidence seriously and avoid prejudging science for theological reasons.

    The vote comes as more than 850 congregations throughout the globe are celebrating Evolution Weekend with the aim of demonstrating that evolution poses no problems for their faith.

    Religion and science are not adversaries, they say. Rather, the two fields should be seen as complementary, they maintain.

    Evolution Weekend, which kicked off Friday, is supported by those of various faith traditions including Christians, Jews, Muslims and Unitarian Universalists.

    “Religious leaders around the world are coming together to elevate the quality of the discussion about this important topic. They are demonstrating to their congregations that people can accept all that modern science has learned while retaining their faith,” said Michael Zimmerman, founder of Evolution Weekend and professor of Biology at Butler University in Indianapolis.

    Since 2004 more than 12,400 Christian clergypersons from various denominations in the United States have signed “The Clergy Letter,” expressing their belief “that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist.”

    In the letter, Christian clergy contend, “Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

  50. 50
    doubter says:

    AF@30

    Yes, I have heard this, but he’s wrong. I’ll just mention Lenski’s ongoing Long-term Evolution Experiment. 75,000 generations and counting.

    Please explain exactly how Dr. Behe is wrong. Then please cite something substantive from Lenski’s experiment. And don’t use the citrate metabolism ploy. Behe already debunked that.

    Much recent research? Can you cite a paper or two?

    – Van der Valk, Tom, et al. 2022. Evolutionary consequences of genomic deletions and insertions in the woolly mammoth genome. iScience 25, 104826. (woolly mammoths)
    – Helsen, J. et al. 2020. Gene loss predictably drives evolutionary adaptation. Molecular Biology and Evolution 37, 2989–3002. (yeast)

    That makes no sense to me. 99% of species of life on Earth are extinct. Life has almost died out several times in the history of the Earth. The Permian extinction was quite a disaster. The scientific explanation is that there was a rapid warming of the climate. ID explanation? What was the very high intelligence doing?

    Non sequitur

    You should get out more

    Bluster again.

  51. 51
    relatd says:

    JVL at 49,

    The same old same old. The National Academies of Sciences tried the same thing. The following contains a number of false statements, including the idea that you can’t get a high paying job unless you first believe in evolution.

    https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/science-and-religion

    Some Christians, in their efforts to welcome the stranger, do not take the time to understand what they read. What some “scientists” tell them. I understand that some Christians are told to be kind to others in this case, but there is no kindness involved when accepting falsehoods. It is wrong to do so.

    Matthew 24:4

    ‘And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray.”

  52. 52
    doubter says:

    AF@30

    Only if you reject evolutionary explanations and claim that an ID explanation exists for observed biological phenomena and assume this is the only alternative by default. (The Sherlock Holmes fallacy – overlooking the explanation you don’t know and haven’t considered). Do you have a mechanism for how this intervention occurs? Where is this very high intelligence, when does it act? Is it like God performing miracles or is it more observable and verifiable, not just a default assumption?

    The Darwinistic undirected purposeless semirandom walk hypothesis has been considered many times, and found seriously wanting, as documented by too many papers and articles to mention. Please cite some actual data, actual evidence, incontrovertibly establishing a Darwinistic very gradual transition leading to a complex innovative new biological system. And not a wishful thinking theoretical just so story.

    As to where the very high intelligence is, and when exactly does it act, that these questions haven’t been answered is irrelevant: such questions are beyond what ID has established or even tried to establish.

  53. 53
    Alan Fox says:

    Please explain exactly how Dr. Behe is wrong.

    OK. Behe is wrong on so many points, I hardly know where to start. Hydroquinone resistance? Would that do?

    Then please cite something substantive from Lenski’s experiment.

    The very fact it is still running debunks Sandford’s genetic entropy nonsense.

    And don’t use the citrate metabolism ploy.

    I can understand why you’d want to keep that out of play. 😉

    Behe already debunked that.

    Really? Then let’s go there.

  54. 54
    JVL says:

    Relatd: The same old same old.

    I don’t understand. This is not a statement from me, it’s a story about a major protestant sect and its approach to unguided evolutionary theory.

    The National Academies of Sciences tried the same thing.

    I didn’t link to a statement from the NAS.

    Some Christians, in their efforts to welcome the stranger, do not take the time to understand what they read. What some “scientists” tell them. I understand that some Christians are told to be kind to others in this case, but there is no kindness involved when accepting falsehoods. It is wrong to do so.

    Well, then you have an argument with them don’t you. Are you trying to work that out or are you spending a lot of time blaming atheists when there’s a lot more Christians who are ‘your’ problem?

    From a non-Christian point of view there doesn’t seem to be a coherent and consistent and agreed-upon view amongst Christians regarding a lot of topics like unguided evolution, same-sex marriage, etc. Far be it for me to decide what you guys should think. But you can’t expect me to decide which amongst you is actually representing the faith and which are not. A non-believer should not be making judgement about ecclesiastical issues, that’s up to you. And when you guys don’t agree then . . .

  55. 55
    Alan Fox says:

    As to where the very high intelligence is, and when exactly does it act, that these questions haven’t been answered is irrelevant: such questions are beyond what ID has established or even tried to establish.

    *chuckles*

  56. 56
    Querius says:

    Relatd @40,

    I watched on TV as a voiceover explained that if a planet was the right distance from its sun, had water, and the “building blocks of life” – amino acids – that life would appear there. Really?

    Yep!!! And this theory has a name and once had scientific consensus, supported by none other than Aristotle himself!!!

    The name of the concept is spontaneous generation and it involved some famous experiments. Here are the procedures:

    Jan Baptista Van Helmont’s experiment:
    1. Place a dirty shirt in an open pot or barrel containing grains of wheat or some wheat bran.
    2. In 21 days, spontaneously generated mice will appear.
    3. There will be adult males and females present and they will be capable of sexual reproduction.

    Common knowledge:
    1. Place some rotting meat in a jar.
    2. In a few days, maggots will be spontaneously generated from the meat.

    John Needham’s experiment
    1. Boil some broth with an infusion of plant and animal matter.
    2. Put the liquid in sealed flasks.
    3. After a few days, the broth became cloudy with myriads of spontaneously generated microscopic creatures.

    These scientific experiments were sadly falsified by Francesco Redi, Lazzaro Spallanzani, and Louis Pasteur.

    However, there’s hope! A new version of spontaneous generation has emerged:
    1. Throw some rags with amino acids onto a dirty earth.
    2. Blast it with electrical discharges (as in the old Frankenstein movies), randomly heat and cool the mixture (salt the primordial soup to taste), bubble through some weird atmospheric mixtures.
    3. Wait a billion years or so.
    4. Ta-da! Life will have Spontaneously Generated, evolving in complexity and capability, producing mice, maggots, and microbes!

    Note: The alliterations are irresistible proof beyond just simple assertion that this “musta” really happened, and we go from coacervates to chimpanzees!

    And there you have it! Irrefutable science fantasy without a shred of actual biochemical evidence.

    -Q

  57. 57
    relatd says:

    Querius at 56,

    That was very good. I had to check my copy of the Primordial Soup Cookbook and there it was, buried on page 89: “We don’t know if any of this actually happened but it’s our best guess.”

    Evolution – the most prolific fictional storytelling device ever created. Our motto: “We can explain anything with some of the best conjecture you’ve ever seen. Notice: Low on facts; very low.”

  58. 58
    Querius says:

    Relatd @57,

    Yes, and Charles Darwin has become “the Aristotle of biology,” preventing legitimate scientific challenges and research into reasonable, non-racially motivated alternatives, perhaps also for hundreds of years.

    -Q

  59. 59
    doubter says:

    AF,

    Getting down to brass tacks and the main issue, you and your colleagues continue not to respond to my challenge in #52, “Please cite some actual data, actual evidence, incontrovertibly establishing a Darwinistic very gradual transition leading to a complex innovative new biological system. And not a wishful thinking theoretical just so story.”

    And there is the same failure with other challenges like it. Why might this be?

    Of course, there has been continual use of the simple argument by assertion, which is well-known to be invalid.

  60. 60
    doubter says:

    Querius@56

    You nailed it!

  61. 61
    Querius says:

    Thanks, Doubter.

    Speaking of your unanswered challenge in 52, on many occasions here, I’ve proposed an experiment with enhanced mutation of bacteria by means of irradiation to simulate millions of years of evolution. Their high reproduction rate together with their extremely high LD 50/30 make them ideal subjects. Researchers can include a variety of graded environments from ideal to extremophile.

    Not only can bacterial DNA changes be tracked, but the rate of beneficial mutations leading to features already observed in different bacteria, for example the flagella in Yersinia pestis.

    All I’ve ever seen here from the trolls is crickets in response to the challenge. They didn’t even know enough to try to pass off Lenski’s experiment as an example of the evolution of a novel feature rather than breaking a suppressor gene.

    Instead the trolls resort to ad hominem attacks and unsupported assertions, apprently believing that their vacuous opinions somehow constitute irrefutable proof. They also tend to hand out “homework assignments” that would take someone hours to put together, only to see their work waved off or ignored.

    Don’t forget that their purpose here is simply to waste your time. I don’t remember any of them providing well-supported objections. From their responses, one can easily see why I suspect that at least some of them are simply bots.

    -Q

  62. 62
    Alan Fox says:

    Hi Doubter

    Your comment 52 seems to talk about random walks. Nothing to do with evolutionary biology. What do you think you are challenging other than a very poorly built straw man?

  63. 63
    Alan Fox says:

    I’ve proposed an experiment with enhanced mutation of bacteria by means of irradiation to simulate millions of years of evolution.

    Good grief! I mean…

    Good grief!

  64. 64
    Alan Fox says:

    I’ve proposed an experiment with enhanced mutation of bacteria by means of irradiation to simulate millions of years of evolution.

    Good grief! I mean…

    Good grief!

  65. 65
    relatd says:

    AF at 63 and 64,

    Charlie? Charlie Brown? Keep this up and that sock with your name on it goes into the launcher…

  66. 66
    Querius says:

    Relatd @65,

    See what I mean? It’s a typical trollbot response.

    -Q

  67. 67
    JVL says:

    Querius: I’ve proposed an experiment with enhanced mutation of bacteria by means of irradiation to simulate millions of years of evolution.

    Well, the results will be easy to analyse as most of the ‘subjects’ will be dead.

  68. 68
    doubter says:

    Querius@61

    Instead the trolls resort to ad hominem attacks and unsupported assertions, apprently believing that their vacuous opinions somehow constitute irrefutable proof. They also tend to hand out “homework assignments” that would take someone hours to put together, only to see their work waved off or ignored.

    Don’t forget that their purpose here is simply to waste your time. I don’t remember any of them providing well-supported objections. From their responses, one can easily see why I suspect that at least some of them are simply bots.

    You nailed it again! My unfortunate experiences bear this out completely.

  69. 69
    Alan Fox says:

    They didn’t even know enough to try to pass off Lenski’s experiment as an example of the evolution of a novel feature rather than breaking a suppressor gene.

    So, why haven’t the other eleven tribes “devolved” if the breakage is so simple? And why is the one tribe now a clone of the “devolved” strain? Natural selection is the evolutionary explanation. ID? Nada!

  70. 70
    Alan Fox says:

    My unfortunate experiences bear this out completely.

    Uncommon Descent blog is not the best place to encounter mainstream biologists and biochemists. Not even soi-disant ID researchers post here. Kairosfocus, bornagain77, ET? Not exactly the A team. Hence my advice to folks who think they understand evolutionary biology enough to criticize it to get out more. Either take the argument where it may be noticed or enjoy life doing something else.

  71. 71
    ET says:

    Alan Fox:

    Behe is wrong on so many points, I hardly know where to start.

    ?
    Your cowardice is not an argument.

  72. 72
    ET says:

    Earth to Alan Fox- I am comforted by the fact that I could easily destroy you in a debate on science, ID, biology and evolution. Easily. You are too chicken to ante up!

  73. 73
    ET says:

    Only a fool thinks that natural selection produced the duplicate gene in the LTEE. The ONLY gene that could help was duplicated and then put under the control of an existing binding site that just happened to be active in the presence of oxygen.

    This is exactly what Spetner was talking about with “built-in responses to environmental cues”. THAT is how ID explains it, Alan.

  74. 74
    ET says:

    It is very telling that Alan Fox cannot come up with a scientific explanation for our existence.

  75. 75
    Alan Fox says:

    It is very telling that Alan Fox cannot come up with a scientific explanation for our existence.

    I’m hardly unique. In fact, I don’t know of anyone who can. I see we are back to, what does Joe Felsenstein call it, OTOOL?

    Advocates of ID and creationists often avoid talking about how changes of DNA sequence by mutation and by changes of gene frequency of the resulting DNA sequences increase the functional information in the DNA. They usually immediately change the subject to the Origin Of Life. I like to call this change of topic OTOOL (Off To the Origin Of Life), or STOOL (Switch To the Origin Of Life). It is moving to a much-less-well-understood topic, one where Design Intervention can be invoked.

    link

  76. 76
    ET says:

    Alan Fox once again proves that he is clueless. Joe Felsenstein is willfully ignorant.

    How life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. It is only if blind and mindless processes produced life would we say they also produced life’s diversity. Unfortunately, there isn’t any evidence for that and there isn’t any way to test it. An Intelligently Designed OoL means that organisms were so designed with the information and ability to evolve and adapt. Evolution by means of intelligent design, ie telic processes. Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of telic processes.

    That is easy to understand and yet Alan chokes on it EVERY time! Joe Felsenstein and Alan remain willfully ignorant and apparently proud of it.

  77. 77
    ET says:

    Felsenstein:

    It is moving to a much-less-well-understood topic, one where Design Intervention can be invoked.

    Biological evolution isn’t understood as evolutionary biologists still don’t know what determines biological form! The alleged evolution of prokaryotes to eukaryotes is not understood. The alleged evolution of single-celled eukaryotes to metazoans is not understood.

  78. 78
    Alan Fox says:

    Oh an “Intelligently Designed” OoL!

    That’s it folks. No mechanism. No hypothesis. No evidence. Just poof, God did it. Well, maybe, it’s a choice for anyone to believe,

    …but it’s not a scientific one. JoeG shows once again ID is not science.

  79. 79
    ET says:

    Design is a mechanism by definition. And the hypothesis was provided. Evidence has been provided. YOU choked on it because you are a coward.

    Your willful ignorance is not an argument, Alan. And all you have is willful ignorance.

  80. 80
    ET says:

    Thank you, Alan, for proving my point, again:

    How life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. It is only if blind and mindless processes produced life would we say they also produced life’s diversity. Unfortunately, there isn’t any evidence for that and there isn’t any way to test it. An Intelligently Designed OoL means that organisms were so designed with the information and ability to evolve and adapt. Evolution by means of intelligent design, ie telic processes. Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of telic processes.

    That is easy to understand and yet Alan chokes on it EVERY time! Joe Felsenstein and Alan remain willfully ignorant and apparently proud of it.

    Right on cue Alan proves he is proud of his willful ignorance.

  81. 81
    ET says:

    Felsenstein:

    Advocates of ID and creationists often avoid talking about how changes of DNA sequence by mutation and by changes of gene frequency of the resulting DNA sequences increase the functional information in the DNA.

    Liar. Felsenstein won’t post here because he knows he would be trounced by facts and reality.

  82. 82
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Darwinist logic is flawless : To get functional information from an already existent system that is run by functional information(cell environment ) is evidence that functional information can emerge from gibberish(non-life). 😆

  83. 83
    Alan Fox says:

    ,

    Design is a mechanism by definition.

    Just out of curiosity, what is the mechanism by which the “Designer” works? Is it mysterious? Observable?

    And the hypothesis was provided. Evidence has been provided.

    In which case you can cite it.

    YOU choked on it because you are a coward.

    Weird non sequitur!

  84. 84
    ET says:

    Buy a dictionary and learn how to use it. Design is a mechanism by definition. Not my fault that you are uneducated.

    I already cited the hypothesis and the evidence. Again, you choked on it.

    And it’s a fact not a non-sequitur.

  85. 85
    Alan Fox says:

    To get functional information from an already existent system that is run by functional information(cell environment ) is evidence that functional information can emerge from gibberish(non-life).

    Functional information is an invention of ID proponents. Science, it ain’t.

    Les chiens aboient. La caravanne passe.

  86. 86
    Alan Fox says:

    ET:
    I already cited the hypothesis and the evidence.

    Where?

  87. 87
    ET says:

    Again, Alan, your ignorance is not an argument. Functional information is a real thing.

    I cited the hypothesis and evidence here, Alan. You choked on it.

  88. 88
    ET says:

    Here, Alan, choke on the design hypothesis, again!

    1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
    2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
    3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
    4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems

  89. 89
    ET says:

    “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

    If we observe that and don’t have any idea how blind and mindless processes could have done it and there isn’t any evidence that they could, we are safe to infer it was accomplished by means of Intelligent Design.

  90. 90
    Alan Fox says:

    Felsenstein won’t post here because he knows he would be trounced by facts and reality.

    LOL. You don’t need Professor Felsenstein to post here. Trounce him with your facts and reality and I’ll see he gets a link to your trouncing.

  91. 91
    ET says:

    A definition of design: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan

    mechanism: a process, technique, or system for achieving a result

    plan: a method for achieving an end

  92. 92
    ET says:

    I have already trounced Felsenstein. Just read what I posted about him and you today.

  93. 93
    ET says:

    Alan:

    Just out of curiosity, what is the mechanism by which the “Designer” works?

    Design and intelligent agency volition.

  94. 94
    Alan Fox says:

    Ah! In 2015, ET/JoeG/Frankie published an OP at the Skeptical Zone with the text in ET’s comment 88 & 89.

    Testing Intelligent Design

    As there are over 600 comments, it might take a while to see what the reception was.

  95. 95
    ET says:

    Right. TSZ is filled with cowards and losers who couldn’t defend evolution by means of blind and mindless processes if their lives depended on it!

  96. 96
    Alan Fox says:

    Well, at least you took the good fight to those cowards and losers. I encourage the lurker to read those comments, as I will be doing. We can then compare notes.

  97. 97
    ET says:

    Compare notes? Compare science and evidence. I dare you to try.

  98. 98
    Alan Fox says:

    Hee hee! Joe Felsenstein in the comments. Who trounces who? I leave that as an exercise for the reader.

  99. 99
    ET says:

    Hee hee! Alan Fox is a coward. Neither Joe F nor Alan understands what I just explained to them about the OoL. And neither of them understands what ID is. And they both equivocate, bluff and lie when it comes to evolution.

    Hee hee, indeed.

  100. 100
    Alan Fox says:

    @ET

    Well, anyone can read your piece and the comments and form their own opinion.

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....nt-design/

  101. 101
    jerry says:

    As there are over 600 comments, it might take a while to see what the reception was.

    Isn’t this actually an indictment of the commenters at that site.

    If they had relevant information why isn’t it presented here. We all know why.

    Interesting, yesterday I was browsing through evolutionary biology textbooks on Amazon. One author was pleased at how he had proved ID people wrong in his introduction.

    Then I read the table of contents and the book was about micro evolution. Like most books on evolutionary biology, they left a single chapter at the end to macro evolution. I would have thought it would be the heart of the book but no, it was treated as an afterthought.

    Well, anyone can read your piece and the comments and form their own opinion.

    It seems the best evidence for naturalized evolution are flaws in ID.

    That’s not good logic let alone anything close to science. If they had evidence, it would be the first thing presented. They would not waste a second on ID.

  102. 102
    Alan Fox says:

    You could take a glance, Jerry. It’s only pixels on a screen. ET survived the experience. There’s mung and Sal Cordova commenting, too.

  103. 103
    Alan Fox says:

    They would not waste a second on ID.

    That’s true for the overwhelming majority of scientists these days.

  104. 104
    Alan Fox says:

    Design and intelligent agency volition.

    What? Do you mean that the designer wishes something which then happens? How is that a mechanism?

  105. 105
    jerry says:

    That’s true for the overwhelming majority of scientists these days

    But yet they have no evidence for their position.

    Are such individuals scientists? The logic says no. When in the history of science has a true scientist not have some evidence for his position?

    Answer: never. So these people cannot really be called scientists.

    As I said, the only answer to ID is condescension and name calling. Certainly not science.

  106. 106
    Alan Fox says:

    Real science is evidence-led.

  107. 107
    jerry says:

    It’s only pixels on a screen

    Why don’t you pick the 5-10 best comments.

    That way we don’t waste our time. Prediction: the best comments will be vacuous because:

    Real science is evidence-led

    Amazing indictment of the lack of science behind evolutionary biology made by the person who has never presented any of the evidence. Usually we don’t get such honesty here.

    far be it from me to put you to a second’s trouble

    I have been reading the non sequiturs by evolutionary biologists and their apologists for over 20 years.

    Why should I trouble myself to what will surely be repeats of the same nonsense. You apparently have been so overwhelmed by the logic and evidence, that you cannot begin to summarize it. As we say in America, don’t feel like the Lone Ranger. No one else has been able to do it either.

    I wonder why!

  108. 108
    Alan Fox says:

    Fair point, Jerry, far be it from me to put you to a second’s trouble. Off out for the evening but I’ll dig out Joe Felsenstein’s comments for a start when I get back.

  109. 109
    ET says:

    Alan Fox:

    That’s true for the overwhelming majority of scientists these days.

    Perhaps. But that alleged overwhelming majority doesn’t have a scientific explanation for our existence. So, who cares what they say about it?

  110. 110
    ET says:

    Alan Fox:

    Real science is evidence-led.

    And there isn’t any evidence that blind and mindless processes produced life and its diversity. There isn’t any evidence that blind and mindless processes, such as natural selection and drift, are capable of producing any bacterial flagellum.

    The ONLY evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is genetic diseases and deformities.

  111. 111
    ET says:

    Design and intelligent agency volition.

    Alan Fox:

    What? Do you mean that the designer wishes something which then happens?

    No. It means the designers implement the plans as best they see fit.

  112. 112
    ET says:

    Alan Fox:

    Well, anyone can read your piece and the comments and form their own opinion.

    Yes, they can. And we know what the majority of people here will say about it.

    What people can’t do is refute what I posted. What they cannot do is demonstrate that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is in an y way a scientific explanation for our existence.

  113. 113
    BobSinclair says:

    Alan, I had some free time so I took a look through the thread you have been referring people too. In my opinion it offers nothing of worth as too your current debate with with participants here at UD.

    Is they’re any particular comment/comments you’d like to direct my attention too?

    Is it a discussion of ID you’d like to have again?(I noticed you were a participant in the thread six years ago) Do you require intimate knowledge of how a designer accomplished it’s work?, be it Alien or God if you prefer.
    Do you want a discussion of irreducible complexity? (that also came up on your thread.) or about fitness?. Which part of the thread am I to be referred too?.

    Bob

  114. 114
    Alan Fox says:

    Well, the opening post was written by ET (under the pseudonym Frankie) and ET reposted the text here, comments 88 & 89, as a challenge. Many commenters responded to Frankie’s challenge in comments under the OP so I thought it worth looking through to save the wheel being reinvented. I already said I’d quote Joe Felsenstein as he has been in the past less dismissive of Dembski’s CSI than other academics. Not going to do that using my phone so it will have to wait a while

  115. 115
    ET says:

    Yes, Alan. The first page of responses doesn’t offer any valid objection to my post. And it doesn’t get any better. Joe Felsenstein thinks it’s OK to start with the very CSI that he cannot account for to explain CSI in genomes. All the while ignoring the fact that he is engaging in question-begging.

    And what I posted in 88 & 89 weren’t a challenge as much as they refuted what Alan had posted.

    What is observed on TSZ is their ignorance of science. They don’t understand Newton’s 4 rules. They don’t understand parsimony. And they don’t understand Occam’s razor. The fact is if evolution by means of blind and mindless processes, including the alleged chemical evolution for the OoL, something like it would have to be invented as science mandates that all design inferences first eliminate necessity and chance explanations. For example, if nature can account for something, then archaeologists cannot claim it is an artifact.

    This stupidity of “ID must stand on its own” demonstrates ignorance as to what science entails.

  116. 116
    jerry says:

    I tried to go to the link and apparently the comments shown on a page are limited so that one has to constantly open additional pages.

    I couldn’t search for Felsenstein. So I stopped.

  117. 117
    JVL says:

    ET: Functional information is a real thing.

    How do you determine it is present and how much there is?

    Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity)

    How do you determine that specified complexity is present and how much there is?

  118. 118
    ET says:

    You determine functional information is present via observation. And you don’t need to know “how much” there is with respect to specified complexity. You just need to know that it is present.

  119. 119
    ET says:

    Try this, Jerry- page 1 comments. Joe Felsenstein is on page one and a few of the next pages.

  120. 120
    doubter says:

    Alan Fox@70

    The usual contentless rhetoric, no reasoned argument, no data.

    AF@75

    …changes of DNA sequence by mutation and by changes of gene frequency of the resulting DNA sequences increase the functional information in the DNA.

    The usual mindless repetition of Darwinist dogma. Accompanied by continued studied ignoring of the challenges to cite some real data. For instance mine in #11: Can you cite

    cases of experimentally induced Darwinistic evolution of truly novel adaptive complex genetic structures, and/or incontrovertible fossil evidence of the long Darwinistic succession of minute incremental changes leading to complex novel new adaptive genetic changes (rather than the actual fossil record of abrupt transitions of species with no gradual transformations)?

    It’s been quite a while and it has become obvious that as in other cases there will never be a substantive response other than more argument by assertion.

  121. 121
    ET says:

    Joe Felsenstein talks about an article he wrote that is published on the NCSE website. Yet that article proves that he doesn’t understand CSI. He is OK with question begging and thinking it’s an argument.

  122. 122
    JVL says:

    ET: You determine functional information is present via observation.

    So, if you get a signal from outer space you cannot determine if it has functional information?

    And you don’t need to know “how much” there is with respect to specified complexity. You just need to know that it is present.

    How do you know it’s present?

  123. 123
    relatd says:

    AF at 85,

    You have just won the Beyond Troll Award, given for examples of exceptional trolling. You can claim you don’t understand English but you are able to insult people in French?

    “Dogs bark. The caravan passes.”

    Alan,

    Put a sock in it. Get a real job. I think you’re getting tired of your current assignment.

  124. 124
    ET says:

    JVL:

    So, if you get a signal from outer space you cannot determine if it has functional information?

    Non-sequitur. With an unknown signal from space the best we could hope for is to determine if nature did it or is it artificial. Unless, of course, we observed that signal starting some unknown technology we had captured.

    How do you know it’s present?

    Observation.

  125. 125
    JVL says:

    ET: Non-sequitur. With an unknown signal from space the best we could hope for is to determine if nature did it or is it artificial. Unless, of course, we observed that signal starting some unknown technology we had captured.

    Could it be artificial without any function?

    Observation.

    What do you ‘observe’ when you observe specified complexity?

    Let’s say we’re trying to determine if part of a particular human genome has functionality or specified complexity. How do you proceed?

  126. 126
    Alan Fox says:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....ent-103036

    Joe Felsenstein:

    For Specified Complexity, when you say that

    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

    is your argument that natural processes cannot put Specified Complexity into the genome? Or is the “origin” considered to be earlier than the time at which natural selection acts (the time at which there are differences between genotypes in viability or fertility)?

  127. 127
    Alan Fox says:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....ent-103165

    Frankie: By starting with a genome you are starting with the very thing that needs to be explained. But I digress, present the evidence that you think shows natural selection producing specified complexity and we can have a look

    Joe Felsenstein

    You make it clear that any argument I make about what happens after the first genome arises will be waved aside, saying that I am “starting with the very thing that needs to be explained”.

    So yours is a front-loading argument. In arguing from Specified Complexity, you argue that all of it was present right at the beginning.

    Thus you do not argue that there is some barrier to natural selection (differences of viability and fertility among genotypes) bringing about highly-fit, well-adapted organisms that are Specified by being far out on the scale of fitnesses.

  128. 128
    Alan Fox says:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....ent-103329

    Frankie:

    Joe Felsenstein: You make it clear that any argument I make about what happens after the first genome arises will be waved aside, saying that I am “starting with the very thing that needs to be explained”.

    So yours is a front-loading argument.In arguing from Specified Complexity, you argue that all of it was present right at the beginning.

    Thus you do not argue that there is some barrier to natural selection (differences of viability and fertility among genotypes) bringing about highly-fit, well-adapted organisms that are Specified by being far out on the scale of fitnesses.

    Whatever, Joe. You don’t have anything anyway. If you did it would be in peer-review

    My argument was published in the Reports of the National Center for Science Education in 2007. And your argument was published … where?

    Anyway, you have confirmed that, when you say that when you say that starting with a genome is “starting with the very thing that needs to be explained”, that your argument is that all the Specified Complexity is present from the beginning in the first genome. An extreme front-loading argument.

    And that means that you have no argument that later natural selection is somehow unable to put information that codes for adaptations into the genome.

  129. 129
    Alan Fox says:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....ent-103336

    Frankie,</strong

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....ent-103332

    My argument is about Specified Complexity and CSI. You seem to have them conflated with Irreducible Complexity.

    My whole effort has been to work out whether Dembski’s Specified Complexity) and CSI arguments work. They don’t. The arguments I presented in the NCSE paper are correct — I am sorry to hear that you did not understand them.

  130. 130
    Alan Fox says:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....ent-103341

    Extreme front-loading again.

    How about it, Mung? Salvador? Fifthmonarchyman? Do you agree with Frankie’s position that Dembski’s argument is about the Origin of Life, and not evolution after that?

  131. 131
    Alan Fox says:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....ent-103412

    mung:

    Joe Felsenstein: Thus you do not argue that there is some barrier to natural selection (differences of viability and fertility among genotypes) bringing about highly-fit, well-adapted organisms that are Specified by being far out on the scale of fitnesses.

    I wanted to see Frankie’s reply before I stepped in, and now I’ve seen it.

    Can you explain a little more about what you mean when you say “organisms that are Specified by being far out on the scale of fitnesses,” in particular, how you are using the term fitness.

    Are you using it in some way that isn’t related to comparative numbers of offspring? 100 offspring would suggest greater fitness than 99 offspring, but hardly suggests that 100 offspring is “way out on the scale of fitnesses.”

    Implicit in the notion of Specified Information (as used by Orgel and by Dembski) is that there is some sort of scale. Explicit in Dembski’s Complex Specified Information, as he used it in 2002 in No Free Lunch, is that one has CSI if the organism is far out enough on that scale that an organism that extreme or more extreme would have a probability less than 10^{-150} under an hypothesis of “chance”.

    You can imagine a monkey with a 4-letter typewriter typing strings of A, C, G or T (or a mutational process doing the same, in the absence of natural selection). If we have a moderately well-adapted species such a fish that can swim, what is the probability of getting an organism that does that well if its genome is typed by the monkey? Surely far less than 10^{-150}, so I agree with Dembski, and disagree with many of his opponents here, that the organism has CSI.

    That is using fitness as the scale. Keep in mind that fitness is not just number of offspring but also probability of survival. It is the expected number of offspring of a newborn. So in your example almost all the organisms whose genomes were typed by the monkey would be random piles of organic chemicals without even organized cells. Their fitness would be basically zero.

    (I have used only processes like mutation for “chance”, because I think that this is what Dembski meant in 2002 — he wanted his Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information to be a guarantee that natural selection could not cause an organism to have CSI if it didn’t have it originally. Later, in 2005, he defined Specified Complexity so as to include natural selection as one of the “chance” mechanisms, and later claimed that this is what he meant all along. That later definition has its own problems, mostly by being useless and forcing the reader to do all the important work.)

  132. 132
    Alan Fox says:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....ent-103541

    Mung:

    Hi Joe,

    I guess I’m confused by the association of specificity [or specified] with fitness. I’ve never really thought of it in those terms and don’t know [yet] how to make the transition to that mode of thinking about it.

    I think more along the line of a sequence of bases specifying a polypeptide, or a sequence of amino acids specifying a protein.

    Joe Felsenstein: That is using fitness as the scale. Keep in mind that fitness is not just number of offspring but also probability of survival. It is the expected number of offspring of a newborn. So in your example almost all the organisms whose genomes were typed by the monkey would be random piles of organic chemicals without even organized cells. Their fitness would be basically zero.

    In your example of the monkeys, I would think of of everything they produce as close on a fitness scale because they all come from a typewriter, which is itself specified to produce output from a finite set. Not fit would be throwing the typewriter against the wall and having it shatter on the floor.

    Let’s say we have two different enzymes. I suppose we can both agree they are specified. How do we decide which once is more specified than the other or which one is more fit than the other? What do we do to get them on the same scale?

    If you don’t want to use enzymes, how about coins? ?

    There are various scales you can use for specification. We’re talking about Dembski’s 2002 argument in No Free Lunch so let me go there for support (actually the copy I have is the 2007 First Paperback Edition, so the page numbers I give will be from there).

    In a crucial passage Dembski considers what to use for the specification. Here is the paragraph, quoted in full. In the edition I have this is in Chapter 3 (“Specified Complexity as Information”) in section 3.7 (“Biological Information”), on pages 148-149:

    Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence those systems are specified in the sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be cashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of the minimal function of biochemical systems. Darwinist Richard Dawkins cashes out biological specification in terms of the reproduction of genes. Thus, in The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins writes, “Complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is highly unlikely to have been acquired by random chance alone. In the case of living things, the quality that is specified in advance is … the ability to propagate genes in reproduction.”

    (There are footnotes 29, 30, and 31 also given in the sentences on Wouters. Behe, and at the end of the passage from Dawkins, giving citations which are at the end of the chapter, on pages 174-175 in my copy.)

    So my use of fitness as the scale is in line with these folks, who Dembski cites approvingly as giving examples of what he is talking about.

    Note that Dembski is talking about scales like viability (itself a component of fitness — in simple discrete-generations diploid models fitness is 1/2 the product of viability and fertility). However one can also talk about a single gene producing a single enzyme, and discuss a scale such as reaction speed. This is what is done by Hazen, Griffin, Carothers, and Szostak in their 2007 paper on “Functional Information” in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which has often been cited by Dembski as defining a concept equivalent to Orgel’s Specified Information.

  133. 133
    Alan Fox says:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....ent-103544

    phoodoo: Joe Felsenstein: Keep in mind that fitness is not just number of offspring but also probability of survival. It is the expected number of offspring of a newborn

    Expected by who?

    Is fitness affected by the person doing the expectations?

    No. We’re talking about simple models of population genetics here. There are genotypes and they have fitnesses. In a simple model with discrete generations and diploid organisms the fitnesses are half the expectations of the product of viability and fertility, so half the expected number of offspring.

    And yes, as various people saw, I am using “expectation” in the mathematical sense, of the expectation of a random variable. Not the hopes and dreams of the researcher.

    The whole issue of how you measure fitness in practice for real organisms is irrelevant here. It is just like a model in physics where each object has a mass, whether or not we can measure the mass in practice.

  134. 134
    relatd says:

    Pfft!

    Every word I write is specific, complex and in the right order to be understood.

    Below is the same sentence but compressed:

    EverywordIwriteisspecificcomplexandintherightordertobeunderstood

    Here is an example of “evolution”:

    dtftyuop brrtfyiop dfghiop dfghiopikp blah blah dgfhjguhiojo gghjkpp dfgo

    Complex but not ordered or specific. In other words, useless.

  135. 135
    Alan Fox says:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....ent-103786

    seems to be Professor Felsenstein’s last comment in that thread.

  136. 136
    Alan Fox says:

    Here is an example of “evolution”:

    No it isn’t.

  137. 137
    relatd says:

    AF at 136,

    Beware. That sock will be incoming soon I suspect…

  138. 138
    jerry says:

    Why are we reading something from a discussion 6 1/2 years ago that goes no where and says nothing relevant?

    This is one of the more absurd discussions I have seen anywhere. But what else is new.

    Now, I only read Feselstein’s comments because I was told they were insightful but he said nothing of note. He’s just commenting on CSI. Did anyone else make any kind of case for anything?

    Again nothing presented as evidence for naturalized Evolution.

  139. 139
    Alan Fox says:

    Why are we reading something from a discussion 6 1/2 years ago that goes no where and says nothing relevant?

    Because ET pasted it as if it was news in comment 88 & 89. I noticed it was a copy of something he’d posted at TSZ and pasted a link. Others, you included, wanted to see some comments without the bother of following my link.

    A pointless exercise, I agree, but you and others asked.

  140. 140
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 138,

    You don’t get it? The Trolls have made a commitment. Don’t you get it? Intelligent Design cannot get into the classroom. So instead of anything of substance, it has to be shouted down daily. As in daily.

    It cannot become a popular idea among the people. Why? Because it can push so-called Evolution out of the classroom. The Atheist goal of telling people Nothing Made You has to continue. It does not matter that Evolution cannot explain reality. The channels of communication must be clogged with the ‘evolution is a fact’ message to keep people confused. That is why, instead of actual discussion, the trolls toss out nonsense hoping people will be confused and not take ID seriously as they should.

  141. 141
    Alan Fox says:

    Again nothing presented as evidence for naturalized Evolution.

    That wasn’t the point of ET’s comments 88 & 89. It was about the testability of “Intelligent Design”.

  142. 142
    Alan Fox says:

    That is why, instead of actual discussion, the trolls toss out nonsense hoping people will be confused and not take ID seriously as they should.

    Every tub must stand on its own bottom. If, for the sake of argument, I accept evolution is an inadequate theory, it does not change the fact that “Intelligent Design” fails to meet the lowest standard for any kind of positive hypothesis. Reject evolution and look for a better explanation, by all means. Don’t pretend ID offers anything in the way of explanations.

  143. 143
    jerry says:

    Don’t pretend ID offers anything in the way of explanations.

    This has to be one of the most stupid statements here is a long time.

    1) ID denies certain things are due to the four basic forces of physics. Seems to be true as no evidence has ever been presented that these certain things can arise as the result of the forces of physics.

    2) ID suggest that an intelligent mind could have been the cause of these certain things because similar things have arisen due to a intelligent mind in our world.

    How is this not an explanation? Neither 1) or 2) may be correct but it is certainly an explanation. One that is based on logic.

    To deny 2) one has to arbitrarily say there is/has been no other intelligence in the history of the universe.

  144. 144
    relatd says:

    AF at 142,

    Nothing made the universe and living things? Yes or no.

  145. 145
    Alan Fox says:

    This has to be one of the more stupidest statements here is a long time.

    Should be easy to refute, then. What does ID explain?

  146. 146
    BobSinclair says:

    Jerry, from what I gathered from the thread the only other relevant? topic which came up briefly was about a paper cited about a knockout experiment on the flagellum and how a mutation turned it back on. This was given as disproving the flagellum as irreducibly complex.

  147. 147
  148. 148
    Alan Fox says:

    Nothing made the universe and living things? Yes or no.

    As regards the universe, I don’t know and neither do you. As regards living things, fission and sex covers the vast majority. But you want to STOOL, I guess.

  149. 149
    relatd says:

    BS at 146,

    The whole point of ID is to show that blind, unguided chance has no chance of making anything. Coded instructions in living things need to be complex, specific and in the correct order to allow for their function. Blind, unguided chance has no chance to produce any living thing.

  150. 150
    relatd says:

    AF at 148,

    I don’t live in “know nothing land.” Anyone who follows ID knows that an intelligence made everything not blind unguided chance.

  151. 151
    BobSinclair says:

    Relatd I believe you may have mistook my intent, I was not questioning ID, Jerry had asked if anything else relevant to the discussion came up on that thread, I mentioned a paper cited as evidence against irreducible complexity as possibly relevant? or perhaps not.

  152. 152
    relatd says:

    BS at 151,

    I probably did. However, there are so many things to examine that the average reader can easily lose his way. My point is to keep repeating the basic premise behind ID.

  153. 153
    jerry says:

    This was given as disproving the flagellum as irreducibly complex.

    I was not aware of this being discussed.

    But quickly, if all the proteins are there and one has been turned off by a knockout experiment, given enough time, it is likely that one of the entities where the gene was changed might change back. That’s very different from starting from scratch and building the complete protein.

    Now, if the entire DNA sequence was knocked out and not just a small part of it, that would be a very interesting topic and should be discussed.

  154. 154
    vividbleau says:

    AF
    “As regards the universe, I don’t know and neither do you. “

    Speak for yourself Alan, I do know. Folks this is what you are dealing with, someone who does not know if something can come from nothing!! Being from non being, being before being, this is batshit crazy. Anyone who believes something can come from nothing can believe all kinds of impossible things.

    “Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said; “one can’t believe impossible things.” “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

    Vivid

  155. 155
    vividbleau says:

    “Here is an example of “evolution”:

    dtftyuop brrtfyiop dfghiop dfghiopikp blah blah dgfhjguhiojo gghjkpp dfgo”

    To be fair this is not Alan’s position.

    Vivid

  156. 156
    BobSinclair says:

    Jerry, I wouldn’t call it a discussion, the paper was brought up by one user and shown to another with the description that behe was wrong about irreducible complexity, after that the topic appears to have been dropped.

  157. 157
    relatd says:

    Vb at 155,

    Not Alan’s position? How so? Gibberish created life? Gibberish code controls cellular function? Like a computer program, the code has to be precise. It is by nature, complex, specific and in the correct order. Just like the preceding sentence.

    Alan’s purpose here is to mock ID. To present what he thinks, or wants others to think, are legitimate challenges to ID. And I’ve observed his “I don’t understand” moments which are carefully timed.

    Alan is not just a heckler in the audience, he wants to confuse people about ID, about which, various people, including myself, have given him clear examples. He can see those examples for what they are: good, functional examples. But he can never agree. If he did, he would be promoting ID, which he can’t do.

  158. 158
    Querius says:

    JVL wrote about my proposed experiment on irradiated bacteria simulating deep time for rate of mutation and novel features:

    Well, the results will be easy to analyse as most of the ‘subjects’ will be dead.

    No they won’t. Look up the LD 50/30 of bacteria. All one has to do is keep the temperature down.

    -Q

  159. 159
    Alan Fox says:

    Vividbleau:

    Speak for yourself Alan, I do know. Folks this is what you are dealing with, someone who does not know if something can come from nothing!! Being from non being, being before being, this is batshit crazy. Anyone who believes something can come from nothing can believe all kinds of impossible things.

    I suspect we disagree on what the word “know” means. One widely reported theory is that the universe expanded from a much smaller, hotter, denser state some 14 billion years ago. I understand that astronomical observations are in line with the theory. I don’t know this for a fact and neither do you. I think the theory can be stretched to suggest that this universe began with a singularity but I’m not sure there is much to choose between a “big bang” and a ‘big bounce”.

    Of course there are many religious origins stories and other ways of knowing so that possibly explains how you know and I don’t.

  160. 160
    Alan Fox says:

    All one has to do is keep the temperature down.

    This could be the first practical ID experiment. Get to it, guys.

  161. 161
    vividbleau says:

    “Of course there are many religious origins stories and other ways of knowing so that possibly explains how you know and I don’t.”

    No it doesn’t. My religious beliefs have nothing to do with me knowing that something cannot come from nothing , sheesh can’t believe you don’t know that as well.

    “One widely reported theory is that the universe expanded from a much smaller, hotter, denser state some 14 billion years ago. I understand that astronomical observations are in line with the theory. I don’t know this for a fact and neither do you. I think the theory can be stretched to suggest that this universe began with a singularity but I’m not sure there is much to choose between a “big bang” and a ‘big bounce”.

    To say the universe self exists is light years away from the batshit crazy idea that existence can come into existence from non existence.

    Vivid

  162. 162
    Alan Fox says:

    …something cannot come from nothing…

    Not something I’ve any expertise in but strange things happen at the quantum level.

    And what about miracles? Where did the wine come from? There are no carbon atoms in water.

  163. 163
    Alan Fox says:

    To say the universe self exists is light years away from the batshit crazy idea that existence can come into existence from non existence.

    Why are you telling me? I’ve never made such a claim.

  164. 164
    Alan Fox says:

    Though it does occur to me that ID proponents here are consistent in making negative claims while offering no support for an ID alternative to explanations they so readily reject.

    You are no exception, Vivid.

  165. 165
    vividbleau says:

    “Though it does occur to me that ID proponents here are consistent in making negative claims…”

    I am not making a negative claim I am making a positive claim, I know existence ( being) cannot come from nothing ( non being). How do I know? I know because if there was nothing I would be nothing but I am not nothing.. Actually it is impossible to even imagine nothing because you would be thinking of something to conceptualize nothing.

    “You are no exception, Vivid.”

    Is this supposed to be some kind of pithy rebuttal, is this the best you can do?

    Vivid

  166. 166
    vividbleau says:

    “Actually it is impossible to even imagine nothing because you would be thinking of something to conceptualize nothing.”

    Give it a go Alan.

    Vivid

  167. 167
    jerry says:

    offering no support for an ID alternative to explanations they so readily reject.

    Another incredibly stupid statement.

    ID accepts nearly 100% of the findings and conclusions of traditional science. So what findings does it reject?

    Answer: none. ID is equivalent to an historical event for which something happened one time. Science is equivalent to an ongoing process due to the four basic forces of physics operating.

    There’s no reason to believe these forces are not continually operating either through out history or today. But yet there are certain assertions that are not seen today or evidence for happening in the past. Remember, they are not one time.

    Yet certain events did happen. Such events could be explained by an intelligence operating. They would be one time events.

    That’s what ID says could explain the events not seen as possible by the four forces of physics.

    Conclusion: there is no scientific finding that ID rejects. If there is, please indicate what it is. ID will reject assertions without evidence put forth as truth. As should any logical person.

    Aside: Alan Fox reappeared here under the guise of
    ‘Let’s have a reasonable discussion.” How long did that last before one absurdity after the other showed up.

  168. 168
    ET says:

    Joe Felsenstein:

    My argument was published in the Reports of the National Center for Science Education in 2007.

    Tat “argument” proves that he doesn’t know what he is talking about!

    Anyone can read what Felsenstein wrote and see he doesn’t understand ID:

    https://ncse.ngo/has-natural-selection-been-refuted-arguments-william-dembski

  169. 169
    ET says:

    Alan Fox is either a pathological liar or willfully ignorant.

    The positive case for ID has been made. And comparing ID to evolution by means of blind and mindless processes, it is clear that ID offers the only scientific explanation for our existence.

  170. 170
    ET says:

    What I posted in 88 & 89 still stands. Nothing that Alan linked to changes that fact. Nothing that Joe Felksenstein has written changes that fact.

    Alan is just a hypocrite and a scientifically illiterate coward.

  171. 171
    ET says:

    If ID doesn’t explain anything, then archaeology doesn’t explain anything. Forensic science doesn’t explain anything. Plagiarism doesn’t explain anything. Patent infringements don’t explain anything.

    Of course, Alan will deny all of that, but Alan isn’t very bright.

  172. 172
    ET says:

    Alan Fox:

    Every tub must stand on its own bottom.

    WRONG!

    As I so patiently have explained to Alan is that ALL design inferences must first eliminate necessity and chance as explanations. With respect to ID taht means that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes MUST be eliminated first BEFORE a design inference can be considered.

    Alan is clearly ignorant of science- willfully ignorant.

    Newton’s 4 rules of scientific reasoning refute Alan. Parsimony refutes Alan. And Occam’s razor refutes Alan.

  173. 173
    ET says:

    Joe Felsenstein:

    An extreme front-loading argument.

    Nope. Just as I said back then, too.

    that means that you have no argument that later natural selection is somehow unable to put information that codes for adaptations into the genome.

    That means that YOU are question-begging by using the very thing you need to account for to account for it! You don’t have any idea if it was natural selection or not. Raed “Not By Chance” and stop being such a question-begging fool.

  174. 174
    ET says:

    It should be noted that the ONLY positive case for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes are genetic diseases and deformities. Neither Alan, nor anyone at TSZ, will present a testable hypothesis for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes, such as natural selection and drift, producing a bacterial flagellum, for example.

  175. 175
    JVL says:

    ET: If ID doesn’t explain anything, then archaeology doesn’t explain anything. Forensic science doesn’t explain anything. Plagiarism doesn’t explain anything. Patent infringements don’t explain anything.

    That’s ridiculous. BY DEFINITION archaeology and plagiarism (and to some extent forensic science) start off with a human designer! Archaeology is BY DEFINITON the study of the material remains of human beings. The part where they decide: human made or naturally created is only the very first step arguably before you consider an ‘artefact’ archaeological say. The whole point of the disciplines is to say something more about the human(s) who created the effect. Archaeology is NOT about studying natural phenomena, it’s about studying human created objects.

    ID, on the other hand, has failed to progress beyond a very contested design inference. The only, minor, ongoing work being done by a small handful of ID researchers is continually trying to shore up the negative case that natural processes are inadequate. ID proponents can’t even agree when design was/is implemented (was it all front-loaded or has there been ongoing tinkering). If you can’t agree on when then you can’t agree on at what level.

    IF ID were analogous to archaeology then you’d be trying really hard to discover something about the designer; you’d be nailing down when design was implemented; you’d be working on how design was implemented, etc. As archaeologist do. That’s the whole point. But no one amongst the ID camp is even trying to do that. Because ID is NOT like archaeology or forensics, two disciplines who care about when and how, the exact questions they are trying to answer.

    With respect to ID taht means that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes MUST be eliminated first BEFORE a design inference can be considered.

    A negative argument. And that’s your starting point as you just admitted.

  176. 176
    BobSinclair says:

    JVL you accuse ID of making a negative argument based on the need to rule out “naturalistic” causes first before a design inference can be made, a premise to which you seem not to accept but in your previous comment regarding archeology you yourself acknowledged that archeology begins by ruling out “naturalistic” causes first before pronouncing something as an artefact, (this designed) correct?.

  177. 177
    JVL says:

    BobSinclair: you accuse ID of making a negative argument based on the need to rule out “naturalistic” causes first before a design inference can be made, a premise to which you seem not to accept

    Because many ID proponents say they are NOT using a negative argument in support of ID but ET admitted that the first step in supporting ID is first making the negative argument that natural processes are not able to produce the effect being studied.

    in your previous comment regarding archeology you yourself acknowledged that archeology begins by ruling out “naturalistic” causes first before pronouncing something as an artefact, (this designed) correct?.

    Archaeology doesn’t even start until it’s sure there’s something man-made to look at because archaeology is strictly about man-made things. They don’t go around just excavating any old place. BUT they are clear that they don’t even get started until they’re sure something is not natural. That’s upfront and clear. There’s nothing wrong with that but you have to be honest and clear about it.

    If it’s not man-made it’s not archaeology. It’s geology most likely.

  178. 178
    relatd says:

    JVL at 177,

    I’m at a crime scene. I rule out natural causes before deciding the person was murdered. Got it?

    Archaeology? I am an archaeologist. I find an object in the sand. Using comparison by observation, I rule out a natural cause before I decide it’s manmade. Is this triangular rock an arrowhead or an accidental and natural construction?

    Jut so you know, I also have a sock with your name on it. And I’m not afraid to use it.

  179. 179
    JVL says:

    Relatd: I’m at a crime scene. I rule out natural causes before deciding the person was murdered. Got it?

    Sometimes it’s obvious it’s murder. Depends on the scene.

    Archaeology? I am an archaeologist. I find an object in the sand. Using comparison by observation, I rule out a natural cause before I decide it’s manmade. Is this triangular rock an arrowhead or an accidental and natural construction?

    Where in the sand? In the middle of a settlement? What kind of object? What was it made of? Does it show signs of work? You gloss over tons of thinking trying to prove a point that is not a big deal.

    Jut so you know, I also have a sock with your name on it. And I’m not afraid to use it.

    Are you interested in hearing opinions other than those that support ID or not?

  180. 180
    relatd says:

    JVL at 179,

    Opinions mean nothing, facts do. That’s all I care about. I see you dodging and weaving around the obvious. I suggest you stop it.

  181. 181
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Opinions mean nothing, facts do. That’s all I care about. I see you dodging and weaving around the obvious. I suggest you stop it.

    Pick some facts to deal with.

  182. 182
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Archaeology doesn’t even start until it’s sure there’s something man-made to look at because archaeology is strictly about man-made things.

    Pure stupidity. They do NOT start with a conclusion.

  183. 183
    ET says:

    JVL:

    BY DEFINITION archaeology and plagiarism (and to some extent forensic science) start off with a human designer!

    Science does NOT start with a conclusion. And ID has a non-human designer!

    ID, on the other hand, has failed to progress beyond a very contested design inference.

    Being contested by whiners who don’t have any scientific explanation, doesn’t count.

    A negative argument. And that’s your starting point as you just admitted.

    You are clearly a willfully ignorant, quote-mining imp.

    ALL DESIGN INFERENCES MUST FIRST ELIMINATE NECESSITY AND CHANCE. AND, AS WITH ID, THERE ALSO NEEDS TO BE A POSITIVE CASE. THE POSITIVE CASE FOR ID HAS BEEN PRESENTED.

  184. 184
    Querius says:

    Relatd @178,

    I’m at a crime scene. I rule out natural causes before deciding the person was murdered.

    But you don’t understand evolution. The crime scene “musta” evolved over hundreds of years by tiny increments.

    – The blood on the carpet musta been preserved by the cleaning solution.

    – The room “musta” been air tight.

    – The knife protruding from the body “musta” bounced up from the garbage disposal, ricocheted off the ceiling and landed on the body post mortem.

    – After hundreds of years the knife was slowly pushed upright by shifting clothing and its weight caused it to slowly sink into the body.

    – Numerous tiny earthquakes opened the drawers in the room and spilled out the contents all over the floor . . .

    Evolution.

    -Q

  185. 185
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Funny !Evolutionary Professors as involuntary comics:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQaReWoUyyQ

  186. 186
    ET says:

    Fact- Archaeologists must first eliminate geological processes as the cause of any alleged artifact.

    Fact- Forensic scientists (even regular police investigators) must first eliminate natural causes before determining a crime was committed.

    Fact- SETI must first eliminate natural causes before determining a signal is artificial.

    Science 101. Newton’s 4 rules of scientific investigation mandate it. Parsimony mandates it. Occam’s razor mandates it.

    This has been explained to both JVL and Alan. And still they flail away like infants when it is mentioned that ID first eliminates blind and mindless processes, like natural selection and drift. They ALWAYS ignore the fact that there still needs to be a POSITIVE case in each venue, ID included.

    The real reason they don’t like the negative aspect of the design inference is that it throws it in their face that they have all of the power to refute ID and yet can only whine about it. They think that we are shifting the burden of proof. When all the while we are exposing the fact that they are eluding their burden and bluffing their way through all discussions. It sucks being eliminated and they refuse to deal with it.

  187. 187
    Querius says:

    Lieutenant Commander Data @185,
    Thank for the link to the great video!

    I liked the part where the Biology professor’s face started twitching uncontrollably! Too bad that the Darwinists here won’t watch it.

    -Q

  188. 188
    Querius says:

    ET @186,

    Fact- Forensic scientists (even regular police investigators) must first eliminate natural causes before determining a crime was committed.

    Indeed! My perception is that the Darwinists here keep repeating fantasies for natural causes of biological technologies far beyond human technologies as if there was some process that could naturally ratchet up complexity to the point of a functioning cell.

    Such a task far more difficult than hypothesizing a natural process that would result in an automobile or a cell phone.

    -Q

  189. 189
    Alan Fox says:

    Great video indeed! 🙂

    Didn’t realise Querius and LCD were YEC. I can see why they would admire the Gish gallop approach though.

  190. 190
    Alan Fox says:

    Such a task far more difficult than hypothesizing a natural process that would result in an automobile or a cell phone.

    Cars and mobile phones do not reproduce or compete for scarce resources.

  191. 191
    jerry says:

    Great video indeed! ?

    …were YEC

    What’s video to do with YEC?

    This comment is just a typical diversion from the basic question just as examples in video are. And I am certainly no YEC and am highly critical of them.

    The scientists/science majors just argue genetics. Just as Behe claims are the extent of Darwinian processes. PZ Meyer has become an ID supporter.

    From video comments

    As a biologist myself, I can say that the questions put forward by this guy are entirely valid. Although there is enough evidence for small-scale changes in organisms such as the evolution of new bacterial species, the concept of ‘macroevolution’ is still restricted to inference and not direct observation. There is a deeper issue underlying this though. At what moment will you start calling an organism a different ‘kind’. Let’s say half of an organisms features are of a frog, and the other half of a fish, what would you call it? And how much of a frog does it have to be so that it is no longer called a fish?

    This comment would be valid if there were half fish and half frogs (they should still exist) and genetically it could be shown how they transitioned.

    Get any book on evolutionary biology and macro evolution is treated as an after thought. However, the Evolution debate is 100% macro evolution. In other words all evolutionary biology has is genetics and is really not about Evolution.

    Darwinian processes only work in genetics.

  192. 192
    ET says:

    Alan Fox:

    Cars and mobile phones do not reproduce or compete for scarce resources.

    You cannot account for biological reproduction nor competing for resources! You are just a question begging fool.

  193. 193
    jerry says:

    William Briggs is both funny and really smart.

    This is what it’s like talking to someone defending Darwin’s ideas for Evolution.

    A group of New Physicists gathered out on the point the other morning, close by where I live. I get up pretty early (too early), and since not many do, I wondered what they were doing standing around in the dark.

    I went over and introduced myself, which is how I learned they were New Physicists. One of them, a woman of moderate years, explained that they were waiting for the sun to rise so that they could take some measurements.

    “But you’re facing the wrong way. East is the other direction.” I pointed over my shoulder.

    She said, “No, West is the right direction. This is West.” There was a murmur of agreement.

    “Oh, I see. You’re trying to see how the sun’s rising in the East affects something in West?” I swear I heard somebody whisper a word that, I promise, sounded like “Bigot.”

    The lead woman sighed. “East is the direction assigned to the rising by the patriarchy.” She had evidently dealt with nosy people like myself before. “We let the sun decide for itself which direction it rises in.”

    The woman who I thought said “Bigot” was staring hard at me after this, as if she was daring me to say something. I did.

    “I get it. You mean words like east, west and so on are only cultural constructions. They could have been reversed—the words, I mean—if circumstances had been different. Or like how they say higashi in Japanese, whereas we say east.”

    Lead Woman put a restraining hand on Staring Girl, who I could now see—the light was increasing—had blue hair. She was fuming. The men in the group began to back away. One
    with a scraggly beard stepped out into the water. Which isn’t as warm as you’d like it this year.

    “You’re trying to use language to obscure the fact that the sun,” Lead Woman said, “is one of an infinite variety of stars. They don’t fit in simple categories. They get to pick where they rise depending on how they were born. We don’t. You can’t force your binary thinking on stars. Stars aren’t binary.”

    I reminded her some stars are said to be binary.

    “Binary isn’t binary!” Her patience with me was ending. But she hadn’t given up on me yet. “You’re trying to use your bigoted perceptions on what the sun can do. That’s the old way of thinking. We now know that it’s best to let each star decide for itself which direction it rises.”

    Yeah, I told her, but this one is going to rise over there. I pointed to the east.

    “Risephobe!” shouted Blue Hair.

    “She’s right,” said a skinny fat guy. “You can’t impose your judgement on the sun’s rising according to how the sun really is.”

    But it will rise in the east, I told them.

    “You don’t know what the science says,” says Skinny Fat. “What you’re talking about is the old outmoded science. We now know—we have sophisticated models to show this—that stars can rise in whatever direction that best describes their true being. We have to respect that.”

    Well, sure, I said. On other planets, the stars could conceivably come up opposite of ours. That’s just the way the gravity, or whatever, worked out there. But it’s silly to say the stars on those planets “really” revolve around their stars opposite of how they actually rise. Anyway, this star, our sun, will rise over there.

    “Risephobe!” Blue Hair’s repertoire was limited.

    During all this it was getting lighter and lighter. The scientists saw this, too, and did their best to ignore me as they finished setting up their equipment. My delay cost them valuable time and they hurried at their tasks.

    Now there was a breeze blowing from the north. It wasn’t a gale, you understand, but there were some decent sized waves coming in. No white caps or anything; just standard waves.

    I kept my mouth shut and watched as they pointed everything they had west. I looked east and, sure enough, there was the sun, poking up on the horizon. I had begun to doubt myself, such was their ardency, so I confess this was a relief.

    A couple of minutes later, the sun was full up. It was a brilliant day. It wasn’t too long before the sun glinted off a wave to the west.

    One of the scientists looked up from his instrument and shouted, “I got it! I got it!”

    They gabbled among themselves, but all took turns looking at me in triumph. I smiled at them, but said nothing as I went back in to get more coffee.

    Unfortunately this is the world today. And it doesn’t seem to bother scientists that our sun rises in the east. They have their walking papers and it must be as it is in the papers they have.

    Did we ever consider that those advocating natural Evolution are automatons with a screwed up mother board? They are not able to process certain data correctly.

  194. 194
    Alan Fox says:

    What’s video to do with YEC?

    Kinds.

  195. 195
    Alan Fox says:

    And it doesn’t seem to bother scientists that our sun rises in the east.

    Weird that Jerry can build up a straw man fantasy from a poor, inaccurate and unfunny parody.

  196. 196
    jerry says:

    Kinds

    It didn’t seem to bother the evolutionary biologist/science majors.

    They knew what was being asked. Think families and higher in taxa classification. I realize that taxa has been semi replaced but new system and old system have their equivalents.

    Weird that Jerry can build up a straw man fantasy from a poor, inaccurate and unfunny parody

    It wasn’t meant to portray a real episode.

    It was a metaphor. Briggs was using it to show what is believed by some today is fantasy (just have to see/read the news to know equivalent fantasies are asserted as true)

    The video shows what the evolutionary biologist believe is on the same level as what the “New Physicists” in the parody believe, fantasies. They are just asserting nonsense that is no more justified than what the “New Physicists” are asserting.

    Thus, it definitely is not a straw-man.

    Aside: Wikipedia still recognizes the classification system using kingdom,phylum, class, order, family, genus, species. So it is useful for many.

  197. 197
    JVL says:

    ET: Pure stupidity. They do NOT start with a conclusion.

    Look, if an object isn’t man-made then studying it IS NOT archaeology. The archaeology starts AFTER the determination is made that it’s man-made. Oh sure, there are moments on a site where you’re not sure if you have a posthole or a natural soil stain. So you clean it a few times, take it down to see what happens and you pretty quickly figure out if it is a posthole or not. That does happen once in a while. IN THE MIDDLE of a site that was clearly built upon by humans. If it wasn’t clear you wouldn’t be excavating there! Archaeologists don’t just start digging at some random place. They first do a lot of historical research, they might do some field walking if appropriate, the might do some geophysical surveys if they think it’s worth it. But NO ONE starts a actual dig unless they’re damn sure there are human artefacts and structures there. There’s not enough time and money to just dig every place. Archaeologists are not pot-holders or metal detectorists.

    Science does NOT start with a conclusion. And ID has a non-human designer!

    An archaeologist’s conclusion is NOT: this is man made. You just don’t get it.

    Too bad no one can find any other evidence to support your design inference. Strange how the designer(s) left zero physical traces of their work or life support systems. Almost like they weren’t there at all!!

    Archaeologists must first eliminate geological processes as the cause of any alleged artifact.

    Too funny. No one thinks like that when they pick up a pot sherd or find a crop mark on a photograph. Archaeology is NOT ID so stop trying to say they’re doing the same thing. Most of the time is blatantly obvious that there is something man-made worth excavating or they wouldn’t excavate in the first place!!

    They ALWAYS ignore the fact that there still needs to be a POSITIVE case in each venue, ID included.

    You start off with a negative case, claim to have eliminated unguided processes (how you can do that when you don’t know if we’ve discovered all the unguided processes is beyond me) and then claim you have a positive case because you’ve eliminated what you perceived to be all the other options. And you can’t even say when designed was implemented.

    The real reason they don’t like the negative aspect of the design inference is that it throws it in their face that they have all of the power to refute ID and yet can only whine about it. They think that we are shifting the burden of proof. When all the while we are exposing the fact that they are eluding their burden and bluffing their way through all discussions. It sucks being eliminated and they refuse to deal with it.

    So, they have all the power but they have been eliminated?

    Look, you are making a claim that might even violate known laws of physics. Of course the burden of proof lies with you!! Because you’re hypothesis makes a lot of unsupported assumptions,

    Stop saying ID is just like archaeology (the whole point of which is to say something about the designers) or forensics (the whole point of which is to say something about the perpetrator). ID is nothing like those things. It doesn’t even claim to be like those things in that it says: we don’t go to the designer, that’s not what ID is about. ID is not about knowledge of the designer(s), archaeology and forensics are. That’s the point.

    You cannot account for biological reproduction nor competing for resources!

    You certainly can’t. We think this stuff is designed is not accounting for anything. It doesn’t say when, it doesn’t say how, it certainly can’t even begin to say why. ID is not a better explanation because it doesn’t explain anything. AND because no one is doing any work (like archaeologists) to try and say when and how and why.

  198. 198
    asauber says:

    JVL,

    There are recognizable characteristics of design. Just admit it and get on with your life. You can then think about doing something other than wasting our/your/everyone’s time trolling.

    Andrew

  199. 199
    JVL says:

    Asauber: There are recognizable characteristics of design. Just admit it and get on with your life. You can then think about doing something other than wasting our/your/everyone’s time trolling.

    In science it’s good to quantify and qualify things to make sure that everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet. The ID community has had a hard time being specific about what constitutes those ‘recognisable characteristics of design’ and how to measure their presence and quantity. If that can be done that would be a big step in the right direction.

    Give us some strict, solid definitions and metrics so we know precisely what you mean.

  200. 200
    relatd says:

    Querius at 184,

    That is the best – I mean best – non-explanation of >> evolution << I've ever read! Almost as good as Darwinist explanations. I mean it would be just as good if you had the words Professor of Biology in front of your name…

  201. 201
    asauber says:

    “Give us some strict, solid definitions and metrics so we know precisely what you mean.”

    JVL,

    Initially, I think I need you to agree that there is such a thing as design, as you do recognize certain designers, otherwise, you’ll lapse back into your bad philosophy. Can you agree to that?

    Andrew

  202. 202
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Initially, I think I need you to agree that there is such a thing as design, as you do recognize certain designers, otherwise, you’ll lapse back into your bad philosophy. Can you agree to that?

    I think there are human designers and even some animals.

  203. 203
    relatd says:

    JVL at 199,

    Hey. For the last time, read the post you wrote. Notice the following: it was complex, specific and in the correct order so as to be properly understood. Then realize that living things use coded instructions that need to follow the same rules. If you don’t understand that then you are a troll.

    And there you go, using that word “metrics” again. Wall Street uses that word. No need for it here.

    “Son, when you get older, I don’t ever want ta hear you use the word metrics. You hear me?”

    Yes, pa.

  204. 204
    relatd says:

    JVL at 202,

    Quit acting like an animal!

    Sorry, couldn’t resist…

  205. 205
    asauber says:

    “I think there are human designers and even some animals.”

    JVL,

    Great. Agreed. So let’s start philosophically. What do these known designers do that get them recognized by you as designers?

    Andrew

  206. 206
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Then realize that living things use coded instructions that need to follow the same rules.

    If I give you a DNA string can you determine if it’s designed? What are your criteria for complex, specific and in the right order?

    And there you go, using that word “metrics” again. Wall Street uses that word. No need for it here.

    There you go again. It’s a perfectly clear and applicable term. I took a course on Metric Spaces which had nothing to do with economics.

  207. 207
    relatd says:

    JVL at 206,

    Your obvious ability to completely understand something, followed by your claimed inability to understand it, allows me to place the following label on you: Pure 100% Unadulterated Troll.

  208. 208
    ET says:

    JVL:

    The archaeology starts AFTER the determination is made that it’s man-made.

    The determination is part of the science of archaeology. And most times they just assume humans did it.

    An archaeologist’s conclusion is NOT: this is man made.

    Make up your mind!

    Too bad no one can find any other evidence to support your design inference.

    What does that mean? ID has the evidence. You have flailing cowardice. ID has evidence in biology, geology, cosmology, physics and chemistry.

    Archaeologists must first eliminate geological processes as the cause of any alleged artifact.

    No one thinks like that when they pick up a pot sherd or find a crop mark on a photograph.

    Too funny. Today’s archaeologists stand on the shoulders of those who have already done that work.

    Archaeology is NOT ID so stop trying to say they’re doing the same thing.

    Grow up. I never said they were the same thing. Design detection is still design detection. And archaeologists, as with IDists, use our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships to make an inference.

    You start off with a negative case, claim to have eliminated unguided processes (how you can do that when you don’t know if we’ve discovered all the unguided processes is beyond me) and then claim you have a positive case because you’ve eliminated what you perceived to be all the other options.

    Wow. So, you are willfully ignorant.

    1- Science MANDATES that design inferences start off with a negative case.
    2- Science is NOT about proof.
    3- The fact that there isn’t any evidence for something is always enough with respect to science.
    4- Not one archaeologist has considered every conceivable natural process for the formation of Stonehenge, for example.
    5- The positive case for ID exists regardless of the negative case.
    6- The positive case for ID is based on our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships in accordance with newton’s 4 rules of scientific investigation, parsimony and Occam’s Razor

    So, they have all the power but they have been eliminated?

    Yes. Try following your own comments.

    Look, you are making a claim that might even violate known laws of physics.

    Look, the laws of physics is evidence for ID! And you cannot support the claim that i am making claims that might even violate known laws of physics.

    There aren’t any known laws that allow nature to produce life.

    You cannot account for biological reproduction nor competing for resources!

    JVL:

    You certainly can’t.

    Coming from a willfully ignorant and scientifically illiterate wimp, that is meaningless.

    Intelligent Design offers the only scientific explanation for our existence.

  209. 209
    JVL says:

    Asauber: What do these known designers do that get them recognized by you as designers?

    They conceive of some object or scheme that is sufficiently unique or interesting to warrant recognition of some kind. I’m including artists and engineers (and mathematicians) and designs which are conceived but not implemented (like patents). In modern times they generally all leave some kind of physical evidence or records that show it was them in particular that came up with the particular design. For things not so well documented we usually have supporting physical evidence as to their presence and abilities but we may not know the particular individual. For example: some person or persons came up with Nordic runes but we can only vaguely say who, We do know it was some humans and we know humans were around at the time and capable of coming up with runes so there is no need to look further.

    As far as animal designers are concerned we usually have observed evidence of their ability to implement their designs.

    All the designers we are aware of and have good solid physical evidence of their presence and abilities are/were terrestrial. The less knowledge we have of their presence and abilities ramps up the necessary strength of the design inference. When you factor in our knowledge of physics and cosmology the supposition of extraterrestrials being around (when exactly) is venturing into the realm of science fiction. That is, more and more assumptions.

  210. 210
    ET says:

    Alan Fox is confused, as usual. Kinds is a Biblical thing, not a necessarily just a YEC thing. YEC is based on an interpretation of a translated collection of books contained in the Bible.

  211. 211
    relatd says:

    ET at 208,

    It’s not about cowardice or willful ignorance, it’s about MAKING SURE ID DOESN”T GET INTO SCHOOLS !!!

    Got that?

    IF IT GETS INTO SCHOOLS THEN KIDS MIGHT START BELIEVING IN GOD.

    Got that?

    The current Marxist-Atheist state within a state would begin to fall apart. Can’t have that.

  212. 212
    ET says:

    How do we “know” that the ancient humans had the ability to produce the artifacts we have found? The artifacts! If Stonehenge didn’t exist no one would say that the humans of thousands of years ago had the ability to design and build it.

  213. 213
    JVL says:

    ET: The determination is part of the science of archaeology. And most times they just assume humans did it.

    You clearly do not understand how archaeology actually works in the vast majority of cases. You don’t excavate a medieval village and look at every object trying to decide if it was designed or not.

    ID has evidence in biology, geology, cosmology, physics and chemistry.

    It’s all the same argument: we can’t understand how unguided processes could have come up with this or that (the negative argument) so we conclude design. With no supporting evidence of the presence of a designer around . . . when exactly?

    Today’s archaeologists stand on the shoulders of those who have already done that work.

    No one needs to be taught that a pot sherd was from a man-made object. No one needs to think about that or ‘prove’ it. Nature does not bake clay bricks and arrange them into walls. NO ONE EVER thought: hey, we’d better first make sure this Greek urn couldn’t have come about by natural processes.

    Design detection is still design detection. And archaeologists, as with IDists, use our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships to make an inference.

    It is certainly true that we know that Roman mosaics were caused by humans.

    The positive case for ID is based on our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships in accordance with newton’s 4 rules of scientific investigation, parsimony and Occam’s Razor

    Except that you assume there was a designer around at some time you can’t specify who had tools and abilities you can’t specify who came from some place you can’t specify. Your design inference is supported by assumption after assumption after assumption not supporting evidence. So it’s not the most parsimonious explanation. Aside from the fact that the extent of the explanation is: it was designed.

    the laws of physics is evidence for ID!

    Another assumption. You have no evidence that that is true.

    And you cannot support the claim that i am making claims that might even violate known laws of physics.

    IF you designer(s) were aliens then how did they travel across the astronomical distances of the universe, implement their designs on Earth (when exactly), leave and leave zero traces of their tools, their workshops, their mode of transport, their waste, etc? Living beings affect the environment in ways that can be detected. We have no such evidence that alien beings ever visited the earth. Any explanation you have for the dearth of evidence is just science fiction.

    Intelligent Design offers the only scientific explanation for our existence.

    Then it should be able to specify when design was implemented. But it can’t.

  214. 214
    JVL says:

    Relatd: IF IT GETS INTO SCHOOLS THEN KIDS MIGHT START BELIEVING IN GOD.

    Is the discussion about science or theology?

  215. 215
    relatd says:

    JVL at 214,

    Both.

  216. 216
    JVL says:

    ET: How do we “know” that the ancient humans had the ability to produce the artifacts we have found? The artifacts! If Stonehenge didn’t exist no one would say that the humans of thousands of years ago had the ability to design and build it.

    We can also see how they developed their craft, we can find examples of failed and simpler design. It’s not just about A artefact or structure; it’s about example after example after example of how humans figured out how to do things. There are hundreds of standing stones and stone circles in the British islands and Brittany. We have boxes upon boxes upon boxes of pot sherds from different eras and we can trace the increasing sophistication of the crafting. We have some of their burial sites. We have some of their living quarters. We have some of their tools. And we can date them all to roughly the same time. It’s multiple threads of evidence all agreeing on the same conclusion.

    Otherwise we would be like the the African in the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy who finds a coca-cola bottle in the savannah and considers it so magical he wants to figure out what beings made that object. And guess what? He finds out, after being presented with the supporting data, that it wasn’t made by the gods, it was made by human beings.

  217. 217
  218. 218
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Both.

    I’ll stick with the science if you don’t mind. Stuff I can reproduce on demand. Or observe to have dependably happened time and time again under certain circumstances.

  219. 219
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Probably built built by monkeys? Maybe?

    If you consider humans and ‘monkeys’ to be closely related evolutionarily compared to humans and many other species. Primates rule!!

  220. 220
    relatd says:

    JVL at 218,

    So evolution is right out?

  221. 221
    relatd says:

    JVL at 219,

    Rule what? The banana aisle at the local grocery store?

  222. 222
    JVL says:

    Relatd: So evolution is right out?

    We have multiple lines of evidence that are all consistent with unguided evolution. And since it entails no assumed beings or processes it’s the most parsimonious explanation. If you do some work and find some more lines of evidence supporting your hypothesis then things might change. Better get to work.

    Rule what? The banana aisle at the local grocery store?

    It’s an old term common in my high school. I guess you lost your sense of humour.

  223. 223
    relatd says:

    JVL at 222,

    I see you got your Official Troll license. Multiple lines of evidence that your computer designed and built itself… Yeah, right. I’ve got a large bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.

    ID describes reality. Code does not invent itself.

    My sense of humor is just fine. Badly told uh… jokes… are badly told jokes.

  224. 224
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Code does not invent itself.

    Good thing no one said that then.

    Look, if you really want to debate unguided evolution then perhaps you should stop flinging about a cartoon version of it. It just makes you look ignorant and extremely biased.

  225. 225
    relatd says:

    JVL at 224,

    “… you look ignorant and extremely biased.”

  226. 226
    asauber says:

    “some object or scheme that is sufficiently unique or interesting to warrant recognition of some kind.”

    JVL,

    This is kind of vague. Anyway, the universe/nature is filled with this kind of thing, apart from humans and animals. So are we on to agreeing that design is ubiquitous, based on your own definition?

    Andrew

  227. 227
    JVL says:

    Relatd: “… you look ignorant and extremely biased.”

    Oh, I get it. You just want to caste aspersions and throw brickbats at anyone who disagrees with you.

    Let me know when you actually want to discuss the science.

  228. 228
    relatd says:

    Just in…

    News from The Future:

    Intelligent Design to be Taught

    (AP) The Future. Public schools will now be teaching Intelligent Design. In a stunning turn of events, the long-standing ideas proposed by Charles Darwin have fallen. In a statement released by Emeritus Professor Robert Nobody, he details the situation. “For a long time, it was believed that Darwinian processes explained changes in living organisms. That it also explained their internal functions which we now know are controlled and made possible by highly complex codes. Such codes, it has been realized, cannot come about through blind, unguided processes. This is not simply a matter of saying living things are too complicated to have evolved through such processes but a comparison with human developed programmed systems allows a direct, real world comparison.” A relative of the late Richard Dawkins expressed “profound sadness” at the news. The ACLU has filed lawsuits in all 50 United States and released the following statement: “We knew it would lead to this. The cowards who call themselves scientists have allowed this to happen.” It is unclear whether individual scientists or institutions could be the subject of investigations. Atheist groups across the country warned of a “theocracy” but there is no sign of this occurring. Various denominations stated that the truth is the truth.

  229. 229
    relatd says:

    JVL at 227,

    Your calculated attempts to not discuss anything have been noted. You don’t “understand” something after it’s been explained multiple times. You accuse others of causing personal injury when they don’t follow your lead. Your only goal? “Hey! Evo loo shun! Great stuff. Right?” No, not right. Not true.

    Your comment about “science” ignores multiple attempts at telling you that living things contain codes that are complex, specific and in a certain order and that blind, unguided chance cannot produce them, will continue to be ignored by you. Why? Because to look at that science and agree with it would make you a promoter of ID. Based on your comments, you could never do that.

  230. 230
    Querius says:

    Jerry @ 191,

    This comment is just a typical diversion from the basic question just as examples in video are. And I am certainly no YEC and am highly critical of them.

    You nailed it!

    Jerry @193,
    Hilarious! The “sun rises in the West” parody is EXACTLY the sort of mindless parroting of unsupported assertions that we continuously endure here from Darwinist ideologues.

    Scrolling through their posts:

    – We don’t see any evidence of intellectual engagement.

    – We don’t see any objections backed up with any scientific experiments or data.

    – We don’t see thoughtful responses to experimental challenges.

    All we engage with is self-refuting, vacuous trollomorph ™ blather. They’re all facing West, ideologically immune from the light shining from the East. They’re not scientific, but ascientific of the “she’s a witch” persuasion rather than being scientifically open and intellectually curious.

    The experiments I suggested are ignored because they come from the East rather than the “approved” West. Their highest priority is current orthodoxy rather than truth, they like weather vanes rather than magnetic compasses.

    Experiments:
    I. Mutagenic simulation: Subject bacteria to radiation levels consistent with millions of years of background radiation under environmental stresses to see what DNA changes take place, at what rate, and with what de novo phenomic changes that result.

    II. OOL Simulation: Create a homogeneous molecular “smoothy” from bacterial cells and subject them to presumed early earth environments (similar to Miller-Urey*) including

    – Early Atmosphere
    – Electrical discharges
    – Radiation levels
    – Temperature extremes and variation, gaseous and aqueous
    – Mechanical mixing and drying, perhaps on a clay substrate (Cairns-Smith)

    III. Should I and II be successful, then find chemical pathways for each of the components incorporated in the cells that evolve from II.

    * “The creation of amino acids from Earth’s raw materials may well have been the first step of evolution.” -PBS on Miller-Urey

    So far, the vacuous Darwinists/trollbots here have not come up with any cogent objections to these experiments.

    Either they are completely devoid of any curiosity or creativity, or deep inside, they know that such experiments will always fail, preferring instead to keep their ascientific magician’s dark cloak of unknowns, yet-to-be discoveries, rationalizations, and deep, deep time as their moral security blanket together with their thumb-sucks.

    -Q

  231. 231
    relatd says:

    Querius at 230,

    The evidence here shows the following:

    1) It is wrong to allow ID to be accepted as valid science, which it is.

    2) Say “I don’t understand” even when you do. It is wrong to agree with ID.

    3) Start long, complicated non-discussions that confuse things. It is wrong to agree with ID.

    4) Rinse and repeat ad nauseum. And I do mean nauseum.

  232. 232
    zweston says:

    It sure is affirming to read the Evos on here try to debate ID… they have nothing. Just claims and just-so stories. They don’t engage in the data, but they sure like to misdirect, nitpick, and troll.

    Tells you all you need to know.

  233. 233
    asauber says:

    Speaking of design and animals, would love to see a post on hummingbirds someday! To try and catch up with cats and bees and mammoths! 😉

    Andrew

  234. 234
  235. 235
    asauber says:

    Thanks, Relatd.

    I will read these. But I kinda wanted an official UD post about it. lol

    Andrew

  236. 236
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Flash news: When you know the truth and you act with superiority and you demand submission from the other side then the truth is you don’t know the truth.

  237. 237
    relatd says:

    LCD at 236,

    The evolution side demands agreement or they’ll call you names.

  238. 238
    asauber says:

    Anyway, I’m on a hummingbird kick because we have a zinnia flowerbed right outside the front window that the hummers love, plus the Missus bought me a feeder which is up out there in the same area, and I have been observing the little creatures live and up close the last few weeks. They are amazing.

    Andrew

  239. 239
    JVL says:

    Relatd: You don’t “understand” something after it’s been explained multiple times.

    I want you to be specific and well defined. It’s the way science is done. I don’t understand why you don’t, yourself, want ID to be put on a firm, quantitative and qualitative footing.

    You accuse others of causing personal injury when they don’t follow your lead.

    Did I? Are you sure? Did you, possibly, think that anyone who disagreed with you wasn’t understanding your arguments? As opposed to understanding your arguments but disagreeing with them?

    Your comment about “science” ignores multiple attempts at telling you that living things contain codes that are complex, specific and in a certain order and that blind, unguided chance cannot produce them, will continue to be ignored by you.

    I just want you to clearly and strictly define your terms and criteria. You assume that blind and unguided processes cannot generate what we see. There is no way you can know that for sure. I’m not ignoring your arguments, I’m disagreeing with them. There is a difference.

    Because to look at that science and agree with it would make you a promoter of ID. Based on your comments, you could never do that.

    I want to see better evidence from you. You haven’t got any evidence aside from the things you claim were designed that there were any designers around at . . . . what time was it? . . . . who did what exactly? When you can be more specific and provide more supporting evidence then I shall give your hypothesis more time.

    Just go out and do the work to support your hypothesis.

  240. 240
  241. 241
    JVL says:

    Querius: The experiments I suggested are ignored because they come from the East rather than the “approved” West.

    Carry out those experiments! By all means. How does someone else’s approval affect your ability to go ahead?

  242. 242
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    You assume that blind and unguided processes cannot generate what we see. There is no way you can know that for sure.

    We know for sure(from science itself) that unguided processes cannot generate life . Funny part is we don’t even need science for that it’s enough to ask a 3 years old kid that knows the truth better than you and this is not a metaphor.

  243. 243
    JVL says:

    LtComData: We know for sure(from science itself) that unguided processes cannot generate life

    I’d very much like to see that science.

  244. 244
  245. 245
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Intelligent Design.

    By human beings. I’m not sure what you’re trying to show.

  246. 246
    zweston says:

    JVL and whoever… what is your observable and testable evidence for Macroevolution?

    Can it be proven to be true with any certainty? What percent certain are you that it is true?

  247. 247
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    I’d very much like to see that science.

    Exactly. Origin of life scientists tried and failed bigly A science that try and fail can’t be ignored and erased just because you don’t like it. 😉 Lab experiments fail to produce life you ignore that and replace it with your hope that “maybe tomorrow” . “Maybe tomorrow” IS NOT SCIENCE is the debris of your materialism that you embaced. So materialism can’t be the result of scientific discoveries but we have evidences that science can be infected by materialist dogma( existence of darwinism for 150 years now).

  248. 248
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    “Trust the Science” : The Rise of Sudden Arrhythmic Death Syndrome

  249. 249
    bornagain77 says:

    Asauber; “Speaking of design and animals, would love to see a post on hummingbirds”

    A few notes:

    What Bird Can Fly Backwards? October 4, 2014
    Excerpt: There exists only one species of bird that can reliably fly both forward and backward with precision without relying on the assistance of wind. In fact, this bird species can fly side to side, hover, and mostly move what can best be described as a “flying ninja.” We are referring to the Hummingbird: the most nimble and tactical species of all birds.
    The hummingbird has a unique muscle and wing structure that gives them a level of flight control that other birds envy (or at least we do). You can think of a hummingbird as a miniature helicopter. Like a helicopter, the hummingbird can hover, fly right to left, left to right, diagonal, forwards, and yes, even backwards. The hummingbird has the ability to rotate its wings in circles making a figure eight. Based on the configuration of the figure eight as shown below, the hummingbird can change directions at will. So not only does the hummingbird fly backwards, it does so with great speed and grace. In fact, they fly at a speed of up to 30 mph! If you ever observe one, you will without a doubt notice their quickness. You may also notice that their wings move so quickly that they are just a blur. This blurred effect is a result of their wings flapping between 15 to 100 times per second to maintain the kind of agility to allow them to fly backwards.
    Birds that Fly Backwards: Interesting Facts

    The heart rate of a hummingbird can reach over 1,000 beats a minute.
    The fast-paced wing flapping creates a humming noise, which gives them their name.
    1/3rd of a hummingbirds total weight comes from the muscles it uses to fly.
    Hummingbirds are constantly eating in order to fuel their flight agility; they have the highest metabolisms of all birds.
    In one day, a hummingbird will eat twice its body weight to survive.

    Luckily for the hummingbird, they expend the same amount of energy moving forward as they do moving backwards!
    http://www.ponderweasel.com/wh.....backwards/

    Hummingbirds Make Flying Backward Look Easy – Sept. 2012
    Excerpt: Sapir was surprised to discover that instead of being more costly, backward flight was as cheap as forward flight and 20% more efficient than hovering.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....091924.htm

    Slow Motion Hummingbird Feeding Closeup. – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYVtdZdiD9k

    FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds – Hummingbird tongue – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMw3RO7p9yg

    Hummingbird Anatomy,,,
    Wings: A hummingbird’s wings are unlike any other bird’s wings. They allow a hummingbird fly forward, backward, hover, and even fly upside-down for a short period of time. Hummingbirds are the only birds in the world that can fly like this. A hummingbird can perform these feats of acrobatics for several reasons. First of all their shoulder joint is a ball and socket joint that allows the hummingbird to rotate their wings one hundred eighty (180) degrees in all directions. Hummingbird wings with beat about seventy (70) times per second while in regular flight and up to 200 times per second when diving. (Smaller hummingbird’s wings beat about thirty-eight (38) to about seventy-eight (78) times a second while larger ones beat their wings about eighteen (18) to twenty-eight (28) times per second.) Hummingbirds don’t flap their wings, they rotate them. When hummingbirds fly, they move their wings in an oval pattern, except when they are hovering. When they are hovering they will move their wings in a figure-eight motion. A hummingbird can fly at an average speed of twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) miles per hour, and dive at a speed of up to sixty (60) miles per hour. When hummingbirds fly, they fly upright, facing the world, not flat like most birds.
    http://www.worldofhummingbirds.com/anatomy.php

    Hummingbirds see motion in an unexpected way – January 5, 2017
    Excerpt: the hummingbird’s brain processes motion in a unique and unexpected way.
    “In all four-limbed vertebrates studied to date, most of the neurons in this [motion-detecting] brain area are tuned to detect motion coming from behind, such as would occur for an impending collision or when being attacked from behind by a predator,” says Douglas Altshuler of the University of British Columbia. “We found that this brain area responds very differently in hummingbirds. Instead of most neurons being tuned to back-to-front motion, almost every neuron we found was tuned to a different direction. We also found that these neurons were most responsive to very fast motion.”,,,
    “This study provides compelling support for the hypothesis that the avian brain is specialized for flight and that hummingbirds are a powerful model for studying stabilization algorithms,” Gaede says.
    http://phys.org/news/2017-01-h.....ected.html

  250. 250
    Querius says:

    JVL @241,

    Carry out those experiments! By all means. How does someone else’s approval affect your ability to go ahead?

    LOL. You must be joking! The burden of proof is for proponents of the racist 19th century theory and OOL theories.

    They’re the ones needing to do these experiments, but as you can see, so far they’ve all taken a powder and have disappeared as I predicted!

    The three experiments are my challenge to them.

    -Q

  251. 251
    Alan Fox says:

    They’re the ones needing to do these experiments, but as you can see, so far they’ve all taken a powder and have disappeared as I predicted!

    *chuckles*
    Make a worthwhile comment and I’ll respond.

  252. 252
    AndyClue says:

    @Relatd:

    Just in…

    News from The Future:

    Intelligent Design to be Taught

    You forgot to mention: The movie is directed by Kevin Sorbo and will be broadcasted on TBN. 😀

  253. 253
    JVL says:

    LtComData: Exactly. Origin of life scientists tried and failed bigly

    I guess you’re not really paying attention. I said I’d like to see the science that proves that unguided processes cannot lead to life. If you can show me that science I’d be very interested.

    Lab experiments fail to produce life you ignore that and replace it with your hope that “maybe tomorrow” .

    Oh, right. Just because we haven’t managed to do it in a few decades of trying means it can’t happen. Really? I guess we can throw out continental drift as well. And, that Grand Canyon . . . must have been designed ’cause we’ve never seen erosion do that much work.

    “Maybe tomorrow” IS NOT SCIENCE is the debris of your materialism that you embaced.

    Good thing no one is saying ‘maybe tomorrow’ when saying that unguided evolution is a well supported theory.

    Oh, by the way, when did your designer implement design? How did they get to the Earth?

  254. 254
    JVL says:

    Zweston: JVL and whoever… what is your observable and testable evidence for Macroevolution?

    The observable is partly historic obviously: the geo-biologic record, the fossil record, the morphological record and the genomic record are all consistent with unguided evolutionary processes.

    We have seen life forms adapt and change in response to changes in their environment (including selective breeding) for thousands of years. And, like climbing a set of stairs, it makes no sense to say: well, you showed you can climb one step but that doesn’t mean you can climb the whole staircase. There is no reason to assume that a lot of small steps can’t add up to major changes. That’s just an ID assertion with no evidence to support it.

    Can it be proven to be true with any certainty? What percent certain are you that it is true?

    Science doesn’t ‘prove’ anything. Only in mathematics do you have proofs.

    I am very, very certain it’s true.

  255. 255
    JVL says:

    Querius: LOL. You must be joking! The burden of proof is for proponents of the racist 19th century theory and OOL theories.

    Not at all. The theory of unguided evolution is widely supported and accepted. If you want to find contrary evidence then you can do the work yourself. YOU are the one claiming the existing theory is incorrect therefore the burden of proof is on you to show it’s wrong.

    They’re the ones needing to do these experiments, but as you can see, so far they’ve all taken a powder and have disappeared as I predicted!

    Oh, sorry, I forgot to disappear.

    The three experiments are my challenge to them.

    When are you going to do those experiments? You’re the one proposing the existing paradigm is incorrect so it’s up to you to support your claim.

  256. 256
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Just because we haven’t managed to do it in a few decades of trying means it can’t happen.

    😆 Is your wishful thinking a scientific evidence?

  257. 257
    JVL says:

    LtComData: Is your wishful thinking a scientific evidence?

    Like I said: I think the historical evidence is strong enough to warrant supporting unguided evolutionary theory. Coupled with the past two millennia of observed changes (including some amazing bits of selective breeding) it looks like a done deal to me. It’s you that wants to see some huge change in a short period of time. Which is weird because no one is saying it happens overnight.

    Besides, you’ve got lots of work to do to find more evidence of design. Are you working on that? When was design implemented? You should at least be able to give some kind of estimate of that with supporting evidence.

  258. 258
    Alan Fox says:

    Regarding macro-evolution, I’m pleased to see definitions are evolving.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

    That there is anything more to macro-evolution beyond time and an accumulation of small, selected changes has always seemed dubious to me, despite a disagreement I had with Nick Matzke on this site. I see the once shiny idea of species selection has lost some brilliance.

  259. 259
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, that’s improperly seizing the default: 253>> I’d like to see the science that proves that unguided processes cannot lead to life.>> For excellent reason, Newton emphasised that claimed mechanisms should have observed capability in the here and now before projecting to the unobservable past or distant regions of the cosmos etc. Similarly, there is simply no actual observed capability of a darwin pond or the like forming a first, encapsulated, metabolising, self replicating cell or the coded algorithmic information system in it. Likewise, there is no observed capability of blind chance variation plus differential reproductive success being able to create novel body plans (which require 10 – 100+ mn bases just for the genomes). So your 257 >>I think the historical evidence is strong enough to warrant supporting unguided evolutionary theory. Coupled with the past two millennia of observed changes (including some amazing bits of selective breeding) it looks like a done deal to me>> is little more than an empty bluff. Fail. KF

    PS, what is likely, really happening:

    [Lewontin:] . . . to put a correct [–> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people’s heads

    [==> as in, “we” the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making “our” “consensus” the yardstick of truth . . . where of course “view” is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]

    we must first get an incorrect view out [–> as in, if you disagree with “us” of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [–> “explanations of the world” is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised “demon[ic]” “supernatural” being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

    [ –> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying “our” elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to “fix” the widespread mental disease]

    and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

    [–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

    . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [–> “we” are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

    [–> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

    that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [–> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [–> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is “quote-mined” I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

  260. 260
    jerry says:

    That there is anything more to macro-evolution beyond time and an accumulation of small, selected changes has always seemed dubious to me

    The only thing in the way is logic.

    And of course evidence. For evolutionary biology the only source of evidence is “When you wish upon a star.”

    Aside: notice how Wikipedia uses that discarded terminology of taxa. Oh well, they are so discredited as a source, what would you expect.

  261. 261
    William J Murray says:

    JVL said:

    Not at all. The theory of unguided evolution is widely supported and accepted.

    So is creationism.

  262. 262
    William J Murray says:

    JVL said:

    Like I said: I think the historical evidence is strong enough to warrant supporting unguided evolutionary theory. Coupled with the past two millennia of observed changes (including some amazing bits of selective breeding) it looks like a done deal to me.

    Selective breeding success is evidence for intelligent design, not unguided evolution, because the “selection” part refers to intelligently guided selections, not “unguided” selections.

  263. 263
    ET says:

    JVL:

    We can also see how they developed their craft, we can find examples of failed and simpler design.

    In most cases there aren’t any.

  264. 264
    ET says:

    Alan Fox:

    Regarding macro-evolution, I’m pleased to see definitions are evolving.

    Yes, cowards are changing the definition to suit their needs.

    That there is anything more to macro-evolution beyond time and an accumulation of small, selected changes has always seemed dubious to me, despite a disagreement I had with Nick Matzke on this site.

    Throwing time at an issue isn’t scientific. There aren’t any examples of small changes accumulating into new body plans.

  265. 265
    ET says:

    The ONLY evidence for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes are genetic diseases and deformities. There isn’t any evidence that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes can produce eukaryotes from the GIVEN populations of prokaryotes. Universal common descent can’t even get started. And macroevolution is also a non-starter.

  266. 266
    jerry says:

    amazing bits of selective breeding

    Selective breeding has not produced anything new.

    It’s just a shuffling of the alleles. Occasionally something new shows up but nearly always these new sequences are due to a degradation not the result of a new novelty appearing.

    Again the defenders of Evolution use genetics as the basis of their justification. When will the irony of their false reasoning sink in?

    Aside: the answer to all this is available – to prove one way or another if small changes lead anywhere. But the ones advocating for small changes have all the money and resources and avoid investigation of the question like the plague. Do they suspect what they will find might threaten their livelihood?

  267. 267
    asauber says:

    Thanks, Relatd and BA77 for the hummingbird info!

    Andrew

  268. 268
    ET says:

    JVL:

    The theory of unguided evolution is widely supported and accepted.

    There isn’t any scientific theory of unguided evolution. There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing the diversity of life. For a mechanistic scenario, that is death!

  269. 269
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: Similarly, there is simply no actual observed capability of a darwin pond or the like forming a first, encapsulated, metabolising, self replicating cell or the coded algorithmic information system in it. Likewise, there is no observed capability of blind chance variation plus differential reproductive success being able to create novel body plans (which require 10 – 100+ mn bases just for the genomes).

    Well, I haven’t seen any non-human designer at all (except some animals on earth) let alone one that is capable of the things you list. How is it that design is a ‘better’ explanation when we’ve never seen or observed the designer? Aside from the fact that no one can say when design was implemented.

  270. 270
    asauber says:

    “The theory of unguided evolution is widely supported and accepted.”

    So was/is slavery. Way past time to discard such stupidities.

    Andrew

  271. 271
    JVL says:

    WJM: So is creationism.

    Not much evidence supporting creationism though.

    Selective breeding success is evidence for intelligent design, not unguided evolution, because the “selection” part refers to intelligently guided selections, not “unguided” selections.

    Selective breeding gives an indication of the amount of inheritable variation is available to work with. Given that it’s not surprising that new varieties will emerge in nature just as they do in captivity.

  272. 272
    JVL says:

    ET: In most cases there aren’t any.

    Pick a site and we’ll see. Unless you’re really busy studying DNA and doing what archaeologist do every day trying to come up with information about the designer(s) like when they lived, what tools they had, how they constructed and implemented their designs, etc. You’ve got no other ‘artefacts’ to study so I guess you should be scrutinising genomes down to the last detail. Are you doing that? Is anyone doing that?

    There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing the diversity of life.

    There aren’t any known non-human designers capable of producing the diversity of life. We’ve never seen them, met them or seen any physical evidence they exist EXCEPT for your contested design inference. In other words, if you ignore the thing being argued about (DNA) you haven’t got any evidence for non-human designers at all. You don’t know if it’s even possible for the laws of physics to be anything other than what they are so that’s not really in play is it?

  273. 273
    asauber says:

    “Selective breeding gives an indication of the amount of inheritable variation is available to work with.”

    Troll,

    Evidently there are severe limitations, huh?

    Andrew

  274. 274
    JVL says:

    Jerry: Again the defenders of Evolution use genetics as the basis of their justification. When will the irony of their false reasoning sink in?

    Genetics is only one line of evidence and one that was completely unknown to Darwin. He knew there was some way that some variations could be inherited but that’s it. You still have to consider the bio-geographic distributions, the morphological data and the fossil record. Plus the hundreds of years of observation regarding the ability for new varieties to arise from the variation that is available. Have you looked at the brassicas? Lots of markedly different types there.

  275. 275
    JVL says:

    Asauber: So was/is slavery. Way past time to discard such stupidities.

    Not really comparable are they?

    Slavery is mentioned and not condemned in the Bible is it not?

    Do you believe in witches? Do they really exist? They’re mentioned in the Bible aren’t they? Is it time to discard such stupidities? How about talking donkeys? Talking bushes? People being turned into salt?

    Evidently there are severe limitations, huh?

    Such as? And the evidence for your limitations.

  276. 276
    asauber says:

    Troll,

    “Do you believe in witches?”

    https://www.thealmostwitch.com/blog/types-of-modern-witches

    “How about talking donkeys? Talking bushes? People being turned into salt?”

    I guess we both believe in miracles, then.

    Andrew

  277. 277
    JVL says:

    Asauber: https://www.thealmostwitch.com/blog/types-of-modern-witches

    I wasn’t thinking of new agey, candle-burning, Tarot card reading, people with too many necklaces who spend too much time watching Game of Thrones but if that’s what you believe . . . .

    I guess we both believe in miracles, then.

    Nah, I don’t think you can violate the laws of physics.

  278. 278
    jerry says:

    Genetics is only one line of evidence and one that was completely unknown to Darwin

    Nonsense.

    It was well known to Darwin and humanity for thousands of years. For example, selective breeding is genetics. The mechanism was unknown but the process was well known.

    bio-geographic distributions, the morphological data and the fossil record

    All are within the framework of genetics.

    The fossil record actually disproves naturalized evolution and is one of the main bodies of evidence against it. Darwin knew this. Why it should be brought up is ironic.

    Morphological information also disproves Evolution. It is often just genetics. Darwin used plasticity (didn’t call it that) to say how Evolution works. But this has since been disproven by evolutionary biologists. Morphology is passé.

    If you want to say the appearance of novelties causing significant morphology changes is Evolution, ID agrees 100%. But it is all based on massive changes to the genome and one then has to say how did this happen.

    So to assume morphology supports small changes is absurd. It supports ID.

    So each of bio-geographic, morphology and fossils points to ID not any known natural mechanism for change.

    Remember, the Grants says it takes 32 million years for a new bird species to appear. So a lot of bio-geographic differences are just allele shuffling which is not Evolution.

  279. 279
    asauber says:

    “Such as? And the evidence for your limitations.”

    Troll,

    You said: “Selective breeding gives an indication of the amount of inheritable variation is available to work with.”

    The implication being there is variation that is not available. Maybe you can explain what variation is not available, since you stated it.

    Andrew

  280. 280
    ET says:

    There isn’t any contested design. Losers whining that they lost is not a contention. Only the willfully ignorant think that DNA is the only evidence for ID.

  281. 281
    ET says:

    Earth to JVL- Given starting populations of prokaryotes there aren’t any naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing anything but more prokaryotes. Universal common descent via naturalistic mechanisms is a non-starter.

  282. 282
    JVL says:

    Jerry: It was well known to Darwin and humanity for thousands of years.

    I said he was aware that some variation could be inherited.

    The fossil record actually disproves naturalized evolution and is one of the main bodies of evidence against it.

    No, it’s consistent with unguided evolution. Gaps do not mean no creatures existed in those gaps, just that they didn’t fossilise. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Logic 101.

    Morphological information also disproves Evolution

    Again, looking at existent life forms it’s possible to get a somewhat accurate ‘tree of life’ just by looking at morphological similarities.

    If you want to say the appearance of novelties causing morphology changes is Evolution, ID agrees 100%. But it is all based on massive changes to the genome and one then has to say how did this happen.

    Current research suggests you do not always need massive changes to the genome; what you need is changes to the control genes. Read Shubin’s recent book Some Assembly Acquired.

  283. 283
    JVL says:

    Asauber: The implication being there is variation that is not available. Maybe you can explain what variation is not available, since you stated it.

    That’s silly. I might say there are a lot of types of trees available which doesn’t mean there are tons that are not available. You’re really getting desperate now.

  284. 284
    JVL says:

    ET: There isn’t any contested design.

    Clearly and obviously not true. It’s a silly thing even to say.

    Given starting populations of prokaryotes there aren’t any naturalistic mechanisms capable of producing anything but more prokaryotes. Universal common descent via naturalistic mechanisms is a non-starter.

    Well, when you can find a non-human designer (who did what exactly, when exactly) then perhaps people will start taking your contested view seriously. No designer means no design. Perhaps you should start studying the things you think were designed so you can be more like archaeologists who are actually trying to find out things about the designers who designed the works they study. Are you doing that? Is anyone doing that? Why not?

    Or you can just keep making your negative arguments: i.e. that natural processes have not been shown to be capable. That doesn’t get you design if there is no designer.

    (Also, a point of logic: not been shown does not mean not capable. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But you knew that of course since you know more about science and logic than just about anyone on the planet. Amazing.)

  285. 285
    asauber says:

    Troll,

    Again, you wrote “variation that is available.” What variation would not be available? You wrote it. You explain it.

    Andrew

  286. 286
    William J Murray says:

    JVL said:

    Not much evidence supporting creationism though.

    That wasn’t the standard you expressed which I quoted in my response. If you get to use “The theory of unguided evolution is widely supported and accepted,” in support of your position, creationists get to use that same standard in support of their perspective. Therefore, it adds no extra weight to your position.

    Selective breeding gives an indication of the amount of inheritable variation is available to work with. Given that it’s not surprising that new varieties will emerge in nature just as they do in captivity.

    Except for the niggling fact that “nature” wouldn’t have access to the process that was necessary for the success of the results under selective breeding.

  287. 287
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Again, you said “variation that is available.” What variation would not be available? You said it. You explain it.

    Variation that is present, inheritable and can be selected for or against is what is available.

    There are lots of styles of potato chips available at the supermarket. What kinds aren’t available? Should I just make something up? Okay, there is no asparagus flavoured potato chips available . . . at least I hope not!!

    Just saying there are a lot of varieties around does not mean there are a lot that are not around.

    Besides, the whole point was that natural reproduction introduces inheritable variations into a population which can be ‘selected’ for which will change the allele frequencies in the population.

  288. 288
    JVL says:

    WJM: If you get to use “The theory of unguided evolution is widely supported and accepted,” in support of your position,

    Oh, sorry I did not add the rather obvious: because of the vast amount of observed, historic and experimental data which includes but is not limited to: the fossil record, the genomic record, the morphological record, and the bio-geographic distribution record.

    I guess to make you happy every statement I make has to be a paragraph or more just in case you might choose to take it so literally that it’s pointless having conversations. Perhaps you could work on considering things in context instead of just narrow textual analysis.

    Except for the niggling fact that “nature” wouldn’t have access to the process that was necessary for the success of the results under selective breeding.

    If a variation arose that meant an individual was better able to exploit the environment and resources available to it (i.e lived longer and left more offspring) then what other process are you referring to?

    Again, instead of acting like every statement someone makes exists outside of a greater context you’d probably get more better responses if you stopped being so pedantic and literal. Your call. Since the football season is starting soon I suspect much of your attention will be elsewhere.

  289. 289
    asauber says:

    “What kinds aren’t available?”

    Troll,

    This is supposed to be a scientific discussion. It’s on you to explain what you mean when you write stuff. There are reasons there are certain chip flavors that aren’t available. The manufacturers of potato chips don’t make certain flavors, being one.

    As you indicated some variations aren’t available. You should be able to explain why some are available and some aren’t and give examples and reasons. You know, at least try to begin to think about it scientifically.

    Andrew

  290. 290
    jerry says:

    what you need is changes to the control genes

    This is genetics.

    This is an argument that a lot supposed change is within the same genome. That is genetics and 100% accepted by ID. It is also not Evolution.

    It’s interesting that an ID argument was invoked. Genetics which ID says is great science explains nearly 100% of the arguments from evolutionary biology.

    Aside: We are using an obvious troll to bolster the ID argument. So what else is new. The real question “Is JVL an ID advocate in disguise?”

  291. 291
    ET says:

    Whining about ID does not amount to contesting design. The anti-ID mob doesn’t have a scientific explanation for our existence. At least ID makes testable claims. Claims that have been tested and confirmed.

  292. 292
    JVL says:

    Asauber: As you indicated some variations aren’t available.

    That I did not say. I said there was some, a lot that was available. That’s the stuff that matters, what you have to work with.

    You should be able to explain why some are available and some aren’t and give examples and reasons. You know, at least try to begin to think about it scientifically.

    I only know what is there. I don’t there is anything else. Mutations happen randomly with respect to fitness. Many mutations kill the offspring that inherits them. Are they available? Sort of. Do they matter when looking at what inheritable variation might lead to morphological changes? You tell me.

    You seem to think there is something I either am not admitting or am ignorant of. Again that’s like asking me what kinds of trees aren’t available. (Okay, potato chips flavours are consciously decided upon by human beings so not the best analogy.). I don’t know what kind of trees are not available. No one does. Except for some that are now extinct.

  293. 293
    JVL says:

    Jerry: This is genetics.

    Obviously.

    This is an argument that a lot supposed change is within the same genome. That is genetics and 100% accepted by ID. It is also not Evolution.

    No, you missed the point. We now know that some major morphological changes can come about because of very few changes to a control gene or two. So, not A LOT of supposed change. Keep up with the research. Again, Shubin’s recent book is very accessible and delves into this very subject.

    It’s interesting that an ID argument was invoked.

    No, you chose to interpret what I said in a way that you think was an ID argument.

    The real question “Is JVL an ID advocate in disguise?”

    Can’t you tell the difference? Shall we kill them all and let God sort them out?

  294. 294
    JVL says:

    ET: Whining about ID does not amount to contesting design.

    No one is ‘whining’ about ID. Most biologists don’t think about it at all. The evidence for unguided evolution is strong, widely accepted, being added to and, importantly, multi-thread. That is, it’s not just genomes or fossils.

    ID has only the one single starting argument (a negative one): we can’t see how unguided processes accomplished this or that, you claim that’s ‘eliminating’ natural causes. All ID arguments start there. Firstly, how do you know you are aware of all natural processes and causes? Secondly, how can you complete eliminate anything? (I sense a probabilistic argument just about to appear.)

    Your supposed ‘positive’ argument (we only observe complex, coded information coming from intelligence) is hamstrung because the only beings we know of that match that criterion are humans!! Who clearly were not around whenever the designer was supposed to have done something. No one is really clear about those.

    So, a negative argument followed by an unsubstantiated extension of experience.

    Claims that have been tested and confirmed.

    Give an example of a clear and unambiguous ID claim that was tested and confirmed. Something that’s not just: we will see more design because we think this stuff was all designed. That’s just building on your assumption, that’s not a test.

    (How much time today did you spend studying the design so you could start saying something about the designer? Any time at all? Did anyone spend any time doing that? You know, like archaeologists do. They are actually interested in learning things about their designers. Are ID proponents actually interested in finding out about their designers?)

  295. 295
    relatd says:

    Andrew at 270,

    Slavery has been relabeled as “human trafficking.” Same thing, no change. Cheap and free labor are still the driving force behind slavery today.

  296. 296
    relatd says:

    JVL at 277,

    Some people are so “modern.”

    “I wasn’t thinking of new agey, candle-burning, Tarot card reading, people with too many necklaces who spend too much time watching Game of Thrones but if that’s what you believe . . . . “

  297. 297
    asauber says:

    “I said there was some, a lot that was available. That’s the stuff that matters, what you have to work with.”

    Troll,

    Right. There’s stuff available to work with and stuff not available work with. Which goes back to my comment about severe limitations- “Many mutations kill the offspring that inherits them.”. This is exactly what you are describing. I think you are afraid of what the limitations prevent. So you dance around instead of addressing the issue.

    Andrew

  298. 298
    Alan Fox says:

    Shall we kill them all and let God sort them out?

    Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

    Pragmatic papal authority certainly did for the citizens of Béziers in 1209.

    Jerry should check on the name Gregor Mendel, perhaps. Someone Charles Darwin didn’t know.

  299. 299
    relatd says:

    JVL at 294,

    You certainly are whining about ID. Despite being presented with clear examples, you refuse to acknowledge them as valid. Those in the ID community who understand what ID is do not have this problem. So yes, your comments fall under the whining category.

  300. 300
    JVL says:

    Asauber: I think you are afraid of what the limitations prevent. So you dance around instead of addressing the issue.

    Why don’t you stop dancing about and just come out with what you think I’m avoiding. Obviously some mutations are deleterious. No one is denying that.

    What limitations are you talking about and what reasons do you have for thinking they exist? That should be a good start.

  301. 301
    Alan Fox says:

    There’s stuff available to work with and stuff not available work with.

    There is existing variation in a gene pool which can emerge in new combinations due to meiosis, crossing over, recombination and there is the possibility of new genes arising via mutation, duplication, hgt and so on. Selective breeding (artificial selection) mainly relies on new combinations of existing genes.

  302. 302
    jerry says:

    Jerry should check on the name Gregor Mendel

    I’ve written on Mendel several times.

    Mendel definitely contributed to genetics but only to part of it. Darwin’s ideas of 1) variation (somewhat new) 2) heritability (known since beginning of time – Mendel contributed to this) and 3) selection (Mendel had little to do with this) are essential to genetics. Not all by far but both Mendel and Darwin’s ideas are part of modern genetics.

    These are standard science established processes which ID has endorsed 100%.

    Aside: why do you make such uninformed and irrelevant comments?

    Aside2: is the whole purpose here to generate irrelevant comments such as those by JVL and Alan Fox so that the comment count gets higher?

    When all the kings horses and all the kings men can’t get anywhere establishing a mechanism for the Evolution debate, maybe it should be shut down as useless.

    Is this maybe the thousand’s OP since the start of UD where anyone who is anti ID has failed to make a coherent argument.

  303. 303
    JVL says:

    Relatd: You certainly are whining about ID. Despite being presented with clear examples, you refuse to acknowledge them as valid. Those in the ID community who understand what ID is do not have this problem. So yes, your comments fall under the whining category.

    Oh, right. It’s not possible to disagree with you so I must not really understand your examples. Your ideas are so clear and obvious that only a fool or a knave would deny them. How very scientific.

    I think all your examples have explanations or potential explanations that invoke few (if any) assumed agents or processes and do not depend on first claiming to have eliminated other explanations. If you’re not willing to discuss the evidence, if you can only see your own point of view then why are you bothering to pretend to have a conversation? What’s the point if you’re never, ever even going to contemplate that you might be wrong OR that it’s possible someone might disagree with you?

  304. 304
    Alan Fox says:

    Despite being presented with clear examples, you refuse to acknowledge them as valid. Those in the ID community who understand what ID is do not have this problem.

    Broadly true because the ID community is inward looking and IDers tend to be uncritical of the remaining few ID proponents and ignorant of the valid criticisms existing in the wider world.

  305. 305
    Alan Fox says:

    Aside: why do you make such uninformed and irrelevant comments?

    My statement is correct. Darwin was unaware of Mendel’s work. Darwin proposed a hypothesis, wrong, that inheritance involved “gemmules” and worried that if blended inheritance turned out to be correct, his selection theory was at risk.

  306. 306
    asauber says:

    “What limitations are you talking about and what reasons do you have for thinking they exist?”

    Troll,

    Obviously, variations don’t occur where and when it’s convenient for me to observe them. So there’s time and location limitations. Don’t you think so?

    Andrew

  307. 307
    jerry says:

    Darwin was unaware of Mendel’s work. Darwin proposed a hypothesis, wrong, that inheritance involved “gemmules”

    All you are presenting is well known by ID.

    Mendel, like Darwin, was also clueless as to what actually caused heritability. He postulated something but did know what it was. All became clear over time as many others contributed to a science, genetics, ID accepts 100%.

    Aside: Mendel’s paper was on Darwin’s desk unread at his death. It’s doubtful it would have made any difference if he had read it. What would he had learned about Evolution, nothing really.

    What’s the point of all this? It’s all making ID look good as the best interpretation of science in the world.

    Aside2: the irony of all this is that genetics, DNA, Mendel’s work and especially Darwin’s work have nothing to do with Evolution.

    Evolution has to originate in what causes body plans and it certainly isn’t in the genome.

  308. 308
    relatd says:

    JVL at 303,

    Disagreeing with you? Everyone who understands ID disagrees with you. Admit it. Knave!

  309. 309
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Obviously, variations don’t occur where and when it’s convenient for me to observe them. So there’s time and location limitations. Don’t you think so?

    Um . . . let’s work with what we do know. There are statistics which show that some genomic ‘sites’ have higher rates of mutations than others under certain situations. And some sites are better ‘preserved’ that others but I think that is a result of mutations in some regions tending to be more fatal so that we have little or no examples of some mutations amongst surviving offspring.

    We also have statistics regarding the basic base rate of mutations so we can predict roughly how many there are (on average) amongst offspring.

    Your time and observation limitations aren’t really the point are they? Mutations happen independent of you or when you choose to check.

    So, are we talking about your limitations or mutations limitations?

  310. 310
    asauber says:

    “certain situations”

    “some sites are better ‘preserved’ that others”

    “mutations in some regions tending to be more fatal”

    “basic base rate”

    Troll,

    Sounds like you have a laundry list of limitations ready to go.

    Andrew

  311. 311
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Disagreeing with you? Everyone who understands ID disagrees with you. Admit it. Knave!

    You really twisted that around didn’t you?

    Look, I don’t assume you are a knave or a fool just because you disagree with me. I assume (rightly or wrongly) that you see things differently than I do and probably put greater emphasis on some bits of evidence or personal experiences. I am interested in why we disagree and would like for you to honestly tell me what influences your opinion and how you came to it initially. In the same way I expect you to be critical of my views and opinions I reserve the right to be critical of your views and opinions. Sometimes, I admit, I get a bit feisty because I perceive that I am being vilified and laughed down because I disagree instead of being treated, at the very least, as someone who is willing to try and answer questions.

    I do not expect to change your opinion. I do not hope to change your opinion. I am interested in what your opinion is (especially regarding the stuff ID proponents tend not to talk about) and how you came to it. And I’m interested in how you see new bits of evidence and research. Nothing would please me more than to have conversations like:

    Me: did you see this news item about this bit of research?
    You: yes, I can’t see that it’s a real challenge to ID for the following reasons.
    Me: well, what about this and that?
    You: ah, well, here’s how I see those issues.
    etc.

    I think that would be interesting and helpful.

  312. 312
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Sounds like you have a laundry list of limitations ready to go.

    I still don’t really understand what you are trying to a)say and b) get me to say. I’m just going to leave it at that unless you choose to spell things out a bit more clearly.

    Just one more thought: let’s look at rolling a 20-sided die (yes, they exist, yes, you can buy them). If I say: well, there are a few prime number results you could get you seem terribly interested in the other numbers I could get. And I can elucidate those when there is a discrete, well defined and limited sample space.

    Based on the collective experience of breeders (and, I’d say, the evidence supporting unguided evolution) there are a lot of inheritable variations that have been seen and got passed on to the next generation because we have observed and noticed the offspring that have those variations. You say: yeah well what about the ones that we didn’t see? What variations are in play? Or are you saying something else? I still don’t get what you are thinking.

  313. 313
    relatd says:

    JVL at 311,

    Interesting and helpful? What would be really interesting is confirming my ideas about why you bother posting on UD. To learn? What, exactly? To debate? No evidence of this except for tossing out the same old same old Darwinian one-liners, which does not involve debate at all.

    You can confirm or deny the following:

    I am here to mock and/or deny ID.

    I am here to promote blind, unguided chance which is directionless.

    I am here because I’ve got a lot of time on my hands and it amuses me.

    I am here to hone my avoid and deny skills, i.e. “I don’t understood,” “Can’t you understand that disagreeing…”?

    My definition of disagreeing is a boxing move designed to catch my opponent off guard.

    Beware: Your reply might involve a sock being thrown in your direction.

  314. 314
    jerry says:

    From another site on global warming/climate control discussion

    Rule #1 when dealing with fanatics and freaks: Do NOT play the game with their rules. Do NOT use the idiotic phrase “Climate Change”. Ever. If there is no crisis, stop referring to it. Concede nothing to the freak. These well-meaning people are trying to engage fanatics and zealots in a reasonable discussion and it never works. They have no interest in discussing anything except the terms of your surrender

    That describes those who propose naturalized Evolution. Alan Fox is the perfect example. He appeared here a short time ago saying he wanted a reasonable discussion. That disappeared in a short time.

    Does anyone really believe that any anti-ID commenter has been reasonable? There was one here 14 years ago. But that was it.

  315. 315
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Interesting and helpful? What would be really interesting is confirming my ideas about why you bother posting on UD. To learn? What, exactly? To debate? No evidence of this except for tossing out the same old same old Darwinian one-liners, which does not involve debate at all.

    I thought debate involved presenting our views and then comparing and contrasting them. Do you think I need to concede something? I don’t think you need to concede anything.

    I am here to mock and/or deny ID.

    I’d like to know what ID proponents actually think about things like when design was implemented.

    I am here to promote blind, unguided chance which is directionless.

    I’d be happy not to talk about it at all. I keep getting asked to defend it which I will do.

    I am here because I’ve got a lot of time on my hands and it amuses me.

    I do find some conversations educational.

    I am here to hone my avoid and deny skills, i.e. “I don’t understood,” “Can’t you understand that disagreeing…”?

    Not at all.

    My definition of disagreeing is a boxing move designed to catch my opponent off guard.

    It’s just me being honest about what I think is true. Why do you keep thinking there’s some ulterior motive?

    Beware: Your reply might involve a sock being thrown in your direction.

    Translation?: if i don’t respond in a way you find acceptable you’ll stop talking to me.

    So, again, I have a question: can you accept that sometimes people will disagree with you without having any kind of agenda or goal? That they are just being honest and trying to reply to questions posed to them?

  316. 316
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 314,

    Various people are here for one reason: to monitor the spread of ID among the common people. To sound the alarm the moment they think this might get into the schools. That is their job. Their assignment. Understand that.

  317. 317
    William J Murray says:

    JVL said:

    Oh, sorry I did not add the rather obvious: because of the vast amount of observed, historic and experimental data which includes but is not limited to: the fossil record, the genomic record, the morphological record, and the bio-geographic distribution record.

    Let me add some more that might or might be “obvious” to you, but which you didn’t include. Such as, the fact that you are not – I assume, correct me if I am wrong – educated and trained in any of the related scientific fields of research, and so you personally did not conduct any of that research, and probably aren’t aren’t even aware of the vast bulk of it – I doubt anyone is, considering we’re probably talking about tens of thousands of papers in various fields of research, or more.

    So what does it really mean when you refer to that evidence and claim it supports your perspective? The only thing it can mean is that you assume it does, perhaps because you’ve read or heard some sources you personally have some confidence in say it does. You have no means by which to evaluate it on your own, so you’re just parroting what people you have confidence in have said, as a sort of general foundation for what you think is rational commentary on your part concerning evidence you have no actual expertise in evaluating.

    IOW, you are in no position to claim that the evidence supports your view; that’s entirely a false representation on your part. The only actual claim you can make is that people you have confidence in have said that the evidence supports that view. However, people that IDists have confidence in have said that the evidence points to ID. Your claim of supportive evidence, like your claim of “widely supported and accepted” has no more intrinsic value than similar claims by similar IDists.

    Now, what you DO have access to provide in this conversation would be a logic-based argument. You have attempted to do so by your attempt to use the success of deliberate, intelligence-guided selective breeding as the basis for your belief that “nature” could have similar success since both processes – natural and intelligently guided selection – use the same resources.

    If a variation arose that meant an individual was better able to exploit the environment and resources available to it (i.e lived longer and left more offspring) then what other process are you referring to?

    The process I am referring to is the intelligent aspect of the guided selection throughout the breeding that delivers success.

    Natural evolution has no intelligence to use in its breeding process, and it is the fundamental aspect of selective-breeding success. There is no reason you have given so far as to why the natural selection process wouldn’t require the intelligence that is required for selective-breeding success. “Living longer and having more offspring” is not a necessary aspect or outcome in the selective breeding process. Yet, you offer that as if it has something to do with selective-breeding success.

    IOW, nature has a fundamentally different process than selective breeding, but you argue as if it should not be surprising that an undirected process produces the same results from the same starting materials. IOW, it should not be surprising to us if a tornado passing through a Home Depot produces a finished home with doors, windows, working plumbing, etc., the same as a team of intelligent people directing those materials towards an end goal.

    So, you have no greater claim on any evidential support; no greater claim to popularity, and your logic here fails miserably. Your belief is not evidence-based, because you don’t have the expertise necessary to evaluate that evidence, nor did you participate in its generation. What you have left is logic, and so far you have presented no compelling logical argument for why you believe in unguided evolution. Your logic is so bad, you appeal to cases of intelligent design (selective breeding success) as if it supports your belief in unguided evolution.

  318. 318
    relatd says:

    JVL at 315,

    “I don’t think you need to concede anything.” OK, now I’m confused. Note to self: Archive this line for possible future use.

    “when design was implemented.” I’d like you to give me the exact dates and times, starting at the beginning, of all the alleged stages that went from nothing to human beings during so-called “evolution.” Go.

    “Why do you keep thinking there’s some ulterior motive?” Because it’s obvious?

    “disagree”? Here’s my definition of disagreeing: “I think you’re wrong about some political candidate.”

    The “disagreeing” you are talking about involves far more weighty things like the development of life on earth. You think blind, unguided and directionless processes with no brain, pulled the ‘good stuff’ from the trash heap of failed ‘evolutionary experiments’? If I left all the parts for a bicycle in a pool of water and left it for a million years, it would self-assemble? Earthquakes and tidal forces would put it all together correctly? Do you understand how even more ridiculous that sounds when talking about tiny, incremental changes that allegedly happened to living things?

    I have seen a photo of an insect trapped in amber. A close-up photo. It has wings and legs and compound eyes. It is perfect. It had a brain that could interpret all the data coming in correctly – meaning in a useful way. It had a purpose going way beyond reproduction. “Evolution” would have people believe it came from nowhere and went nowhere. No. The dumb, ignorant theory of evolution does not explain its functionality or realized life. And don’t start with any crap you can’t prove. Evolution, in the form of so-called “evolutionary psychology,” states that we don’t have brains to think with or to use to find the truth, we have them to use for successful reproduction and that’s it. Does that make sense? Further, our brains are just chemicals and firing neurons so we cannot rely on them for an accurate picture of reality. Does that make sense?

    As far as ID, it describes codes that are used for the development and function of all living things. Evolution? ‘Well, maybe this molecular switch does this or that. Maybe.’ But whatever is found, evolution gets all the credit because it evolved on May 12, 66,004 B.C.? Really?

  319. 319
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, it continues:

    >>I haven’t seen any non-human designer at all (except some animals on earth)>>

    1: and it is precisely to explain the unobserved, and to us unobservable, past of origins that we developed historical sciences. I remind . . . for record, you paid it not the slightest heed hitherto . . . of Title, vol 3, Principles of Geology:

    PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY:

    BEING

    AN INQUIRY HOW FAR THE FORMER CHANGES OF THE EARTH’S SURFACE ARE REFERABLE TO CAUSES NOW IN OPERATION. [–> appeal to Newton’s Rules, in the title of the work]

    BY

    CHARLES LYELL, Esq, F.R.S.

    PRESIDENT OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON . . . JOHN MURRAY , , , 1835 [–> later, publisher of Origin]

    2: Newton’s point was, to control unbridled speculation, we insist on like causes like, so we only use causes known to cause substantially the same effect as traces from remote space or in this case remote past beyond human record.

    3: We know and routinely observe language using algorithm creating designers, with the process, intelligently directed configuration . . . such as your own objections; and

    4: at least, those not hopelessly indoctrinated will readily recognise that we do not exhaust that category.

    5: So, if we find coded information and especially algorithms, these are reliable signs of such intelligently directed configuration. We have billions of cases of such coded algorighms and similar texts by design per observation, and once we have sufficient complexity, nil by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity.

    6: Analysis of search challenge in large config spaces makes it plausible that this is as we should expect.

    7: We observe said phenomenon in the living cell, and it is credible that traces to the original cell. So, we infer on sign to signified plausible cause by intelligently directed configuration.

    8: Where, just the opposite of your selective hyperskepticism, this is then reasonable evidence pointing to entities with language using intelligence, deep knowledge of polymer chemistry and ability to create and effect algorithms.

    >> let alone one that is capable of the things you list.>>

    9: So, should we then say as we have not directly seen chance and necessity acting in the remote past, we should rule them out as causes? See the double standard?

    >>How is it that design is a ‘better’ explanation when we’ve never seen or observed the designer?>>

    10: As you full well know or could readily confirm, but rhetorically choose to object to, on the logic of inference to the best explanation on causes shown to have capability.

    >>Aside from the fact that no one can say when design was implemented.>>

    11: At least, you are willing to question conventional dates, which are a lot less firmly established than the inference just noted.

    KF

  320. 320
    asauber says:

    “let’s look at rolling a 20-sided die”

    Troll,

    I was a D & D Player (and DungeonMaster) back in high school and for a little while after. So I had a few 20-sided among those dice sets.

    Even in the context of dice, how often do you roll a 20 when you need it? I would say, due to a list of factors (the number of sides, how many times you roll, the balance of the die…) the variation 20 when required is a limited event.

    Andrew

  321. 321
    relatd says:

    Andrew at 320,

    I played D&D and other RPGs. Rolling a 20-sided is limited. Those 4-sideds. I never got used to them 🙂

  322. 322
    asauber says:

    Do NOT use the idiotic phrase “Climate Change”.

    Jerry,

    Indeed. It’s a nonsensical combination of words. Useful for marketing in product campaigns. Like “new and improved”. Loses more meaning every time you employ it.

    Andrew

  323. 323
    asauber says:

    “I played D&D and other RPGs.”

    Relatd,

    Ever play Car Wars? 😉

    Andrew

  324. 324
    relatd says:

    No. I saw it when it came out, I just never had an interest. Steve Jackson will be at Dragon Con.

  325. 325
    Alan Fox says:

    Alan Fox is the perfect example. He appeared here a short time ago saying he wanted a reasonable discussion.

    I’ve been commenting here on and off and depending whose hand was on the ban button since 2005.

  326. 326
    Querius says:

    Wow, all the comments!

    And as JVL was being fried up for breakfast (smells like baloney), I learned that blatantly racist, archaic, popular science fantasies need to be disproved rather than ever proved. So, the idea that complexity naturally and automatically ratchets itself up through some undiscovered force of nature, though never shown, must be disproved.

    Well, experiments by John Needham, Francisco Redi, Lazzaro Spallanzani, and Louis Pasteur have already famously done so to disprove spontaneous abiogenic generation. Many, many discoveries and observations have falsified Darwinism.

    Famously, the coelecanth was supposedly a land animal that was evolving into a fish some 70 million years ago, but was found *miraculously preserved* from evolutionary change over all those millions of years! Imagine that! Many other “living fossils” have been discovered as well.

    A century ago, Darwinists came up with over a hundred so-called vestigial organs–predicted vestiges of evolutionary processes in progress–including ductless glands such as the thyroid. Good theories are able to make predictions. Darwinism only “predicts” things in retrospect.

    So, do you believe in Ernst Haekel’s theory (a follower of Darwin) that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny? Does it not make sense that embryonic development gets extended as an organism evolves? If not, then how was it disproved to your satisfaction?

    My challenge is directed to Darwinists to demonstrate their theory in action. Would my negative results for these three experiments change your beliefs or would you simply say that I didn’t wait long enough or use the right chemicals ad infinitum?

    -Q

  327. 327
    kairosfocus says:

    . . . and you are demonstrating that you have learned little or nothing in sixteen years. Sadly revealing. Sad.

  328. 328
  329. 329
    jerry says:

    I’ve been commenting here on and off and depending whose hand was on the ban button since 2005

    I know, I’ve been commenting here since 2006.

    I’m well aware you go back far in time on UD. It just that you suddenly reappeared asking for a reasonable discussion. I personally hadn’t seen you comment in years. But the request for a reasonable discussion was disingenuous as your answers have been anything but responsive and what is commented on is at best inconsequential.

  330. 330
    Querius says:

    Thanks for the clip, Lieutenant Commander Data. Great insights!

    -Q

  331. 331
    JVL says:

    WJM: IOW, you are in no position to claim that the evidence supports your view; that’s entirely a false representation on your part. The only actual claim you can make is that people you have confidence in have said that the evidence supports that view. However, people that IDists have confidence in have said that the evidence points to ID. Your claim of supportive evidence, like your claim of “widely supported and accepted” has no more intrinsic value than similar claims by similar IDists.

    That’s a mighty big assumption on your part (that I have no pertinent expertise or knowledge) AND your argument is a veiled appeal to authority. I assume you will apply the same standards to yourself and everyone else who comments here?

    IOW, nature has a fundamentally different process than selective breeding, but you argue as if it should not be surprising that an undirected process produces the same results from the same starting materials. IOW, it should not be surprising to us if a tornado passing through a Home Depot produces a finished home with doors, windows, working plumbing, etc., the same as a team of intelligent people directing those materials towards an end goal.

    Nice misunderstanding of what I was saying. Are you an actual expert in the field of logic and argumentation or are you just mimicking things others have said?

    The tornado metaphor is not even close considering that evolution via unguided processes or selective breeding depends on cumulative selection; in other words, small steps and not a giant one-time event. Funny that you disregard that basic concept. Clearly you are not an expert on evolutionary processes. Sounds like your just repeating things you’ve heard other people say. Funny that.

  332. 332
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: So, if we find coded information and especially algorithms, these are reliable signs of such intelligently directed configuration. We have billions of cases of such coded algorighms and similar texts by design per observation, and once we have sufficient complexity, nil by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity.

    Again, the only agents we have observed designing such systems are humans. We know of no other agents with that capacity.

    So, should we then say as we have not directly seen chance and necessity acting in the remote past, we should rule them out as causes? See the double standard?

    Ridiculous. We’ve seen them working in the present and recorded past and there’s no reason to think they weren’t present in the past. However, there is good reason to limit the time that humans with algorithmic skills have been around with the requisite skills and equipment for creating living systems. In fact, we aren’t even there yet. Again, no designers of sufficiently high skills aside from humans have been observed and documented.

  333. 333
    JVL says:

    Asauber: I would say, due to a list of factors (the number of sides, how many times you roll, the balance of the die…) the variation 20 when required is a limited event.

    That doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what I was saying.

  334. 334
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Steve Jackson will be at Dragon Con.

    Glad he’s still around. I remember he put out a lot of games in the 80s. Did he do a science fiction RPG? Did he do Bushido?

  335. 335
    asauber says:

    “Again, no designers of sufficiently high skills aside from humans have been observed and documented.”

    Troll,

    But you do observe what could be design in nature, don’t you?

    Andrew

  336. 336
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, a quick comment on a key fallacy:

    >>Again, the only agents we have observed designing such systems are humans.>>

    – who as you know full well — it was noted — do not exhaust possible language using, algorithm constructing designers

    – the suggestion you invite is an abuse of the logic of induction: we exemplify such designers, there is no reason to exhaust possibilities for such . . . rather, we confirm that possibility

    – there are entire genres in literature on that subject so absent separate good reason to rule out such, fallacy

    – and, signs of design become evidence that a capable designer was acting, so this is a closed minded question begging fallacy too

    >> We know of no other agents with that capacity. >>

    – Error Carried forward:

    – having rejected warranting evidence, without good reason to identify another class of capable cause, you rule out what is warranted.

    Fail.

    KF

  337. 337
    kairosfocus says:

    PS, chance + necessity absent intelligence have never been shown to have capability to create FSCO/I. What demonstrably has such capability, you find a fallacious reason to infer as not possible antecedent to us, then you try to conclude that the evidently incapable must really be capable.

  338. 338
    JVL says:

    Asauber: But you do observe what could be design in nature, don’t you?

    Not given the lack of available agents no, I do not. Also, there is a credible alternate explanation that has multiple lines of evidence consistent with it. Also, that explanation is gaining supportive data all the time. Also, that explanation only depends on processes and effects we have observed to exist and not some mysterious, undefined and unobserved benefactor who did what exactly? When exactly? How exactly?

    Look, if you want to say: I believe in my heart of hearts that it was the God of the Christian Bible that’s fine, that’s your faith and faith is not science. I’m not going to argue against faith. But I am going to look at actual data.

  339. 339
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: who as you know full well — it was noted — do not exhaust possible language using, algorithm constructing designers

    I’ve seen no even mildly compelling evidence that any others exist. I don’t deny that they MIGHT exist but the universe is big, really big.

    the suggestion you invite is an abuse of the logic of induction: we exemplify such designers, there is no reason to exhaust possibilities for such . . . rather, we confirm that possibility

    We confirm we exist and the possibility that similar beings exist on another planet far, far away. The possibility.

    and, signs of design become evidence that a capable designer was acting, so this is a closed minded question begging fallacy too

    I don’t agree with your design inference and I see no other supporting evidence for your design hypothesis.

    having rejected warranting evidence, without good reason to identify another class of capable cause, you rule out what is warranted.

    I think your design inference is incorrect. And I think you have no other evidence of a designer around . . . when was it? And they did what exactly?

    chance + necessity absent intelligence have never been shown to have capability to create FSCO/I.

    You left out the cumulative selection part. Naughty, naughty, you misrepresented the argument you’re contesting. You’re not arguing in good faith. When you can reply to what unguided evolutionary theory actually says then maybe more people will take you seriously.

  340. 340
    asauber says:

    “Not given the lack of available agents no, I do not.”

    Troll,

    You are a tiny speck who only observes an infinitesimal fraction of what’s available. I doubt you are an authority on available agents.

    Andrew

  341. 341
    JVL says:

    Asauber: You are a tiny speck who only observes an infinitesimal fraction of what’s available. I doubt you are an authority on available agents.

    If you know of any that would fit the time (when exactly?) and abilities (what exactly?) then please elucidate.

  342. 342
    asauber says:

    “If you know of any that would fit the time (when exactly?) and abilities (what exactly?) then please elucidate.”

    Troll,

    “In the beginning, God…” Documented. You just don’t like it.

    Andrew

  343. 343
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Materialist: I see no God therefore matter must produce life(chaos must produce functional information)=belief but materialists call it “science”.

    Theist: I see no matter that produce life therefore God must produce life. =belief that theists admit it as belief .

    It’s a battle of beliefs but why materialists would lie about their beliefs as being science unless they think that without this lie they have no chance in this battle of beliefs . When you see somebody is trying to cheat that means he feels unsecure and has something to hide 😉

    Both use intelligence for a goal(to justify that his own belief is true=he is not a liar=he is a moral person). A materialist has already lost when uses intelligence , purpose and ethics to prove his point of view) .

  344. 344
    JVL says:

    Asauber: “In the beginning, God…” Documented. You just don’t like it.

    I’ve just seen no convincing evidence any gods exist. And there’s other questions even if one accepts God as a credible agent. But when I ask them all I hear is: God can do anything, even violate the laws of nature (s)he came up with. Which isn’t really an answer; it’s just saying: no matter what question you have God can do that. It’s certainly not scientific; you can’t test that in a lab or predictably observe it in action.

    Again, if it’s just a matter of faith, well, that’s fine. That’s your faith. I’ve got no beef with faith. I have some very good friends who have deep and abiding faith. It sustains them and gives them hope and peace. Great. But they’ve told me: faith is not science and faith must follow the science. And I’d add: especially if you think God made science possible.

    Anyway, you can’t tease out the actions of a god, they don’t follow laws, they are not predictable. So, their actions are not part of our repeatable and observer independent knowledge. Gods are not part of science. Perhaps the origin of science is a god, I’ve seen no physical evidence that that is the case. But assuming it is true it doesn’t make the knowledge gained from scientific endeavours invalid or that we should assume miracles without checking things out first.

  345. 345
    asauber says:

    “I’ve just seen no convincing evidence any gods exist.”

    Troll,

    There is evidence that God exists. But you won’t allow it. That’s where the problem is.

    Andrew

  346. 346
    JVL says:

    LtComData: It’s a battle of beliefs but why materialists would lie about their beliefs as being science unless they think that without this lie they have no chance in this battle of beliefs .

    I’m not lying or trying to hide anything. There are things science hasn’t figure out yet and regarding those things I say: we don’t know yet.

    I think there is credible evidence that simpler life forms begat more complicated ones, that unguided evolution is correct. I don’t know how life began and we may never know for sure. But I suspect we will come up with some plausible ways it might have started.

    Again, when we don’t know things I say: we don’t know. I don’t say: well, it must have happened this way or that way. As evidence starts to favour one explanation over another then one might say: it looks like the following is currently the most likely scenario. Certainty exists only in mathematics.

  347. 347
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, an extensive SETI signal has been observed. But it is not beaming in from space, it is in the heart of the cell. KF

  348. 348
    JVL says:

    Asauber: There is evidence that God exists. But you won’t allow it. That’s where the problem is.

    It’s not a question of allowing it, it’s a question of how credible and solid the evidence is. I haven’t seen any evidence that is very credible and solid. What do you want me to say?

  349. 349
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: an extensive SETI signal has been observed. But it is not beaming in from space, it is in the heart of the cell

    I don’t even know what that means!!

  350. 350
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, IYou know there are extensive coded algorithms in the cell, with associated execution machinery using molecular nanotech. We were not there, our planet’s bio life was not there when it originated, that is how cell based life on Earth originated and it is how it functions in key part. The FSCO/I involved for first life is 100 – 1,000 kbases, for body plans, 10 – 100+ mn bases. For cause, it is maximally implausible that such FSCO/I could have come about by blind chance and mechanical necessity. But routinely, FSCO/I comes by design. Hence, the observed but often unacknowledged SETI wow signal. KF

  351. 351
    asauber says:

    “it’s a question of how credible and solid the evidence is”

    Troll,

    You’re in a self-defeating loop. Would you accept God personally introducing Himself at your front door as evidence He exists? What short of that would you accept? Anything?

    Andrew

  352. 352
    relatd says:

    JVL at 334,

    Fantasy Games Unlimited did a Bushido RPG. Steve Jackson used to publish a magazine called Space Gamer, so yes he did SF. Then there’s GURPS.

  353. 353
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: IYou know there are extensive coded algorithms in the cell, with associated execution machinery using molecular nanotech.

    In a manner of speaking . . .

    We were not there, our planet’s bio life was not there when it originated, that is how cell based life on Earth originated and it is how it functions in key part. The FSCO/I involved for first life is 100 – 1,000 kbases, for body plans, 10 – 100+ mn bases. For cause, it is maximally implausible that such FSCO/I could have come about by blind chance and mechanical necessity.

    Not all at once and at that magnitude. No one is saying that. I rather doubt the first basic replicator had 100 k-bases to start! That’s an assertion on your part, can you back it up?

    But routinely, FSCO/I comes by design.

    By humans, that’s the only being we’ve observed capable of such things.

    DNA looks nothing like a computer program. It’s messy. It’s got lots of broken bits. It’s got lots of unnecessary repeats. It’s not well organised. There are no comments to help interpret it. I know what some people have said about DNA but, seriously, if you submitted it to a computer science prof as a dissertation they’d kick you out of the university.

    Additionally, DNA doesn’t act like a computer program. Parts can be activated or not NOT based on the progression of some algorithm or logic condition but based on the chemistry of the environment. Bits get turned off and on not because of some IF THEN ELSE statement in the code. It doesn’t look like computer code, it doesn’t act like computer code, it’s not arranged like computer code, massive bits of it are not even transcribed or read. It gets copied when the cell gets an external trigger outside of the code itself.

    How many computer programs have you written? Did they look anything like DNA? Did they behave like DNA? Were they compiled and executed like DNA? (Hint: DNA is not compiled or even executed in the same way.)

  354. 354
    JVL says:

    Asauber: You’re in a self-defeating loop. Would you accept God personally introducing Himself at your front door as evidence He exists? What short of that would you accept? Anything?

    Someone who could violate the laws of physics at will would be a good start. Someone who could answer some intractable mathematics questions would be nice too. Even being able to clear up some particular historical issues would be decent.

    There is another question of course: whose god am I accepting? Your’s? Martin Luther’s? The Archbishop of Canterbury’s? Thomas Aquinas’s? Mohammed’s? The god from Zoroastrianism? Which one is the one true god? Who’s to say? You? How can I judge who’s right?

  355. 355
    relatd says:

    JVL at 353,

    The stupidest thing you’ve ever posted:

    “DNA looks nothing like a computer program. It’s messy. It’s got lots of broken bits. It’s got lots of unnecessary repeats. It’s not well organised.”

    And evolution got around all that? Stupid.

  356. 356
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Fantasy Games Unlimited did a Bushido RPG

    Ah, yes. I had a friend who was big fan.

    Steve Jackson used to publish a magazine called Space Gamer, so yes he did SF.

    I remember the magazine.

    There was a particular space D&D like game . . . it had shotguns which we all figured out pretty quickly were great weapons against people in spacesuits. This would have been 1983 or so . . .

  357. 357
    JVL says:

    Relatd: “DNA looks nothing like a computer program. It’s messy. It’s got lots of broken bits. It’s got lots of unnecessary repeats. It’s not well organised.” And evolution got around all that? Stupid.

    Evolution didn’t ‘get around’ all that. It doesn’t work the same is the point. Just stop thinking of DNA like a computer program. It isn’t a computer program. It doesn’t act like one. It doesn’t look like one. It wasn’t developed like one. It’s not ‘executed’ like one.

    How many large computer programs have you written? Did they look anything like DNA?

    Transposable genetic elements, DNA sequences that can replicate and insert copies of themselves at other locations within a host genome, are an abundant component in the human genome. The most abundant transposon lineage, Alu, has about 50,000 active copies, and can be inserted into intragenic and intergenic regions. One other lineage, LINE-1, has about 100 active copies per genome (the number varies between people). Together with non-functional relics of old transposons, they account for over half of total human DNA.

    What kind of computer program is like that?

  358. 358
    Querius says:

    JVL @344

    I’ve just seen no convincing evidence any gods exist.

    Of course you can’t see with your eyes tightly shut!

    There’s no demonstrable biophysics that can ratchet up complexity to the astonishing level within a living cell!

    Make a smoothy out of bacterial cells, hit it with electricity, heat, cold, atmospheric gases, whatever, to demonstrate this fantasy of self organization into extremely high levels of complexity. You won’t because you know you can’t.

    And then, you claim you don’t have any evidence of external intervention that would otherwise be OBVIOUS in computers, jet aircraft, and cities that are far less complex than a living cell.

    If it walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you’re not convinced that it isn’t a giraffe.

    Pathetic.

    -Q

  359. 359
    relatd says:

    JVL at 357,

    “Together with non-functional relics of old transposons, they account for over half of total human DNA.”

    What idiot wrote this? A Darwinist? Junk DNA/transposons again? If you know this guy, tell him I think he’s an idiot and by extension, anyone who believes that.

    The Human Genome Project was just completed. There are repeats in the code. Got that? Repeats. Sounds just like a computer program with check-sum restraints. Learn something about computer programs or I will taunt you a second time.

    https://www.genome.gov/about-nhgri/Director/genomics-landscape/april-7-2022-the-human-genome-sequence-is-now-complete

  360. 360
    JVL says:

    Querius: Of course you can’t see with your eyes tightly shut!

    Shut to what? Show me the evidence.

    There’s no demonstrable biophysics that can ratchet up complexity to the astonishing level within a living cell!

    I think the case has been made once there is a basic biological replicator. Meanwhile, back at the ID ranch . . . when did your undefined and unobserved designer do what exactly?

    Make a smoothy out of bacterial cells, hit it with electricity, heat, cold, atmospheric gases, whatever, to demonstrate this fantasy of self organization into extremely high levels of complexity. You won’t because you know you can’t.

    No one is claiming it happened quickly or in one big event. Why do you keep railing against an argument no one is making?

    And then, you claim you don’t have any evidence of external intervention that would otherwise be OBVIOUS in computers, jet aircraft, and cities that are far less complex than a living cell.

    That’s right, I haven’t seen any credible evidence that there was any intervention in a process that took literally millions and millions of years just to get to the first multi-celled creature. Great design that eh?

    If it walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you’re not convinced that it isn’t a giraffe.

    When you can learn to address the actual case made by the unguided evolutionary theory instead of some cartoon, straw-man version you might get some people to take you seriously. If you’re just going to not even address the real issues then you’re going to be ignored.

  361. 361
    relatd says:

    Querius at 358,

    JVL’s job here – and that’s what it is – has to be to tear down ID and promote evolution. You, and every human being on the planet are the end result of a bunch of accidents that just happened – by accident – to have created human beings. You can say that over and over but it won’t stop JVL from reading from the prepared script over and over and over and over and over…

    And over.

    It’s his mission. His commitment. I mean if ID gets into the schools, the Marxist-Atheist teachers will be exposed as Marxist-Atheists. People would start thinking about God. And then people like JVL would disappear from this site as if he never existed.

  362. 362
    JVL says:

    Relatd: What idiot wrote this? A Darwinist? Junk DNA/transposons again? If you know this guy, tell him I think he’s an idiot and by extension, anyone who believes that.

    Can you present clear evidence that the statement is not true? Let’s start there.

    The Human Genome project was just completed. There are repeats in the code. Got that? Repeats. Sounds just like a computer program with check-sum restraints. Learn something about computer programs or I will taunt you a second time.

    Ooo, I’m an idiot about computer programs now am I? Let me see . . . how many lines was that inventory tracking database I created for the US Navy . . . 30,000 lines of code? Something like that. I don’t remember having to repeat anything . . . I remember declaring functions or procedures and calling them multiple times though. Repeating the same code over and over is just sloppy and wasteful.

    And, by the way, I also wrote some interface testing apps in assembler code that used checksums. And some dif eq numerical methods programs. Shall I go on?

  363. 363
    jerry says:

    no convincing evidence

    If there was a God, how would we know?

    Especially if that God wanted His existence to be in doubt. Answer: there would be definitive evidence but it would not be absolute. Which is what we have.

    Now some will not believe unless they can see this God up close and personal. But if this were available, then what free will would remain after such an experience. Answer: none. The individual would become an automaton.

  364. 364
    relatd says:

    JVL at 360,

    Put a sock in it. In your case – two socks.

  365. 365
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 363,

    You don’t know the Bible very well. Seeing God turns no one into an automaton.

    John 20:29

    ‘Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

    This was after Thomas demanded proof that Jesus had risen from the dead.

  366. 366
    JVL says:

    Relatd: I mean if ID gets into the schools, the Marxist-Atheist teachers will be exposed as Marxist-Atheists.

    Too funny. The most important teacher I had in all my years of education, the one person that most influenced my future in academia was (and still is) a very devote Christian. She was the one that most encouraged me and supported me in learning mathematics. She used to hold prayer sessions before classes, I attended a couple. Without her I would have become a different person. We’re still friends. We respect each other. A year or so after I last took a class from her I went back to visit and she gave me a copy of our senior textbook which I still have and treasure. (It’s real old school, it’s fabulous.) Her also devote husband taught me chemistry and physics and I still remember (and repeat) some of the ways he taught me to think about things.

    I cannot even begin to tell you how intellectually important those two people were to me. Forty years ago or more.

    Put a sock in it. In your case – two socks.

    Put a sock in what? I should just shut up because why?

    ‘Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” This was after Thomas demanded proof that Jesus had risen from the dead.

    Does that mean that those you would like more evidence are condemned or shunned or banned? Do you go to hell because you use what you claim is your God-given reason to question and wonder and ask? Why is blind faith better than questioned faith?

    You don’t need to answer that. It just gives you and idea of how I see things. We don’t agree which is just fine. We don’t have to. And, anyway, none of this has anything to do with science.

  367. 367
    JVL says:

    Jerry: Especially if that God wanted His existence to be in doubt. Answer: there would be definitive evidence but it would not be absolute. Which is what we have.

    I don’t see any evidence I would consider definitive but I might be using the term differently from you. Raising someone from the dead would be definitive IF it were true. But did it actually, absolutely happen . . . Is that what you’re thinking?

    Now some will not believe unless they can see this God up close and personal. But if this were available, then what free will would remain after such an experience. Answer: none. The individual would become an automaton.

    Maybe for you but I don’t think that would be the case for others. Why should I, even in the face of a mighty being with lots of power and knowledge stop thinking and acting for myself? That doesn’t follow at all. In fact, if I knew such power and knowledge was possible I think I’d become even more independent hoping I could maybe even partially achieve such loftiness.

  368. 368
    relatd says:

    JVL at 366,

    Put a sock in your mouth. All you do is lie and deny, like a few others here.

  369. 369
    asauber says:

    “Someone who could violate the laws of physics at will would be a good start”

    Troll,

    What you mean is, someone who proves themselves to you on demand, on your terms. This is complete stupidity as far as what would be required for accepting evidence.

    Andrew

  370. 370
    jerry says:

    Transposon and other mutations to junk DNA are the basis for punctuated equilibrium. This has been pointed out several times on other threads and need go no further here.

    Theoretically this is supposedly the origin of new sequences for new proteins. Unlikely but hundreds of journal articles have been written supporting this premise. DNA is a rather sophisticated computer like code that defies all possibilities to have originated through natural processes. This is one attempt to explain it.

    If one should want to comment on it, they should use the recent Thaxton thread

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-from-intelligent-cause-to-intelligent-design-my-debt-to-charles-thaxton/#comment-763124

  371. 371
    JVL says:

    Relatd: All you do is lie and deny, like a few others here.

    I have not lied. You want to think that’s true but it’s not.

  372. 372
    jerry says:

    evidence I would consider definitive

    The fine tuning of the universe and Earth is pretty definitive of something. It defies probabilities.

    Why should I, even in the face of a mighty being with lots of power

    What if that mighty being was rewarding those who obeyed and punishing those who disobeyed?

    My guess is you would change your tune very quickly and you would not defy this being. You would become an automaton.

    As it stands now you have the free will to accept or reject.

    But a good question is “are you an actual being without free will?” You say you believe something that you cannot justify. What would cause such a situation. Beliefs that are automatic despite no rational basis to support them. Is that one form of an automaton?

  373. 373
    relatd says:

    JVL at 371,

    Assuming what I think?

    Here are two statements:

    You. I wrote computer code for the Navy.

    Me. I wrote computer code for the NSA.

    Which statement is true? It depends on who the reader thinks is more credible. You are not very credible.

  374. 374
    JVL says:

    Asauber: What you mean is, someone who proves themselves to you on demand, on your terms. This is complete stupidity as far as what would be required for accepting evidence.

    You asked me what I would look for. I’m sorry it’s not the same as you or what you think is acceptable. Did you ask God what (s)he thinks?

  375. 375
    JVL says:

    Jerry: Transposon and other mutations to junk DNA are the basis for punctuated equilibrium.

    Pretty sure that’s not correct. But, please, show me I’m wrong.

    The fine tuning of the universe and Earth is pretty definitive of something. It defies probabilities.

    Assuming things can be tuned at all. You don’t know that that is the case.

    What if that mighty being was rewarding those who obeyed and punishing those who disobeyed?

    Why would they do that? What ultra-intelligent being just wants sycophants who do whatever they are told? Have you thought this through?

    My guess is you would change your tune very quickly and you would not defy this being. You would become an automaton.

    Is that what you would do?

    But a good question is “are you an actual being without free will?” You say you believe something that you cannot justify. What would cause such a situation. Beliefs that are automatic despite no rational basis to support them. Is that one form of an automaton?

    What do I believe that I cannot justify? What do you believe that you cannot justify to the same criteria?

  376. 376
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Which statement is true? It depends on who the reader thinks is more credible. You are not very credible.

    They could both be true. My point was that you made assumptions about me and my background which were not correct. I’m suggesting you should not do that.

    The NSA (who I interviewed with) certainly does hire a lot of programmers and I have no reason to question that you might have worked for them and written code for them.

  377. 377
    relatd says:

    JVL at 376,

    I apologize for any incorrect assumptions but stand by my analysis. You are here for three reasons:

    1) Tear down religious belief.

    2) Promote blind, unguided chance that is directionless as the reason for development of life on Earth.

    3) Tear down ID as valid science.

    Those three things are easily proven. I know, and others should realize, that you will continue to do these things as long as you can.

  378. 378
    relatd says:

    JVL at 376,

    I work with professional writers. Using the correct and best words matter. There is a particular area where this applies: Propaganda. Once a person understands how it works it’s easy to spot.

    I notice you accepted my statement as likely true instead of asking: Did you work for the NSA? I did not but I added that example to check on your fact checking ability. You failed.

  379. 379
    Alan Fox says:

    I work with professional writers.

    Yes, you’ve mentioned this several times.

    And the relevance is?

  380. 380
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Those three things are easily proven.

    Well go ahead then.

    I notice you accepted my statement as likely true instead of asking: Did you work for the NSA? I did not but I added that example to check on your fact checking ability. You failed.

    Oh well you’re clearly a lot more intelligent than me.

    Anyway, see if you can figure out my true motivation.

  381. 381
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, you seem to imagine that by doubling down on abuse of inductive logic you can sideline signs of design as cause. What we, contingent designers, demonstrate, is that design is possible, that it may leave signs not plausible on blind chance or mechanical necessity, and of course that designers are possible. Therefore, if we see evidence of signs of design in the cell etc, which we do, that is very reasonably evidence of design long before us, and pointing onward that entities capable of design were there, then. That to try to rhetorically blunt this otherwise fairly obvious result you have to abuse induction speaks volumes. Clearly a problem with SETI is its best case in point is an uinwelcome case, the cell. KF

  382. 382
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Kairosfocus
    JVL, you seem to imagine that by doubling down on abuse of inductive logic you can sideline signs of design as cause.

    Denial is a defense mechanism that (temporarily)keep the person from a bigger damage. All of us have this mechanism of defense. Somebody can’t face a dragon before is mentally prepared for that otherwise will freeze and will be eaten . It’s better to hide from the dragon(to be in denial) until you are ready.

  383. 383
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: What we, contingent designers, demonstrate, is that design is possible, that it may leave signs not plausible on blind chance or mechanical necessity, and of course that designers are possible.

    Obviously designers are possible. Humans exist, humans design. Have we seen any other designers that come close to having the abilities you assume were necessary? Nope. Have we seen any other physical evidence such designers exist? Nope. Have we detected signals or messages from any such designers? Nope.

    You can’t logic beings into existence. You can guess, hypothesise all you want but until you find more evidence that such beings exist all you have is a guess.

    Failing the existence of the hoped for designers what remains is unguided natural forces. But we also have a growing body of evidence that the unguided processes actually are capable of creating life forms as we observe. So, there is a solid, growing positive case for the ability of unguided processes. Which means we have no need of your hypothesis. Good solid logic. Good solid parsimonious conclusion.

  384. 384
    JVL says:

    LtComData: Denial is a defense mechanism that (temporarily)keep the person from a bigger damage.

    Let me ask you a question: is your view falsifiable? Do you agree that it’s possible you are incorrect? Do you think it’s possible that the chance of you being wrong would be so damaging to your worldview that your base reaction would be denial?

  385. 385
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, doubling down on denial of evidence elucidated since 1953 on the nature of the genetic code, especially protein-making algorithms does not make that evidence go away. What there truly is no evidence of is FSCO/I of such magnitude beyond the 500 – 1,000 bit threshold coming about by blind chance and mechanical necessity. There is every sort of evidence that it reliably comes about by intelligently directed configuration and is a reliable sign of design. We therefore have cause to infer that language using coded algorithm designers were present to author the codes and algorithms in D/RNA. If that were not inconvenient for an ideology, this wouldn’t even be an issue. And, it is perfectly ontologically valid to infer to adequate cause of a key phenomenon that is embedded in the cells of our bodies just as in the cells of other organisms. Designers are possible, we can and do have for key cases reliable signs of design, they are manifestly present, so we have good reason to infer that a process only carried out by capable designers implies just that, capable designers. Who or what specifically they were is not settled by the mere presence of FSCO/I, just that they were. KF

  386. 386
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, you full well know that were it observed that FSCO/I beyond the 500 – 1,000 bit threshold does come about by blind chance and mechanical necessity, the design inference on the world of life would collapse. The attempt to project or suggest that the inference is not subject to empirical test or analytic falsification is a rhetorical gambit of desperation and cynical obfuscation. KF

    PS, regarding such tests . . .

    [Wikipedia confesses regarding the infinite monkeys theorem:] The theorem concerns a thought experiment which cannot be fully carried out in practice, since it is predicted to require prohibitive amounts of time and resources. Nonetheless, it has inspired efforts in finite random text generation.

    One computer program run by Dan Oliver of Scottsdale, Arizona, according to an article in The New Yorker, came up with a result on August 4, 2004: After the group had worked for 42,162,500,000 billion billion monkey-years, one of the “monkeys” typed,

    “VALENTINE. Cease toIdor:eFLP0FRjWK78aXzVOwm)-‘;8.t”

    The first 19 letters of this sequence can be found in “The Two Gentlemen of Verona”. Other teams have reproduced 18 characters from “Timon of Athens”, 17 from “Troilus and Cressida”, and 16 from “Richard II”.[26]

    A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on July 1, 2003, contained a Java applet that simulated a large population of monkeys typing randomly, with the stated intention of seeing how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play from beginning to end. For example, it produced this partial line from Henry IV, Part 2, reporting that it took “2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years” to reach 24 matching characters:

    RUMOUR. Open your ears; 9r”5j5&?OWTY Z0d…

    [ACC: Dec 17, 2019. NB: Where, also, as this is a digital age, we will readily see that we can compose a description language and then create a string of yes/no questions to specify any reasonable object — as say AutoCAD etc do. Thus, our seemingly simplistic discussion on bit strings *-*-*- . . . is in fact without loss of generality [WLOG].]

    [Comment: 16 – 24 ASCII characters is far short of the relevant thresholds, at best, a factor of about 1 in 10^100. Yes, the article goes on to note that “instead of simply generating random characters one restricts the generator to a meaningful vocabulary and conservatively following grammar rules, like using a context-free grammar, then a random document generated this way can even fool some humans.” But, that is simply implicitly conceding that design makes a big difference to what can be done. ]

  387. 387
    bornagain77 says:

    As to JVL trying to turn the tables and say that it is ID proponents, not Darwinists, that are in Denial.

    Well like everything else for the Darwinist, the science itself simply does not support JVL’s claim that ID proponents are in the midst of denial, but instead the science itself supports the ID proponents’s claim that Darwinists are the ones who are in the midst of denialism.

    Specifically, studies have now established that the design inference is an innate, ‘knee jerk’, inference that is built into everyone, especially including atheists, and that atheists have to mentally work to suppress their “knee jerk” design inference!

    Is Atheism a Delusion?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o

    Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? – October 17, 2012
    Excerpt: “Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.” The article describes a test by Boston University’s psychology department, in which researchers found that “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose” ,,,
    Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65381.html

    Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study – Mary Papenfuss – June 12, 2015
    Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the “knee jerk” reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they’re purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the “Divided Mind of a disbeliever.”
    The findings “suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed,” writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers’ words, “religious non-belief is cognitively effortful.”
    Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or “default” human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether “any being purposefully made the thing in the picture,” notes Pacific-Standard.
    “Religious participants’ baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher” than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants “increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made” when “they did not have time to censor their thinking,” wrote the researchers.
    The results suggest that “the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs,” the report concluded.
    The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US.
    “Design-based intuitions run deep,” the researchers conclude, “persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them.”
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richa.....dy-1505712

    It is not that Atheists do not see purpose and/or Design in nature and biology, it is that Atheists, for whatever severely misguided reason, live in denial of the purpose and/or Design that they themselves intuitively see in nature and biology.

    Perhaps the two most famous quotes of atheists suppressing their innate ‘design inference’ are the two following quotes:

    “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
    – Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21

    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case”
    – Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – 1988

    It is easy to see why Francis Crick in particular, co-discoverer of the DNA helix, would be constantly haunted by his intuition that life must be Intelligently Designed. DNA itself literally screams, “I AM INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED” from every angle that you look at it.
    https://uncommondescent.com/junk-dna/darwin-lobby-reviewer-junk-dna-helps-creationists/#comment-593439

    Verse:

    Romans 1:19-20
    For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

  388. 388
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: you full well know that were it observed that FSCO/I beyond the 500 – 1,000 bit threshold does come about by blind chance and mechanical necessity, the design inference on the world of life would collapse. The attempt to project or suggest that the inference is not subject to empirical test or analytic falsification is a rhetorical gambit of desperation and cynical obfuscation

    What kind of observation(s) would you accept? Please be specific and clear.

  389. 389
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: Specifically, studies have now established that the design inference is an innate, ‘knee jerk’, inference that is built into everyone, especially including atheists, and that atheists have to mentally work to suppress their “knee jerk” design inference!

    Which has nothing to say about whether or not the science supports the heavily supported over many decades and generation unguided evolutionary theory.

    In fact, one might say that overcoming an innate reaction and coming to a contrary conclusion speaks to the strength of the evidence against the reaction.

  390. 390
    bornagain77 says:

    ^^^^

    Hmm, so JVL resorts to denial of his denialism?

    Apparently the mental disorder of denialism in JVL is far worse than expected. 🙂

    In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person’s choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.
    Denialism – Wikipedia

    Which begs the question of exactly why are JVL, and other atheists, so uncomfortable with their intuition of Design? Exactly what have they got to lose save for the utter despair and nihilism inherent within their atheistic worldview? A worldview which denies that JVL’s life, or any other life, has any real meaning or value?

    “I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion.
    The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.”
    – Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists – Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – preface

    “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.”
    – Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists – Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100

  391. 391
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: so JVL resorts to denial of his denialism?

    You’re really reaching. I said: Which has nothing to say about whether or not the science supports the heavily supported over many decades and generation unguided evolutionary theory.

    I denied nothing. Perhaps you’d like to address the science supporting unguided evolutionary instead of claiming some innate psychological trait in humans has anything to do with what is true.

  392. 392
    asauber says:

    “Which has nothing to say about whether or not the science supports the heavily supported over many decades and generation unguided evolutionary theory.”

    Troll,

    When the science that doesn’t support unguided evolutionary theory is shown to you, you preferentially choose to ignore it. You’re in denial, there is no doubt of that.

    Andrew

  393. 393
    Alan Fox says:

    Motes and beams, Andy. 🙂

  394. 394
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 390,

    You should consider another possibility other than denial. The atheist can also be promoting Darwinism even though scientific evidence for Intelligent Design shows blind, unguided chance to be incapable of doing what it claims. Keep in mind, that in the West, to keep power and influence/control over the people, they need to be given a belief based not on science but ideology. This ideology is presented as science but it is not. What Darwin dreamed up was used and abused by some to promote eugenics.

    In conclusion, this Darwinian worldview cannot be abandoned. If it is not promoted then the dreaded religious will fill the vacuum. This will lead to actual science and a great disaster: the collapse of the Darwinian idea and the replacement, in the minds of the people, with a life that was created and developed by an intelligence. However, I do not have high hopes that JVL and some others here will change anything. The mission to promote evolution cannot be abandoned.

    • ‘The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.”

    “Christoph Cardinal Schönborn is archbishop of Vienna and general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

  395. 395
    jerry says:

    But, please, show me I’m wrong.

    No one on this site on either side is the least bit interested in punctuated equilibrium let alone understand the basis for it. It was promoted by Stephen Gould. There is a book on macroevolution (Macroevolution: Diversity, Disparity, Contingency: Essays in Honor of Stephen Jay Gould) but it really is a reprint of an issue of the journal Paleobiology in honor of Gould.

    The opening article in this book was given to Jurgen Brosius and is titled

    Disparity, adaptation, exaptation, bookkeeping, and contingency at the genome level

    Paleobiology, 31(2), 2005, pp. 1-16

    It is about how punctuated equilibrium happens and the research supporting it. Journal issue

    Paleobiology, Vol. 31, No. 2, Supplement. Macroevolution: Diversity, Disparity,Contingency: Essays in Honor of Stephen Jay Gould (Spring, 2005)

    My guess is that no one on this site except myself has read this book/journal and thus does not understand the basis for punctuated equilibrium. I have posted this several times over the years.

    Prediction: in six months from now – everyone on this site will still not understand the basis for punctuated equilibrium. But that will not stop them from holding forth on molecular biology as the basis/non basis for Evolution.

    My personal opinion – this is all about the origin of proteins. I maintain even though the punctuated equilibrium people has a theory, it is far from enough to explain what has happened. However, it is never addressed. So there is a group of evolutionary biologists who believe the protein origin issue has been solved and no one from ID addresses their beliefs as not justified.

    Should not be discussed on this OP

  396. 396
    Querius says:

    JVL @360,

    Querius: Of course you can’t see with your eyes tightly shut!

    JVL: Shut to what? Show me the evidence.

    Shut to the next sentence that followed in my comment.

    Querius: There’s no demonstrable biophysics that can ratchet up complexity to the astonishing level within a living cell!

    JVL: I think the case has been made once there is a basic biological replicator.

    Show me the evidence. What basic biological replicator? Show me how it was formed without an even more basic biological replicator.

    JVL: Meanwhile, back at the ID ranch . . . when did your undefined and unobserved designer do what exactly?

    Are you referring to the miraculous “Cambrian explosion” where all the basic body plans of living things magically materialized?

    Querius: Make a smoothy out of bacterial cells, hit it with electricity, heat, cold, atmospheric gases, whatever, to demonstrate this fantasy of self organization into extremely high levels of complexity. You won’t because you know you can’t.

    JVL: No one is claiming it happened quickly or in one big event. Why do you keep railing against an argument no one is making?

    Yes, they are. Look up “Cambrian explosion.” But that’s not even my challenge. Show me how the bacterially derived components for life organized themselves to create “a basic biological replicator.”

    You won’t because you know you can’t. You’re operating on faith that it musta somehow happened.

    Querius: And then, you claim you don’t have any evidence of external intervention that would otherwise be OBVIOUS in computers, jet aircraft, and cities that are far less complex than a living cell.

    JVL: That’s right, I haven’t seen any credible evidence that there was any intervention in a process that took literally millions and millions of years just to get to the first multi-celled creature. Great design that eh?

    Oh, so you’re claiming that after millions and millions of years, computers, jet aircraft, and cities that are far less complex than a living cell will spontaneously evolve without intelligent design. If we found these on Mars, would you say they evolved from natural causes or would you say they were intelligently designed?

    Querius: If it walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you’re not convinced that it isn’t a giraffe.

    JVL: (gives brow-beating troll response)

    Yes, you’re right, Relatd.

    -Q

  397. 397
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, you saw a super easy test, one that can be done with a good random number generator hooked up to a PC. It has been done and runs a factor of 10^100 short of threshold config space size. We know the gaps in Darwin pond type exercises, which we all know have been done. We know artificial selection strongly tends to hit limits, and that breeds tend to be less viable in the wild. We know that fold domains are deeply isolated in AA sequence space. We know the limitations of drug resistance, especially malaria. Those are all tests we all know about so the pretence that we cannot pose tests is another empty gambit. KF

  398. 398
    JVL says:

    Asauber: When the science that doesn’t support unguided evolutionary theory is shown to you, you preferentially choose to ignore it. You’re in denial, there is no doubt of that.

    I don’t ignore it, I just don’t think it’s very good science. Or your interpretation of it is skewed. I’ve noticed that your response is much the same as many commenters here; if I disagree then I didn’t understand the point or I ignored it or I’m lying. You just can’t get it through your head that sensible, intelligent people might disagree with you. I know you disagree with me but I don’t cast aspersions on your honesty or intelligence.

  399. 399
    relatd says:

    JVL at 398,

    This isn’t about honesty or “sensible, intelligent people.” This is a clash of worldviews, not science. One is the atheist ‘nothing made human beings’ idea followed by the ‘human beings are no accident’ idea. You need to realize that your attempts to ignore that have been recognized as attempts to ignore that. Both sides can’t be right.

  400. 400
    JVL says:

    Jerry: No one on this site on either side is the least bit interested in punctuated equilibrium let alone understand the basis for it. It was promoted by Stephen Gould.

    I am very aware of punctuated equilibrium having read several books of essays by Stephen J Gould and also Richard Dawkins discussion of it (comparing his view with Gould). It was introduced (by Gould and . . . Eldridge?) as a possible explanation for gaps in the fossil record which seemed to be very short, the idea being that sometimes, under certain circumstances, evolution can ‘speed up’ a bit and changes happen quickly. When the equilibrium gets punctured a small population can get modified in short order. The trouble is, of course, that it’s impossible to say whether or not that was the case for situations that were not actually observed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

  401. 401
    asauber says:

    “I don’t ignore it, I just don’t think it’s very good science.”

    Troll,

    Appealing to “millions of years” so unknown magic can happen is good science?

    Andrew

  402. 402
    JVL says:

    Querius: Show me the evidence. What basic biological replicator? Show me how it was formed without an even more basic biological replicator.

    As well you know we don’t know what that basic replicator was . . . yet. RNA world seems to be gaining some ground. I figure it might have been some really spare like a minimalist virus but one that could reproduce just given naturally available resources. But it would have had to be very simple.

    Are you referring to the miraculous “Cambrian explosion” where all the basic body plans of living things magically materialized?

    I’m just asking you to fill-out the ID paradigm a bit. Like saying something about when design was implemented at least.

    Yes, they are. Look up “Cambrian explosion.”

    How long was the Cambrian explosion?

    You won’t because you know you can’t. You’re operating on faith that it musta somehow happened.

    Well, there is still the possibility that some bit of biological substance got placed on Earth somehow. I can’t rule that out but it does just put the real beginning of life back to some other place at some other time.

    Oh, so you’re claiming that after millions and millions of years, computers, jet aircraft, and cities that are far less complex than a living cell will spontaneously evolve without intelligent design. If we found these on Mars, would you say they evolved from natural causes or would you say they were intelligently designed?

    Clearly non-living, non-natural structures are created by intelligent beings. Again, you’re not actually addressing the real unguided evolutionary argument. But that’s not very surprising.

  403. 403
    relatd says:

    JVL at 402,

    “when design was implemented at least.”

    Please provide all dates and times when evolution was implemented – at all relevant stages.

  404. 404
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: you saw a super easy test, one that can be done with a good random number generator hooked up to a PC. It has been done and runs a factor of 10^100 short of threshold config space size.

    And how does that map onto the biological landscape? You need to be clear and explicit, not just hinting. So, again, what kind of evidence would you accept?

    We know artificial selection strongly tends to hit limits, and that breeds tend to be less viable in the wild.

    Of course because the breeds were not bred to survive in the wild!!

    We know that fold domains are deeply isolated in AA sequence space.

    You need to spell that out.

    We know the limitations of drug resistance, especially malaria.

    Please show that evidence.

  405. 405
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Please provide all dates and times when evolution was implemented – at all relevant stages.

    Pick a particular transition you are interested in and I will do my best to reply.

  406. 406
    Alan Fox says:

    RNA world seems to be gaining some ground.

    Indeed. RNA can be (and still is in significant ways) both replicator and catalyst which means the genetic code is a later add-on.

    I figure it might have been some really spare like a minimalist virus but one that could reproduce just given naturally available resources.

    Viruses are parasites. They can’t have preceded free-living organisms.

  407. 407
    jerry says:

    I am very aware of punctuated equilibrium

    You just indicated that you know nothing about punctuated equilibrium.

    You cited a Wikipedia article which does not have the primary process for punctuated equilibrium. As I said no one here understands how it is supposed to work.

    Brosius was given the privilege of the opening article in the praise of Gould. Here’s the abstract

    Disparity, adaptation, exaptation, bookkeeping, and contingency at the genome level

    Abstract: The application of molecular genetics, in particular comparative genomics, to the field of evolutionary biology is paving the way to an enhanced “New Synthesis.” Apart from their power to establish and refine phylogenies, understanding such genomic processes as the dynamics of change in genomes, even in hypothetical RNA-based genomes and the in vitro evolution of RNA molecules, helps to clarify evolutionary principles that are otherwise hidden among the nested hierarchies of evolutionary units. To this end, I outline the course of hereditary material and examine several issues including disparity, causation, or bookkeeping of genes, adaptation, and exaptation, as well as evolutionary contingency at the genomic level–issues at the heart of some of Stephen Jay Gould’s intellectual battlegrounds. Interestingly, where relevant, the genomic perspective is consistent with Gould’s agenda. Extensive documentation makes it particularly clear that exaptation plays a role in evolutionary processes that is at least as significant as–and perhaps more significant than–that played by adaptation.

    Jürgen Brosius
    Paleobiology
    Vol. 31, No. 2, Supplement. Macroevolution: Diversity, Disparity, Contingency: Essays in Honor of Stephen Jay Gould (Spring, 2005), pp. 1-16

    It’s really quite simple. Some area of non coding DNA (often called junk DNA) mutates away over long periods of time till it is exapted for use. Possibly with other proteins that have no effect on the organism.

    That’s why there is a sudden change. Not because something happens rapidly but because for eons the sequence did not produce anything that affected the organism.

    Aside: I don’t personally believe this is what happens. It’s just no one here is aware of a process that is touted as the cause of naturalized Evolution. Meanwhile other irrelevant stuff is regurgitated over and over.

  408. 408
    relatd says:

    JVL at 405,

    It has been stated that humans and apes have a “common ancestor.” Identify this ancestor and place it at a particular point in time.

  409. 409
    asauber says:

    “Pick a particular transition you are interested in and I will do my best to reply.”

    Troll,

    When and where specifically did hummingbird wings develop? Provide evidence for your answer.

    Andrew

  410. 410
    Alan Fox says:

    You just indicated that you know nothing about punctuated equilibrium.

    Dunning?

    Kruger?

    Anyone?

  411. 411
    JVL says:

    Relatd: It has been stated that humans and apes have a “common ancestor.” Identify this ancestor and place it at a particular point in time.

    His name was Roger and he lived near Chicago about 3.95887 million years ago. He had two daughters, Chloe and Fritz. His wife, Smersh, was a potter. Their dog, Tralphaz, won the local show jumping competition.

  412. 412
    relatd says:

    JVL at 411,

    Ah, the non-reply reply.

    Your credibility decreases.

  413. 413
    JVL says:

    Asauber: When and where specifically did hummingbird wings develop? Provide evidence for your answer.

    If I do my best to track this down will you then do the same, that is specify when design was implemented?

  414. 414
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Ah, the non-reply reply.

    I learned from you how not to reply to direct questions. How did I do?

  415. 415
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, you indulge in more confession by projection. KF

  416. 416
    Seversky says:

    JVL/411

    Relatd: It has been stated that humans and apes have a “common ancestor.” Identify this ancestor and place it at a particular point in time.

    His name was Roger and he lived near Chicago about 3.95887 million years ago. He had two daughters, Chloe and Fritz. His wife, Smersh, was a potter. Their dog, Tralphaz, won the local show jumping competition.

    I’m not sure that’s right. I thought his name was Fred and he lived with his wife Wilma and their pet saber-toothed cat in the little town of Bedrock. Next-door neighbors were called Barney and Betty if I recall.

  417. 417
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 416,

    Your knowledge of cartoons is uh… not applicable here.

  418. 418
    Paxx says:

    Who else here thinks JVL is kind of a dumb sh*t?

  419. 419
    Alan Fox says:

    Modern expressions of creationism and especially so-called “scientific” creationism are making extensive use of the tactic of selective quotation in order to make it appear that numerous biologists doubt the reality of evolution. The creationists take advantage of the fact that evolutionary biology is a living science containing disagreements about certain details of the evolutionary process by taking quotations about such details out of context in an attempt to support the creationists’ antievolutionary stand. Sometimes they simply take biologists’ descriptions of creationism and then ascribe these views to the biologists themselves! These patently dishonest practices of misquotation give us a right to question even the sincerity of creationists.

    I wonder who said that.

  420. 420
    Alan Fox says:

    It is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups. The evolution from reptiles to mammals . . . is well documented

    I wonder who said that.

  421. 421
    jerry says:

    Who misquoted Gould?

    Alan found an article from over 40 years ago and is quoting it.

  422. 422
    Alan Fox says:

    Indeed, Jerry, Gould died in 2002, he was only sixty years old.

  423. 423
    relatd says:

    “Most Darwinists involved in the public debate today have one, and only one goal: To stifle free debate on this subject and thereby discourage you, the public, from scrutinizing the scientific evidence for yourself.

    “Over the years, Darwinists have evolved a variety of strategies to accomplish these goals. We see each of these strategies in play in the op-eds and comments by Darwinists in this present forum on U.S. News and World Report. I’ll discuss how my opponents on this forum use the strategies of (1) Ridicule, Demonization, and Character Assassination; (2) Equating Darwin-Skeptics with Religion; (3) Persecute Darwin-Skeptics; and (4) Pretend There Is No Scientific Controversy Over Evolution in order to try to dissuade you, the reader, from thinking for yourself on this subject.”

    Source: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/room-for-debate/2009/02/12/darwin-believers-hide-fears-of-intelligent-design-behind-a-wall-of-denial-and-ridicule

  424. 424
    Querius says:

    JVL @402,

    As well you know we don’t know what that basic replicator was . . . yet.

    What a lovely statement of pure, childlike faith! Wow.

    I’m also imagining a medieval alchemist asserting that “we don’t have the exact formula . . . yet.”

    RNA world seems to be gaining some ground. I figure it might have been some really spare like a minimalist virus but one that could reproduce just given naturally available resources. But it would have had to be very simple.

    And just like all the promising designs of perpetual motion, all this very simple virus needed was a little push to get started, and voila, free energy! Since the virus is so simple, then it must be simple to make one and demonstrate it. Even a child could do it! Right?

    I’m just asking you to fill-out the ID paradigm a bit. Like saying something about when design was implemented at least.

    As you might hopefully know by now, ID takes no position on the source of the intelligent design or how long it took. Note that uniformitarianism fails on both linear retrospective extrapolation and in scale (in other words, catastrophism is a matter of whether your house is sitting on a volcano).

    Maybe we’re in a simulation of some kind (as some physicists now believe), or maybe it was a class assignment for an alien university.

    Querius: Yes, they are. Look up “Cambrian explosion.”

    JVL: How long was the Cambrian explosion?

    Look it up yourself. I’m not your Siri.

    Well, there is still the possibility that some bit of biological substance got placed on Earth somehow. I can’t rule that out but it does just put the real beginning of life back to some other place at some other time.

    Really? A possibility? Oh, but you must mean like Francis Crick’s conclusion of “directed panspermia,” right?

    Querius: Oh, so you’re claiming that after millions and millions of years, computers, jet aircraft, and cities that are far less complex than a living cell will spontaneously evolve without intelligent design. If we found these on Mars, would you say they evolved from natural causes or would you say they were intelligently designed?

    JVL: Clearly non-living, non-natural structures are created by intelligent beings. Again, you’re not actually addressing the real unguided evolutionary argument. But that’s not very surprising.

    So, do you think an iron atom in a living organism is fundamentally different than an iron atom in a jet aircraft?

    What about a heme molecule? Could you tell if a heme molecule came from a living organism or was possibly synthesized?

    Do you think it’s impossible, then, for a living organism to have been created by a clearly super intelligent being?

    The “yet” that you’re missing is the whole ball of wax, namely a natural, self-organizing force that would take a bacterial smoothie, subject it to a series of physical and chemical processes that would reassemble it (or even a SUPER SIMPLE version) into “living” organism.

    After all, differential erosion and other known physical processes could certainly result in something that looks like a city. You might argue that LIVING organisms have a selection mechanism, but that implies that non-living organisms such as your very simple virus or the precursor to a living cell did not have a selection mechanism, just like my hypothetical city that was produced by natural forces and undirected chance.

    So, do you think it’s possible that a living organism can evolve without reproduction? Do you think very simple viruses can evolve without reproduction?

    -Q

  425. 425
    relatd says:

    Chemicals do not and cannot spring to life. But the contention is that they did.

    Once alive, what did early cells do to get energy/food? How could they digest or turn it into a life-sustaining process? What internal machinery converted the energy/food into something useful?

    The early cell is sometimes described as a (lipid) bag with unknown contents. The contention is that this simple cell could exist with very minimal machinery.

    The next problem is reproduction. Where did the machinery come from to initiate, sustain and complete cell division? And to do it accurately? The simple cell would need to store a certain amount of energy to reproduce.

    It appears that a magic bag, or simple cell containing magic ingredients, is required.

    Of course, it is assumed that simple cells became more complex for no particular reason and that the internal cellular machinery did the same.

    Conclusion: An increase in complexity involves not just the right parts, but parts working together in very specific ways, and instructions to guide and make those processes happen.

    There is no evidence that an unguided process that has no goals can do this.

  426. 426
    Querius says:

    Relatd @425,
    But you don’t understand. A Kosmic Karma ™ force musta existed to push forward complexity. However, this Kosmic Karma ™, having done its job is no longer around.

    For example, when cells first appeared, they were very, very simple. They didn’t even know how move, divide, or even solve simple linear equations. But Kosmic Karma ™ saved the day!

    Little-by-little, Kosmic Karma ™ fought against the evil demiurge, Entropy to nudge the dumb little cells forward into complexity out of chaos. For example, the fat little cells just sat there at first so, Kosmic Karma ™ nudged it into having a bump on its cell wall that developed into a structure that simply made rude noises. When that got boring Kosmic Karma ™ nudged it a little further so that the noisemaker bump evolved into a type 2 secretory structure, which gave it a selective advantage over all the others that could only make rude noises. From there, it was a piece of cake to turn it into a flagellum. And we know this is true because in another billion years, the flagellum will turn into a pair of teensy-weensy jet engines, giving it a far greater selection advantage.

    See, this is “following the science.”

    -Q

    It pressured the simple

  427. 427
    William J Murray says:

    Paxx said:

    Who else here thinks JVL is kind of a dumb sh*t?

    I think that’s unfair. Everyone suffers from cognitive dissonance and cognitive biases. I’ve seen it in operation on both sides of these debates. I have suffered from those things myself on a couple of occasions here, and have admitted those errors when I discovered them. I’m certainly still operating under them, but they’re not easy to spot or to figure out whom it is that is suffering from them in any particular debate.

  428. 428
    Alan Fox says:

    Chemicals do not and cannot spring to life.

    Indeed, that is absurd.

    But the contention is that they did.

    Who do you mean by “they”? I’ve never heard any such claim from anyone in the scientific community.

    I think you made that up.

  429. 429
    Alan Fox says:

    @ William

    Refreshing to read 427.

  430. 430
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL at 402:

    Q: “so you’re claiming that after millions and millions of years, computers, jet aircraft, and cities that are far less complex than a living cell will spontaneously evolve without intelligent design. If we found these on Mars, would you say they evolved from natural causes or would you say they were intelligently designed?”

    JVL: “Clearly non-living, non-natural structures are created by intelligent beings. Again, you’re not actually addressing the real unguided evolutionary argument. But that’s not very surprising.”

    Well actually it is JVL himself who is not “addressing the real unguided evolutionary argument”. (which is not surprising).

    In the “real unguided evolutionary argument”, Darwinists simply deny the existence of free will.

    The Illusion of Free Will – Sam Harris – 2012
    Excerpt: “Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.,,,”
    – Jerry Coyne
    https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/

    And with their denial of free will, intelligent agents simply do not exist in the “real unguided evolutionary argument” of Darwinists.

    As Coyne further explains, you don’t actually make any decisions for yourself but “Your decisions result from molecular-based electrical impulses and chemical substances transmitted from one brain cell to another. These molecules must obey the laws of physics, so the outputs of our brain—our “choices”—are dictated by those laws.”

    You Don’t Have Free Will By Jerry A. Coyne – March 18, 2012
    Excerpt: “Your decisions result from molecular-based electrical impulses and chemical substances transmitted from one brain cell to another. These molecules must obey the laws of physics, so the outputs of our brain—our “choices”—are dictated by those laws.”
    Jerry Coyne
    https://www.chronicle.com/article/Jerry-A-Coyne-You-Dont-Have/131165

    Thus directly contrary to what JVL is claiming, i.e. “Clearly non-living, non-natural structures are created by intelligent beings”, in the “real unguided evolutionary argument”, and with its explicit denial of free will, intelligent beings create nothing but everything is ultimately created by the ‘laws of physics’.

    As Granville Sewell noted, “I make the simple point that to not believe in intelligent design, you have to believe that the four fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone (the gravitational, electromagnetic, and strong and weak nuclear forces) could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics into encyclopedias and science texts and computers and airplanes and Apple iPhones.,,,”

    From Barren Planet to Civilization — Four Simple Steps
    Granville Sewell – July 27, 2017
    In the video “Why Evolution is Different,” above, I make the simple point that to not believe in intelligent design, you have to believe that the four fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone (the gravitational, electromagnetic, and strong and weak nuclear forces) could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics into encyclopedias and science texts and computers and airplanes and Apple iPhones.,,,
    The argument here for intelligent design could not be simpler or clearer: unintelligent forces of physics alone cannot rearrange atoms into computers and airplanes and Apple iPhones. And the counterargument consists of four steps, each of which — to put it very generously — is full of dubious and unproven assertions. Q.E.D.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/07/from-barren-planet-to-civilization-four-simple-steps/
    Granville Sewell is professor of mathematics at the University of Texas El Paso.

    And as George Ellis noted, “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.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....free-will/

    Shoot, in the “real unguided evolutionary argument”, JVL is not even responsible for any sentence that he writes on this blog. As Paul Nelson explains, “MN (methodological naturalism) 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.”

    Assessing the Damage MN Does to Freedom of Inquiry
    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? Who knows?,,,
    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.,,
    – per evolution news

    Thus JVL may honestly admit to the blatantly obvious fact that, “Clearly non-living, non-natural structures are created by intelligent beings”, but for him to do so is for him to not address “the real unguided evolutionary argument”, and is for his to, in actuality, assume that Intelligent Design is true.

    Of further note:

    In the following article the late Steven Weinberg stated “In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, 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.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”

    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/46.....inberg.pdf

    In fact Weinberg, an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because, via their free will choices, “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists would prefer the world to behave.

    For instance, Anton Zeilinger and company have now, as of 2018, pushed the ‘freedom of choice’ loophole back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Abstract: 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

    Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining ‘freedom of choice’ loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself admitted, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

    Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally held with their necessary 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”

    February 2022 – Free will of God and the founding of modern science, (i.e. the necessary presupposition of ‘contingency’ for the founding of modern science)
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-mind-matters-news-why-would-a-purely-physical-universe-need-imaginary-numbers/#comment-747234

    December 2021 – When scrutinizing some of the many fascinating details of the Shroud of Turin, we find that both General Relativity, i.e. gravity, and Quantum Mechanics were both dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-time-for-american-thanksgiving-stephen-meyer-on-the-frailty-of-scientific-atheism/#comment-741600

    Verses:

    Matthew 28:18
    Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,”

    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.

  431. 431
    kairosfocus says:

    BA55, without rational, responsible freedom, there is no good reason, no warrant, no knowledge, no capacity to evaluate on merits. Which of course promotes empty rhetorical manipulation even as it undermines the possibility of Science, Mathematics etc as actual domains of knowledge. Evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers are in the end self referentially absurd, anti-reason, anti-knowledge, anti-science. That, frankly, sadly, goes a long way to explaining the present intellectual climate. KF

  432. 432
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Paxx
    Who else here thinks JVL is kind of a dumb sh*t?

    Your anger it’s justified but your focus is on the wrong person.

  433. 433
    chuckdarwin says:

    Paxx/418

    Jesus would never call someone a “dumb sh*t,” even if they were……

  434. 434
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus/430

    BA55, without rational, responsible freedom, there is no good reason, no warrant, no knowledge, no capacity to evaluate on merits. Which of course promotes empty rhetorical manipulation even as it undermines the possibility of Science, Mathematics etc as actual domains of knowledge. Evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers are in the end self referentially absurd, anti-reason, anti-knowledge, anti-science. That, frankly, sadly, goes a long way to explaining the present intellectual climate. KF

    No, it doesn’t. It’s a form of conspiracy theory. It simply dumps all the blame for what are perceived as the world’s ill on some “other” – a scapegoat group or population. “They” are to blame, not “us”. Unless and until we get past that kind of thinking, we are in big trouble going forward.

    I have asked before what you and BA77 actually mean by “free will”. Are you able to change from straight to gay and back again just by an effort of will? Can you lift a car with one hand or leap over a tall building in a single bound just by an exertion of “free will”. Those are absurd examples but the cases of drug addicts aren’t. They are driven by an overwhelming compulsion arising from their unconscious to feed their addiction. Some are able to overcome that compulsion to some extent by an effort of will but many can’t. Even if they become “clean” that addiction will always be there lurking in their unconscious. “Free will” cannot erase it.

    The point is that, like it or not, we are of this Universe not apart from it. We are as much bound by the forces which drive it and the laws which regulate it as anything else. We still don’t know where those forces and laws come from both on the largest and the smallest scales but we can’t escape them. So where is free will in all of this? I have the same experience of free will as everyone else but doesn’t it make more sense to ask to what extent we have free will?

  435. 435
    Querius says:

    Chuckdarwin @433,

    Jesus would never call someone a “dumb sh*t,” even if they were……

    How would you know?

    Jesus (aka the Word of God) quoted extensively from the Tanakh, famously including Psalm 22. Psalm 14:1 (NASB) reads,

    The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds. There is no one who does good.

    Jesus also called the religious leaders of his time, serpents, a brood of vipers, fools, blind guides, hypocrites, children of hell, full of greed and self indulgence. Read his denunciations for yourself in Matthew, chapter 23.

    Frankly, I’m completely convinced that the same denunciations richly apply to many religious leaders of today as well!

    -Q

  436. 436
    Seversky says:

    Chuckdarwin/433

    Paxx/418

    Jesus would never call someone a “dumb sh*t,” even if they were……

    Although I suppose you couldn’t blame Him if He did after His Dad was called

    … arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; … etc, etc,

    But then you could say it was His Dad’s fault for behaving like that, at least, according to the Bible. Maybe Christians need the equivalent of another Council of Rome or Hippo to clean it up.

  437. 437
    relatd says:

    WJM at 427,

    With all due respect, do you really believe that? Both sides have presented their case. Both sides can’t be right. There is no evidence that anyone forgot how to read or think. Any momentary confusion can be solved quite easily: do the research.

  438. 438
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 430,

    Note the words “not responsible” in your assessment of JVL. He is not responsible for anything or to anyone, meaning God. Radical individualism is a threat. By closing in on himself, man prefers only his own thoughts, his own opinions and his own interpretation of reality. While he can find others of like mind, he promotes this poisonous form of thinking to others not like him. It is a poison since, as you demonstrated, it tells people to ignore reality as it is. To ignore right reason.

    Jesus said:

    Matthew 20:28

    ‘even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

  439. 439
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 436,

    Hey, loud mouth! What do you care? You think you can tell Christians what they should do? Watch it.

  440. 440
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Relatd
    Seversky at 436,
    Hey, loud mouth! What do you care? You think you can tell Christians what they should do? Watch it.

    As long as Sewersky is more moral than God don’t you think that s/he has the right to tell you what to do? You should obey and bow to his authority and his messages from here should be compiled and taught in schools. He loves you that’s why he fight against Christianity. Don’t you feel the love that fill all his messages? 😆

  441. 441
    relatd says:

    LCD at 440,

    He’s mad at God because he didn’t do it HIS way! Which, by the way, is the only way…

  442. 442
    chuckdarwin says:

    Querius/435
    “How would you know?”

    Well, I don’t believe Jesus is ever reported in the NT having called someone a “dumb sh*t.” I’m sure such a pithy invective would have been reported in at least one of the gospels. You know like, “Hey Peter, you dumb sh*t, trim the sail before we all drown…” Or, “Peter, you dumb sh*t, don’t be cutting peoples’ ears off….”
    This is one of those cases where absence of evidence is evidence of absence…..

  443. 443
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, now wait one minute, it is ‘Dad’s fault’, after patiently warning, and waiting for a people to repent of their sins, for rendering sinners their just due?

    Peter J Williams on New Atheists & Old Testament (incl. The Canaanites)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulCbh_1SlwE

    Or Seversky, do you really want to hold on to the absurd proposition that we should live in a world without justice? After all, that is exactly the absurd proposition that your atheistic worldview entails, i.e. “no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”,,,

    “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
    – Dawkins

  444. 444
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 443,

    You misunderstand. Seversky wants to sit God down and give him a stern talking-to.

    Sev: Look God! Pain and suffering! I want it gone right now! DO IT !!!

    And so on…

    Romans 1:21

    “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”

  445. 445
    Querius says:

    Chuckdarwin @442,

    Notice that your original comment was:

    Jesus would never call someone a “dumb sh*t,” even if they were……

    To which you changed to

    “I don’t believe Jesus is ever reported in the NT having called someone a “dumb sh*t.”

    First off, let me point out that the New Testament is written in Greek, likely translated from Aramaic, obviating the expression in English. Secondly, the expression itself is American slang, but has Greek and Aramaic equivalents that I provided as examples.

    On the other hand, you provided nothing cogent, but simply moved the goalposts.

    -Q

  446. 446
    William J Murray says:

    Relatd @437 said:

    With all due respect, do you really believe that? Both sides have presented their case. Both sides can’t be right. There is no evidence that anyone forgot how to read or think. Any momentary confusion can be solved quite easily: do the research.

    Yes, I really do believe in the principle of charity when it comes to discussions, and I really do believe that everyone is capable of having errors of thought and cognition.

    One of the tell-tale signs of cognitive dissonance is when people become emotional and start attacking the person. That usually demonstrates an emotional investment in their own perspective. I see people on both sides becoming upset, casting aspersions, calling other people trolls, ridiculing their beliefs. For what? What rational, functional purpose is served by doing that?

    Plus, there’s a lot of mind-reading going on here, as if we know the motives and reasons for others and why they say the things they do. One side is constantly assuming the other side is inhabited entirely by atheistic materialists, the other side often reverts to some anti-Christian rant or attack. This has been going on for years here. I don’t know how many times I had to remind the same people that I’m not a Christian; it was like they could never retain that information.

    The easy way to feel good about oneself is to just believe the other people are not being truthful, or are being willfully blind, or have been indoctrinated, or are deliberate trolls.

    As far as I can tell, pretty much everyone here has an a priori commitment to an emotionally-charged ideology. Everyone here has a line they will not cross when it comes to their own views, and everyone here thinks their own views are perfectly reasonable and supported by the evidence. We’re all just human, after all.

  447. 447
    kairosfocus says:

    Paxx, language. Remember the broken window theory, a spiral to the gutter helps no one. KF

  448. 448
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, near as I can figure you are trying to deny the self referential incoherence of evolutionary materialistic scientism . . . a description not a label. I append JBS Haldane. KF

    PS: Haldane,

    [JBSH, REFACTORED AS SKELETAL, AUGMENTED PROPOSITIONS:]

    “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For

    if

    [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain

    [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, “my brain,” i.e. self referential]
    ______________________________

    [ THEN]

    [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true.

    [–> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the functionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?]

    [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.

    And hence

    [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [–> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence]

    [Implied, Corollary 3: Reason and rationality collapse in a grand delusion, including of course general, philosophical, logical, ontological and moral knowledge; reductio ad absurdum, a FAILED, and FALSE, intellectually futile and bankrupt, ruinously absurd system of thought.]

    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.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]

    PPS, rational responsible freedom is that power of self moving that allows us to be first, initiating causes not determined by a blind mechanical chain of prior events; that has been noted since Plato in The Laws Bk X. Absent such, we are not free enough to choose to follow a chain of warrant or to judge true from false. Just by arguing, you imply assent to such freedom. And no that does not mean that we cannot make foolish or even evil or destructive choices or that we cannot be enmeshed in alcoholism or other addictions. But for just this, see the twelve step type programme, which is now applied to endless areas of addictive struggle, e.g. gamblers anonymous. The rule is, it is easier not to bite at that juicy worm than to try to get off the hook once the barb has bitten home.

  449. 449
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, given a particular domination on thought about origins, I point to a description, evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers. This includes those who actually nominally adhere to other frames of thought but have made common cause. The particular issuie is as Haldane points out and many others too. Just the scientism — science monopolises or overwhelmingly dominates knowledge so it is the only effective or serious source of truth or knowledge, is already deeply problematic and self referential. But that has become a deeply embedded extreme extrapolation of the successes of science. We need to recognise and correct it. As for anti-christian bigotry etc, for decades a certain coterie of advocates have sought to smear, marginalise and lock out the design inference by promoting the assertion or innuendo that it is [biblical] creationism in a cheap tuxedo. They have consistently twisted cases and situations under that slander. Meanwhile, they have paid scant attention to Plato or to blatant evidence such as coded algorithmic information in D/RNA. Indeed some try to pretend that is not a fact. To which I answer by pointing to how proteins are made in the cell. KF

  450. 450
    Alan Fox says:

    Good points again at 446, William. Nobody should expect to change minds by exchanging a few comments on a blog but it is worthwhile sometimes at least finding where the disagreement lies.

  451. 451
    Seversky says:

    Relatd/439

    Seversky at 436,

    Hey, loud mouth! What do you care? You think you can tell Christians what they should do? Watch it

    I wasn’t telling Christians to do anything. I was simply suggesting that they might want to take another look at some parts of the Bible that are arguably problematical in light of our current understanding of morals.

  452. 452
    Seversky says:

    Relatd/441

    He’s mad at God because he didn’t do it HIS way! Which, by the way, is the only way…

    It would be pointless to be mad at a being I don’t think exists. If anything, what irritates me is blind, unquestioning obedience to some authority which is clearly as flawed as everything else in this Universe.

  453. 453
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/443

    Seversky, now wait one minute, it is ‘Dad’s fault’, after patiently warning, and waiting for a people to repent of their sins, for rendering sinners their just due?

    If He designed them to be capable of sin in the first place then, yes, He is to blame because, being all-powerful, He could have done otherwise. He is punishing people for behaving as He designed them to behave.

    Or Seversky, do you really want to hold on to the absurd proposition that we should live in a world without justice? After all, that is exactly the absurd proposition that your atheistic worldview entails, i.e. “no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”,,,

    I remind you of the is/ought gap. The fact that the Universe may be blindly and pitilessly indifferent to us does not mean that that is how we should behave towards each other.

    And nowhere did I argue that we should live in a world without justice. I’m just saying we are capable of working these things out for ourselves. We don’t need some other being to tell us how to set about it, although if God wants to come down and offer His thoughts then I’m sure we’d be happy to take His advice under consideration.

  454. 454
    Seversky says:

    Relatd/444

    Ba77 at 443,

    You misunderstand. Seversky wants to sit God down and give him a stern talking-to.

    Sev: Look God! Pain and suffering! I want it gone right now! DO IT !!!

    And so on…

    If your God has the power to prevent all that pain and suffering wouldn’t you at least want to know why He doesn’t do it?

  455. 455
    relatd says:

    WJM at 446,

    You didn’t say much of anything in that post. I’m one of a number of moderators on a rather large forum. I’ve seen all the ways people do it wrong. The problem with internet forums in general is anonymity. We all sit in a black room and the only way to communicate is by keyboard. People say/type things they would never say to someone in real life. I’ve got a few decades of evidence to show that’s true. In this sense, the internet is a devolution, a deficient form of communications.

    Since we will never meet in real life then yes, you will get trolls/liars and other troublemakers. It’s like leaving the front door of your house open and all and sundry walk in and dump their trash and leave.
    Posters who are committed to honesty and truth try to squeeze in but some are unaware of the tricks and traps waiting for them. They get caught in an exchange and are shot down. Quite sad really.

  456. 456
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 451,

    You really are confused. “in light of our current understanding of morals.”

    And what “understanding” would that be? Where is this written down? Tell me.

  457. 457
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 452,

    Make up your mind. Either God exists or He doesn’t. You talk about Him as if He’s real to you. Again, which is it? If He’s not real then you have nothing to say. If He is then He’s worthy of worship and praise.

    Your problem is you think He’s just a man. And by the way, you have no idea what’s going on in the rest of the universe.

  458. 458
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 453,

    You can’t be an amateur and a Bible scholar at the same time. God could have made robots that obeyed His every command without question. He did not. He gave them free will. The first man and first woman were given one commandment to obey. An evil being lied to them. They sinned the Original Sin and it was passed on to all men.

    Romans 5:12

    “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—”

  459. 459
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 454,

    I know why pain and suffering appeared. The first man and first woman were given gifts from God called preternatural.

    “impassibility (freedom from pain)
    immortality (freedom from death)
    integrity (freedom from concupiscence, or disordered desires)
    infused knowledge (freedom from ignorance in matters essential for happiness)”

    After The Fall, a literal event, those gifts were taken away. However, Adam and Eve did pass on what they knew to their children.

  460. 460
    kairosfocus says:

    AF, one may expect responsible behaviour towards observational data, facts, reasoning and duty. Even, in a blog combox, which is not an exception to such general duties of responsible, rational, significantly free creatures. And of course for many years, UD has been more of a discussion forum than a space intended for Youtube or Twitter style snarkiness and irresponsibility or outright trollish tactics. KF

  461. 461
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, you are back to yet another try at the long since answered deductive form problem of evils. You may find this recent OP a place to begin needed rethinking, oh about 50 years behind the curve. KF

  462. 462
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky at 453:

    BA77: now wait one minute, it is ‘Dad’s fault’, after patiently warning, and waiting for a people to repent of their sins, for rendering sinners their just due?

    Sev: If He designed them to be capable of sin in the first place then, yes, He is to blame because, being all-powerful, He could have done otherwise. He is punishing people for behaving as He designed them to behave.

    No Sev, as usual you’ve got a very warped understanding of theology. Aside from the fact that God primarily designed people to have a loving relationship with him, God also ‘designed’ people to know and learn that sin, while it may be fun for a short while, in the end sin will always lead to death and destruction, and to therefore learn from their mistakes and repent from their sin and turn to God. God is not punishing people for their sin so much as he is rending the just and final recompense that sin leads to,,,, sin which certain people(s) stubbornly choose to cling to, no matter how much death and destruction sin may bring into their lives, above turning to God and clinging to the righteousness of God,,,

    Psalms 52:3
    You love evil more than good,
    Lying rather than speaking righteousness.

    John 3:19
    And this is the verdict: The Light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness rather than the Light because their deeds were evil.

    Continued

    BA77: Or Seversky, do you really want to hold on to the absurd proposition that we should live in a world without justice? After all, that is exactly the absurd proposition that your atheistic worldview entails, i.e. “no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”,,,

    Sev: I remind you of the is/ought gap. The fact that the Universe may be blindly and pitilessly indifferent to us does not mean that that is how we should behave towards each other.

    The is/ought gap only accentuates the fact that you, in your atheistic materialism, have no objective moral basis and does nothing whatsoever to alleviate the fact that you yourself, in your argument from evil, are necessarily presupposing the existence of objective morality, and are therefore necessarily presupposing the existence of God.

    Responding to the Argument From Evil: Three Approaches for the Theist – By David Wood
    Excerpt: Interestingly enough, proponents of AE grant this premise in the course of their argument. By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil. Amazingly, then, even as atheists make their case against the existence of God, they actually help us prove that God exists!,,,
    https://www.namb.net/apologetics/responding-to-the-argument-from-evil-three-approaches-for-the-theist

    Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
    Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
    Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
    The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos – video
    https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276

    As ex-atheist CS Lewis noted, “A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”

    “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?
    – CS Lewis

    Sev, In your atheistic worldview of “no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”, you simply have no basis in which to judge whether anything may be good or evil. You simply have no basis in which to make the judgment. As Michael Egnor noted, “Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.”

    The Universe Reflects a Mind
    Michael Egnor – February 28, 2018
    Excerpt: Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/

    Sev continues,

    And nowhere did I argue that we should live in a world without justice. I’m just saying we are capable of working these things out for ourselves. We don’t need some other being to tell us how to set about it, although if God wants to come down and offer His thoughts then I’m sure we’d be happy to take His advice under consideration.

    Sev: without God, and in your atheistic materialism, you simply have no basis in which to know, must less condemn, (for instance), the Nazis as being ‘unjust’ in their holocaust. “Blind, pitiless, indifference’ is not just some stupid slogan that Dawkins dreamt up for atheism, it is literally a defining feature of atheism. i.e. In your atheistic materialism you simply have no moral basis in which to differentiate evil from good. You only have subjective personal opinions. Subjective personal opinions which are all equally valid and all, therefore, equally meaningless. Yet, in direct contrast to what your atheistic worldview holds, “nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense”,

    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

    Agains, nobody, including atheists, live as if atheistic materialism is actually true.

    Shoot even Dawkins himself, (your hero Sev), admitted that it would be ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if there were truly no moral accountability, (i.e. no justice)

    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/2.....02783.html

    In what should be needless to say Sev, if it is impossible for you, (or Dawkins), to live as if your atheism were actually true, (as if there were truly no moral accountability, i.e. no justice), 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.
    http://answersforhope.com/exis.....t-atheism/

    Verse:

    Matthew 12_20-21
    A bruised reed He will not break, and a smoldering wick He will not extinguish, till He leads justice to victory. In His name the nations will put their hope.”…

  463. 463
    William J Murray says:

    Relatd @455 said:

    You didn’t say much of anything in that post.

    To be fair I was answering and elaborating on a fairly simple question of yours when you asked me if I really believed that people were generally being honest here and getting unfair accusations thrown their way.

    I will add this, though; I think one of the clearest categorical cases of cognitive dissonance I’ve ever seen is that of how atheists in general will often do anything, say anything to avoid agreeing with the core assertion of ID theory. Especially atheists who would be better described as anti-Christians because they keep returning to anti-Christian tropes, the “why doesn’t God stop the suffering” complaint, as if that has anything to do with ID theory. This emotional anti-Christianism often spurts out around the edges and boils up when the debate gets heavy. It’s fairly obvious and repetitive in from some people who have engaged in the arguments at this site, and in ID debates elsewhere.

    IMO ID is the only viable current candidate in terms of explaining the appearance of micro-managed fundamental forces of the physical universe, the origin of life and the appearance of new species/functioning body plans. All other attempts at explanation rely on increasingly deep wells of chance, even if that “chance” is acted upon by some non-random, ongoing set of events like “natural selection.”

    But, I think the debate is far too emotionally charged because of the presence of the proponents of Christianity deeply embedded in this debate. I think that if you could erase the presence of all religion and spiritual ideology from the argument, current and historically, but maintain all of the science (which I doubt you could do for other reasons,) I think the scientific community would have long ago agreed that ID is the only viable explanation for these things. It wouldn’t even be controversial.

    I think that one side has good reasons to wish to not give the religious community such a big win, to be so dead-set against it that they will hold on to any bare possibility of an alternative explanation even when it becomes clearly irrational. I think the evidence now is so clearly in favor of the ID explanation it has moved many well-respected scientists and researchers into new models of explanation like various Idealism-based and simulation theories.

  464. 464
    Querius says:

    William J Murray @463,

    I will add this, though; I think one of the clearest categorical cases of cognitive dissonance I’ve ever seen is that of how atheists in general will often do anything, say anything to avoid agreeing with the core assertion of ID theory. Especially atheists who would be better described as anti-Christians because they keep returning to anti-Christian tropes, the “why doesn’t God stop the suffering” complaint, as if that has anything to do with ID theory. This emotional anti-Christianism often spurts out around the edges and boils up when the debate gets heavy. It’s fairly obvious and repetitive in from some people who have engaged in the arguments at this site, and in ID debates elsewhere.

    Great observations!

    I’ve also noticed that it’s the Darwinists who continually introduce (and misrepresent) the Judeo-Christian God in these forum comments.

    As a result, I will correct the blatant misrepresentations, but generally not for the Darwinists, who are ideologically committed anti-Christians as you pointed out (or simply crude trollbots) but rather for other contributors and onlookers.

    -Q

  465. 465
    relatd says:

    WJM at 463,

    Some anti-religion posters come from a long line of people who ignore the idea of any god, but may accept a belief system that aligns with their views. Some may – may – be those who’ve decided that religious beliefs are not for them. That said, yes, if this was strictly about science then the rational person would assume that any “debate” here would fall away. In the case of ID, there can be no positive comments here that go unchallenged by fake and/or unprovable claims or questions that are similar to: “When did God create the color blue?”. And yes, ID is helping actual scientists do their work.

    Look at Bioinformatics. “Bioinformatics is a field of study that uses computation to extract knowledge from biological data. It includes the collection, storage, retrieval, manipulation and modelling of data for analysis, visualization or prediction through the development of algorithms and software.” As it relates to ID: https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/research-confirms-id-hypothesis-in-the-field-of-informatics/

    And Epigenetics: https://www.zenithepigenetics.com/Science-Epigenetics/what-is-epigenetics
    As it applies to ID: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/01/epigenetics_a_r/

    But the “scientific community” is too heavily invested in evolution as described in Biology textbooks.

    From the National Academy of Science site:

    “Evolutionary biology has been and continues to be a cornerstone of modern science.” Yet there is no need to believe evolution happened to carry out biological research in the present. For example, the assumption that non-coding, or Junk DNA was just just leftovers from our supposedly long evolutionary development. In other words, “In the distant past, early humans needed these genes but we don’t anymore. These are leftovers that still get copied, but they have no function.” 100% wrong. And when other discoveries are made in biology, “evolution” gets the credit but they can’t prove that.

    That is and will continue to be my point here.

  466. 466
    Seversky says:

    Relatd/459

    Seversky at 454,

    I know why pain and suffering appeared. The first man and first woman were given gifts from God called preternatural.

    “impassibility (freedom from pain)
    immortality (freedom from death)
    integrity (freedom from concupiscence, or disordered desires)
    infused knowledge (freedom from ignorance in matters essential for happiness)”

    After The Fall, a literal event, those gifts were taken away. However, Adam and Eve did pass on what they knew to their children.

    And you think your omniscient God did not foresee exactly how Adam and Eve would behave?

  467. 467
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 466,

    Back to God, eh? You know what? God knows exactly what I will do for the rest of my life. The same for everyone else. But He tells no one. As for Adam and Eve, we have to > freely < choose to follow Him and His commandments. God does not force anyone to love Him.

    Can you imagine forcing anyone to love you? Can you? It must be their free choice to do so.

  468. 468
    chuckdarwin says:

    WJM writes:

    [I]f you could erase the presence of all religion and spiritual ideology from the argument, current and historically, but maintain all of the science (which I doubt you could do for other reasons,) I think the scientific community would have long ago agreed that ID is the only viable explanation for these things. It wouldn’t even be controversial.
    I think that one side has good reasons to wish to not give the religious community such a big win, to be so dead-set against it that they will hold on to any bare possibility of an alternative explanation even when it becomes clearly irrational.

    These two paragraphs strike me as inconsistent. If you expunge religion and/or spirituality from, what I presume you refer to as the ID-Darwinism “argument,” leaving only “the science,” how does that translate into a “big win” for the religious community?

  469. 469
    relatd says:

    CD at 468,

    It is a big win for the religious community. The atheist idea that nothing made human beings is replaced by ID which is consistent with direct observation, and when connected to Theology, consistent with the working of God in His Creation.

  470. 470
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/462

    No Sev, as usual you’ve got a very warped understanding of theology.

    You’re only saying that because I don’t agree with your warped understanding of theology.

    Aside from the fact that God primarily designed people to have a loving relationship with him, God also ‘designed’ people to know and learn that sin, while it may be fun for a short while, in the end sin will always lead to death and destruction, and to therefore learn from their mistakes and repent from their sin and turn to God.

    If He designed us to have a loving relationship with Him then why did He design us to be capable of sins which cause Him such offense?

    God is not punishing people for their sin so much as he is rending the just and final recompense that sin leads to,,,, sin which certain people(s) stubbornly choose to cling to, no matter how much death and destruction sin may bring into their lives, above turning to God and clinging to the righteousness of God,,,

    He is punishing us for behaving in ways that He made us capable of behaving. How is that just?

    The is/ought gap only accentuates the fact that you, in your atheistic materialism, have no objective moral basis and does nothing whatsoever to alleviate the fact that you yourself, in your argument from evil, are necessarily presupposing the existence of objective morality, and are therefore necessarily presupposing the existence of God.

    There is no such thing as an objective basis for morality, just subjective, even for God, nor is there any need for one.

    As ex-atheist CS Lewis noted, “A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”

    You can rely on Lewis to state the obvious.

    Sev, In your atheistic worldview of “no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”, you simply have no basis in which to judge whether anything may be good or evil.

    Of course, I do. You’re the one who doesn’t know right from wrong unless your God tells you what it is.

    You simply have no basis in which to make the judgment.

    On what basis does your God decide what is or isn’t evil?

    Sev: without God, and in your atheistic materialism, you simply have no basis in which to know, must less condemn, (for instance), the Nazis as being ‘unjust’ in their holocaust.

    Of course, I do. In fact just like most other people I can condemn it for the immense amount of death and suffering caused by the Nazis to people who had done nothing to deserve it. As far as I’m aware, your God didn’t condemn it or lift a finger to stop it so what are your objective grounds for condemning it?

    “Blind, pitiless, indifference’ is not just some stupid slogan that Dawkins dreamt up for atheism, it is literally a defining feature of atheism. i.e. In your atheistic materialism you simply have no moral basis in which to differentiate evil from good.

    Dawkins was referring to the appearance of “blind, pitiless, indifference” of this Universe. It has nothing to do with atheism. In fact, if there is no God then we only have ourselves to cling to so it would make sense to treat each other as we would like to be treated, doesn’t it? We still have The Golden Rule even if we don’t have God.

    You only have subjective personal opinions. Subjective personal opinions which are all equally valid and all, therefore, equally meaningless.

    But if billions of us share the same opinions, what other basis do you need for morality? No one wants to be raped or murdered or wants to have their family or friends suffer in that way. What other basis is there for morality?

    In what should be needless to say Sev, if it is impossible for you, (or Dawkins), to live as if your atheism were actually true, (as if there were truly no moral accountability, i.e. no justice), then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.

    I live perfectly well on the assumption that there is no good reason to believe in God.

  471. 471
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 470,

    “I live perfectly well on the assumption that there is no good reason to believe in God.” This is nothing new, nothing modern or recent.

    Proverbs 14:12

    “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”

    Romans 6:21

    “But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death.”

    Psalm 14:1

    ‘The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good.’

  472. 472
    jerry says:

    I believe the story of mammoth devolution from elephants has been covered adequately at the start of the OP and by BA77.

    It came up in the Michael Behe/Michael Ramage interview as an example of Devolution. Apparently 100 gene sequences were broken to allow the mammoth to survive better in cold environments.

    https://idthefuture.com/1641/

  473. 473
    Querius says:

    I’ve always been amused at documentaries showing how mammoths fattened themselves up in the arctic tundra in deep drifts of snow. If their diet was anything like that of elephants, they would each need about 300 kg/day. I’d imagine that they would need to be constantly on the move.

    Here’s how the BBC describes it:

    The ancestral mammoth (Mammuthus meridionalis) lived in warm tropical forests about 4.8 million years ago and probably had a similar diet to the modern Asian elephant. The woolly mammoth (Mammuthis primigenius) evolved later, as the climate cooled, and was a grazer.

    It probably used its tusks to shovel aside snow and then uprooted tough tundra grasses with its trunk. They needed to be so big because their stomachs were giant fermentation vats for grass – which is not nutritious.

    Or maybe they used their trunks as snow blowers . . . LOL

    Here’s another take:
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129552-500-woolly-mammoths-died-for-want-of-a-few-herbs/

    -Q

  474. 474
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky at 470 responds to my post at 462,,

    BA77: No Sev, as usual you’ve got a very warped understanding of theology.

    Sev: You’re only saying that because I don’t agree with your warped understanding of theology.

    No, I’m saying that because Darwinists, ever since Darwin himself wrote his book “Origin of Species”, have actually used, as a primary line of argumentation no less, faulty, even ‘warped’, liberal Theology in order to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution, instead of using any compelling empirical evidence to try to make their case.

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): ?1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

    Evolution as a Theological Research Program – by Cornelius Hunter – August 2021
    Introduction Excerpt: The importance of religion in Darwin’s theory is also apparent in the science he presented. As Section 5 shows, Darwin did not have sufficient scientific arguments and evidence to advance his theory. Finally, as Section 6 and Section 7 demonstrate, these roles and relationships between religion and science persisted after Darwin. This religious foundation was by no means peculiar to Darwin’s thought. It has remained foundational since Darwin in motivating and justifying the theory. What we find in Darwin continued in later evolutionary thought. Therefore, the thesis of this paper is that evolution is best understood as a theological research program.
    https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/9/694/htm

    As Dr. Cornelius Hunter mentioned in his 2021 paper, to this day faulty theological presuppositions still play an essential role in evolutionary thought.

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

    Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don’t – Steve Dilley- 2019-06-02
    The Problem of God-talk in Biology Textbooks
    Abstract: We argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma.
    On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution.
    (Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’) On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution. So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses). In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties. In Section 3, we step back from concrete cases and, instead, explore broader problems created by having theology in general in biology textbooks. We argue that the presence of theology—of whatever kind—comes at a significant cost, one that some textbook authors are likely unwilling to pay. In Section 4, we consider the alternative: Why not simply get rid of theology? Why not just ignore it? In reply, we marshal a range of arguments why avoiding God-talk raises troubles of its own. Finally, in Section 5, we bring together the collective arguments in Sections 2-4 to argue that biology textbooks face an intractable dilemma. We underscore this difficulty by examining a common approach that some textbooks use to solve this predicament. We argue that this approach turns out to be incoherent and self-serving. The poor performance of textbooks on this point highlights just how deep the difficulty is. In the end, the overall dilemma remains.
    https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/44

    The irony in Darwinists, (as a primary line of argumentation), using faulty liberal theology to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution is that Darwinists will often, adamantly, claim that theology has no place in science, and also claim that all of science is, (supposedly), based upon the presupposition of ‘methodological naturalism’,

    The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning – Paul A. Nelson – Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517
    Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00138329

    The reason why Darwinists are, (in direct contradiction to their claim that theology has no place in science), forced to use faulty theological argumentation in order to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution, (aside from the fact that they have no compelling scientific evidence to make their case), is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on Theological, even Judeo-Christian, presuppositions, and science is certainly not based on the presuppositions of methodological naturalism.

    “Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”.
    – Ian Barbour

    Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature
    “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,,
    “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.”

    Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature
    “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism),
    “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts”
    – Johannes Kepler

    Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility
    “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.”
    – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA

    To repeat, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on Judeo-Christian presuppositions and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.

    Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on Judeo-Christian presuppositions and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

    Moreover, far from ‘methodological naturalism’ ever being the required presupposition for doing science, (as Atheists will often falsely claim it to be), ‘methodological naturalism’, if it is assumed as being true, actually drives science into catastrophic epistemological failure instead of providing a fruitful heuristic for ‘doing science’

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris, Coyne), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin).
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    – August 2022 – Defense of each claim
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-recognizing-providence-in-the-history-of-life-is-a-hint-about-our-own-lives/#comment-763046

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly, and falsely, believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  475. 475
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky continues,

    BA77: Aside from the fact that God primarily designed people to have a loving relationship with him, God also ‘designed’ people to know and learn that sin, while it may be fun for a short while, in the end sin will always lead to death and destruction, and to therefore learn from their mistakes and repent from their sin and turn to God.

    If He designed us to have a loving relationship with Him then why did He design us to be capable of sins which cause Him such offense?

    One question for you Sev, is it possible to have a truly loving relationship without free will? i.e. Can robots truly love?

    Seversky continues,

    BA77: God is not punishing people for their sin so much as he is rending the just and final recompense that sin leads to,,,, sin which certain people(s) stubbornly choose to cling to, no matter how much death and destruction sin may bring into their lives, above turning to God and clinging to the righteousness of God,,,

    Sev: He is punishing us for behaving in ways that He made us capable of behaving. How is that just?

    Hmm, so God warns us not to sin, and even gives us help, if we call on Him, to free us from sin if we get caught up in it, and yet you want to condemn God for people freely choosing to sin against His good and perfect will for us? REALLY?? To echo you, “How is that just?” Indeed, “How is that even sane?”. You apparently think that people ought to be robots with no free will, and/or moral accountability, whatsoever.

    As I pointed out in my post at 462, nobody, not even atheists, live their lives as if people were mindless automatons with no free will and/or moral accountability.

    Even Dawkins himself, (your hero Sev), admitted that it would be ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if there were truly no moral accountability, (i.e. no justice)

    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/2.....02783.html

    Seversky continues,

    BA77: The is/ought gap only accentuates the fact that you, in your atheistic materialism, have no objective moral basis and does nothing whatsoever to alleviate the fact that you yourself, in your argument from evil, are necessarily presupposing the existence of objective morality, and are therefore necessarily presupposing the existence of God.

    Sev: There is no such thing as an objective basis for morality, just subjective, even for God, nor is there any need for one.

    Well actually, directly contrary to your completely unsupported claim, there is a discernible, i.e. objective, basis for morality in life

    August 2022 – Thus in conclusion, multicellular life would not even possible if the cellular level of life was not, in large measure, Intelligently Designed along, and/or based upon, the highest, altruistic, moral principles found within Christian Theism of self sacrifice. i.e. altruism.
    Simply put, if certain cells did not die for the good of other cells during embryonic development, multicellular life, as we know it, simply would not exist.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-recognizing-providence-in-the-history-of-life-is-a-hint-about-our-own-lives/#comment-762826

    Of supplemental note

    Darwin’s predictions – altruism – Cornelius Hunter
    Conclusions
    “Darwin’s theory of evolution led him to several expectations and predictions, regarding behavior in general, and altruism in particular. We now know those predictions to be false.,,,”
    https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/altruism

    Of related note to your claim that morality is subjective even for God, well Sev, again, contrary to what you believe, nobody lives their life as if morality is merely subjective, i.e. merely a personal opinion.

    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

    Sev continues,

    BA77: As ex-atheist CS Lewis noted, “A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”

    Sev: You can rely on Lewis to state the obvious.

    And, apparently, you can also rely on Seversky to blatantly ignore the obvious.

    Seversky continues,

    BA77: Sev, In your atheistic worldview of “no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”, you simply have no basis in which to judge whether anything may be good or evil.

    Sev: Of course, I do. You’re the one who doesn’t know right from wrong unless your God tells you what it is.

    And yet, just a couple of sentences previously, Seversky directly stated that, “There is no such thing as an objective basis for morality, just subjective, even for God, nor is there any need for one.”

    I guess directly contradicting yourself in such a short space of a few sentences is completely OK for atheists just so long as it is Christianity that they are arguing against. But others who hold to the ‘primitive’ belief that a person’s arguments have to at least be logically coherent may disagree whole-heartedly with Seversky.

    Is God Real? Evidence from the Laws of Logic – J. Warner Wallace
    Excerpt: All rational discussions (even those about the existence or non-existence of God) require the prior foundation of logical absolutes. You’d have a hard time making sense of any conversation if the Laws of Logic weren’t available to guide the discussion and provide rational boundaries.,,,
    Here are three of the most important Laws of Logic you and I use every day:
    The Law of Identity,,,
    The Law of Non-Contradiction,,,
    The Law of Excluded Middle,,,
    https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-god-real-evidence-from-the-laws-of-logic/

    Seversky continues,

    BA77: You simply have no basis in which to make the judgment.

    Sev: On what basis does your God decide what is or isn’t evil?

    As Dr. Craig pointed out in answering the “Euthyphro Dilemma”, God wills something, not because it is good, but because He is good.

    The Euthyphro Dilemma (William Lane Craig)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBvi_auKkaI

    Seversky continues:

    BA77: Sev: without God, and in your atheistic materialism, you simply have no basis in which to know, must less condemn, (for instance), the Nazis as being ‘unjust’ in their holocaust.

    Sev: Of course, I do. In fact just like most other people I can condemn it for the immense amount of death and suffering caused by the Nazis to people who had done nothing to deserve it. As far as I’m aware, your God didn’t condemn it or lift a finger to stop it so what are your objective grounds for condemning it?

    Seversky, a Darwinist, forgetting that he himself just, a few sentences before, claimed that morality is subjective, holds that he can easily condemn the holocaust as being objectively evil. The sheer irony in all this, aside from the fact that good and evil simply don’t objectively exist in the atheist’s worldview, is that Darwinism itself lay behind the evil of the Nazi’s holocaust.

    From Darwin to Hitler – Prof. Richard Weikart – lecture
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A

    Moreover, Hitler was hardly the only murderous tyrant who based his worldview on Darwinian evolution. In fact all the leading Atheistic Tyrants of the communist regimes of the 20th century, who murdered tens of millions of their OWN people, based their murderous political ideologies on Darwin’s theory and the ‘ANTI-morality’ inherent therein.

    Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their Atheistic ideology https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/david-berlinski-the-bad-boy-philosopher-who-doubts-darwinism-is-back/#comment-749756

  476. 476
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky continues:

    BA77: “Blind, pitiless, indifference’ is not just some stupid slogan that Dawkins dreamt up for atheism, it is literally a defining feature of atheism. i.e. In your atheistic materialism you simply have no moral basis in which to differentiate evil from good.

    Sev: Dawkins was referring to the appearance of “blind, pitiless, indifference” of this Universe. It has nothing to do with atheism. In fact, if there is no God then we only have ourselves to cling to so it would make sense to treat each other as we would like to be treated, doesn’t it? We still have The Golden Rule even if we don’t have God.

    As you yourself have honestly admitted Sev, you simply can’t get the ‘ought’ of the golden rule from the “is” of Atheistic materialism. The transcendent standard of the golden rule simply doesn’t exist in the Atheistic Materialism of Darwinian evolution. Hence, as Jordan Peterson observed,

    “What the hell is irrational about me getting exactly what I want from every one of you whenever I want it at every possible second? Why is that irrational and how possibly is that more irrational than us cooperating so we can both have a good time of it. I don’t understand that.
    I mean they talk as if the psychopathic tendency is irrational. There’s nothing irrational about it. It’s pure naked self-interest. How is that irrational. Why the hell not every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost? It’s a perfectly coherent philosophy and it’s actually one that you can institute in the world with a fair bit of material success if you want to do it.
    To me I think that that the universe that people like Dawkins and Harris inhabit is so intensely conditioned by mythological presuppositions that they take for granted the ethic that emerges out of that as if it’s just a rational given. And this of course was precisely Nietzsche’s observation as well as Dostoyevsky’s observation.
    I’m not arguing for the existence of God. I’m arguing that the ethic that drives our culture is predicated on the idea of God and that you can’t just take that idea away and expect the thing to remain intact midair without any foundational support.”
    – Jordan Peterson
    https://medium.com/perspectiva-institute/the-man-for-the-times-of-chaos-jordan-peterson-2df43c24672f

    Seversky continues,

    BA77: You only have subjective personal opinions. Subjective personal opinions which are all equally valid and all, therefore, equally meaningless.

    Sev: But if billions of us share the same opinions, what other basis do you need for morality? No one wants to be raped or murdered or wants to have their family or friends suffer in that way. What other basis is there for morality?

    So Seversky honestly admits that most people, (save for psychopaths of course), share a common vision of objective morality and then Seversky, completely oblivious to the fact that he himself just appealed to our common vision of objective morality, asks “What other basis is there for morality?”

    Well Seversky, aside from God, the ‘other basis’ for morality certainly ain’t the subjective morality of Darwinian evolution.

    Romans 2:14-15
    Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. So they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them

    Seversky continues,

    BA77: In what should be needless to say Sev, if it is impossible for you, (or Dawkins), to live as if your atheism were actually true, (as if there were truly no moral accountability, i.e. no justice), then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.

    Sev: I live perfectly well on the assumption that there is no good reason to believe in God.

    I did not claim that you cannot live ‘perfectly well’ without believing in God. I claimed that you, and other atheists, cannot live “CONSISTENTLY” as if atheistic materialism were actually true and therefore, since atheists can’t live their lives ‘consistently’ as if atheistic materialism were actually true, atheistic materialism must be based on a delusion

    Darwin’s Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails
    Nancy Pearcey – 2015
    Excerpt: 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
    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona/

    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.
    http://answersforhope.com/exis.....t-atheism/

    In short, Seversky’s response to my post at 462, lacks honesty, is extremely weak, and is full of logical contradictions.

    And this is not just one post that Seversky has done this. Over the past decade or so, Seversky has repeatedly, hundreds of times at least, defended his atheism with such transparently weak arguments that are full of logical contradictions.

    Such ineptitude in argumentation would be absolutely humorous if the consequences for Seversky were not so tragic for Seversky, and for other atheists, i.e. Separation from God and, therefore, separation from all that is good.

    Seversky you once said that you are a former Christian. So here is a Bible verse that contains a promise for you,

    Malachi 3:7
    ,, Return to me, and I will return to you,’ says the LORD Almighty”.

  477. 477
    bornagain77 says:

    A fitting song

    Crowder – Good God Almighty – music
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TzECToPYIk

  478. 478
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77,

    Nicely expressed. And believing in a “blind, pitiless, indifferent” nature gives permission for some people to be blind, pitiless, and indifferent themselves. This results in Homo sapiens becoming the most dangerous and deadly predator on the face of the earth.

    Seversky might think he has an airtight case against God, which might be why he continually brings up God in his posts. My questions to him are as follows:

    “If the Creator doesn’t exist, why are you spending so much time ranting against Him?”

    “If the Creator does exist after all, what makes you think you’ll win any argument with Him?”

    -Q

  479. 479
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 474 to 476,

    I say this without attempting to condemn anyone, including Seversky: that was an appropriate, logical response. After this, Atheists, or Seversky, at least, should see that all of their objections are weak and faulty, and inconsistent. I admire your patience and scholarship.

    That said, based on previous posts, none of it will matter except to those sincerely looking for the truth. And looking at Darwin’s idea and the fruit of it. Margarent Sanger, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin. Millions dead. Millions dead. Cleansing the pure race from the üntermensch or lesser men. I watched a captured newsreel that showed one of these lesser men sitting in a chair, while a few German scientists used calipers to measure the size of his head.

    But there should be no outrage over this. After all, only the most fit survive. As in the animal world, a certain amount of killing other animals occurs. But that is not reality. That is not how civilization survives. Men who are far above the animals make laws, establish courts and hand out just punishments.

    During the Second World War, Polish General Anders was captured by Russian forces. As he was being taken to Lubyanka Prison by two Russian guards, his Blessed Virgin Mary pin fell to the ground. One of them said, “Do you think that *itch is going to help you in here?” Lubyanka Prison was not a jail but a luxury hotel where it was said the carpet pile was so thick that you could not hear men wearing boots walking on it. Of course, he was heavily guarded.

    I posted that example to show it was not just Hitler, but men like Stalin who killed millions. The Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s. And the dreaded result was a return to religion, the reopening of Churches, some of which were being used to store ammunition.

    Again, I commend you. But, as in the past, The mantra for evolution will continue to be chanted. The idea that all life appeared by accident will be chanted. Darwinism is a cult with a group of believers, and little else.

    • ‘The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.”

    • “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

    • Quoting our late Holy Father John Paul II: “The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality, which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.”

    • Again quoting John Paul II: “To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems.” ‘

    “Christoph Cardinal Schönborn is archbishop of Vienna and general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

  480. 480
    AnimatedDust says:

    BA77, your responses to Sev, as pointed out above, are simply magnificent. What a ton of work that must have been.

    When Seversky kneels before Christ, (EVERY knee shall bow…not just the faithful) he will likely claim that he didn’t have enough evidence. Then Christ will play back exchanges like these and the thousands of other times you tried to get him to see the light.

    He will understand then, the depth of his willful blindness and folly.

  481. 481
    Paxx says:

    AnimatedDust: Then Christ will play back exchanges like these and the thousands of other times you tried to get him to see the light.

    Assuming your theology is correct: If Seversky is incapable of seeing the light, how can he* be fairly judged for not seeing the light? You could assert that he does see the light and all that it entails if rejected (eternal torture) but for some reason chooses to reject it. But that would make him insane since only an insane person would choose eternal torture. How could he be fairly judged if he is insane?

    * I don’t know Seversky’s gender.

  482. 482
    Paxx says:

    WJM: I think that’s unfair [to JVL].

    You’re right. My apologies to JVL.

  483. 483
    bornagain77 says:

    Paxx, you state, If Seversky is incapable of seeing the light, how can he* be fairly judged for not seeing the light?

    If is a mighty big word you are using there Paxx. ,,,

    The Bible claims that atheists can ‘see the light’ and, for whatever severely misguided reason, they suppress it.

    Romans 1:18-20
    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 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.

    Moreover, we don’t have to rely solely on scripture to tell us that people are suppressing the truth. We now have scientific evidence that this ‘suppression of the truth’ by atheists is indeed the case.

    Specifically, studies have now established that the design inference is ‘knee jerk’ inference that is built into everyone, especially including atheists, and that atheists have to mentally work suppressing their innate “knee jerk” design inference!

    Is Atheism a Delusion?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o

    Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? – October 17, 2012
    Excerpt: “Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.” The article describes a test by Boston University’s psychology department, in which researchers found that “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose” ,,,
    Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65381.html

    Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study – Mary Papenfuss – June 12, 2015
    Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the “knee jerk” reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they’re purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the “Divided Mind of a disbeliever.”
    The findings “suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed,” writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers’ words, “religious non-belief is cognitively effortful.”
    Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or “default” human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether “any being purposefully made the thing in the picture,” notes Pacific-Standard.
    “Religious participants’ baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher” than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants “increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made” when “they did not have time to censor their thinking,” wrote the researchers.
    The results suggest that “the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs,” the report concluded.
    The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US.
    “Design-based intuitions run deep,” the researchers conclude, “persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them.”
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richa.....dy-1505712

    Perhaps the two most famous quotes of atheists suppressing their innate ‘design inference’ are the two following quotes:

    “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
    Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21

    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case”
    – Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – 1988

    It is easy to see why Francis Crick in particular, co-discoverer of the DNA helix, would be constantly haunted by his intuition that life must be Intelligently Designed. DNA itself literally screams, “I AM INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED” from every angle that you look at it.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/movie-night-with-illustra-a-whale-of-a-story-and-18-trillion-feet-of-you/#comment-745611

    As David Berlinski noted, “applying Darwinian principles to problems of this level of complexity is like putting a Band-Aid on a wound caused by an atomic weapon. It’s just not going to work.”

    Verse:

    Psalm 139:13-14
    For you created my inmost being;
    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
    I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.

  484. 484
    Paxx says:

    BA77: The Bible claims that atheists can ‘see the light’ and, for whatever severely misguided reason, they suppress it.

    So, your theology is that the answer to question #1 is that blindness is impossible. Are there no exceptions? Can people with a 60 IQ see the truth? How about people in a coma? Seems like Paul makes a generalization, but surely there are all kind of exceptions. Question: if there are exceptions, do they get a free pass?

    You didn’t answer question #2 except to say, “for whatever severely misguided reason.” I submit that, assuming you’re right about question #1, that the only “misguided reason” is that they are insane. What other reason could there be? Otherwise, you’re asking me to accept the idea that people choose to be tortured forever.

    I hope you can at least perceive the problem here.

  485. 485
    bornagain77 says:

    Paxx, perhaps you might take into consideration that it is not we who are final arbiters of Seversky’s mental state?

    I am not God, so I do not have 100% assurance that Seversky is not completely insane. I can only surmise from my interactions with him that he is not completely insane.

    Plus, in my post I did not rely totally on scripture but I referenced studies that indicate that my hunch that atheists are not completely insane, but are, in fact, ‘suppressing the truth’ is a correct hunch.

    I agree with you that to choose to be separated from God, and thus ‘tortured forever’, is insane. But alas, that insanity of choosing to not be with God, and choosing to endure whatever result that choice of being separated from God may entail, is displayed here on UD day in and day out as atheists continually spew their hatred towards God without any real rational and/or scientific basis for doing so.

    Instead of asking me, perhaps you should instead ask the atheists here on UD why they choose such insanity?

    I certainly have no clue why they would willfully choose as such.

    Of related note:

    When Atheists Are Angry at God – 2011
    Excerpt: I’ve never been angry at unicorns. It’s unlikely you’ve ever been angry at unicorns either.,, The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him.
    A new set of studies in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology finds that atheists and agnostics report anger toward God either in the past or anger focused on a hypothetical image of what they imagine God must be like. Julie Exline, a psychologist at Case Western Reserve University and the lead author of this recent study, has examined other data on this subject with identical results. Exline explains that her interest was first piqued when an early study of anger toward God revealed a counterintuitive finding: Those who reported no belief in God reported more grudges toward him than believers.
    http://www.firstthings.com/ont.....gry-at-god

  486. 486
    Paxx says:

    BA77 – Re: Seversky

    I agree with you that to choose to be separated from God, and thus ‘tortured forever’, is insane. But alas, that insanity of choosing to not be with God, and choosing to endure whatever result that choice of being separated from God may entail, is displayed here on UD day in and day out as atheists continually spew their hatred towards God without any real rational and/or scientific basis for doing so.

    Insanity means they don’t have the capacity to understand what they’re doing and chose correctly for their own benefit in this matter. (Why they might be insane is another matter.) But if you accept that they are, in fact, insane, how can they be condemned by God for the insane choice and be tortured forever? How just is that? Again, assuming that your/Paul’s answer to question #1 is correct.

    I will let Seversky speak for himself, but it seems quite clear to me that he doesn’t think he is “suppress[ing] the truth in unrighteousness” or that “God has made it plain to [him].” Assuming your theology is true: either the truth is not clear to him contra Paul, which means he is justified for not embracing it, or he is choosing eternal torture over eternal bliss, which demonstrates he is insane, and should be justified for being insane. Otherwise, there is a huge crack in your theology, IMO.

    Seversky, if you’re reading, are you choosing eternal torture over eternal bliss?

  487. 487
    bornagain77 says:

    Paxx, again you are assuming that you can discern Seversky’s true state of mind. Only God can do that and render judgement accordingly.

    Even you yourself, when your originally presented your argument to AnimatedDust in post 481, prefaced your argument to him with the word “if”

    Paxx: ““If” Seversky is incapable of seeing the light, how can he* be fairly judged for not seeing the light?”

    And like I stated before “If is a mighty big word that you are using there Paxx. ,,,”

    Moreover, on top of what scripture says, I remind you that I also referenced studies to back up my claim that atheists are in fact ‘suppressing the truth’.

    Do you not accept what the empirical evidence itself is saying in this matter? (If so, I might as well be arguing directly with Seversky since he also refuses to ever accept what the empirical evidence itself says against his atheistic worldview)

    To repeat, studies have now established that the design inference is ‘knee jerk’ inference that is built into everyone, especially including atheists, and that atheists have to mentally work ‘suppressing’ their innate “knee jerk” design inference!

    Is Atheism a Delusion?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o

    Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? – October 17, 2012
    Excerpt: “Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.” The article describes a test by Boston University’s psychology department, in which researchers found that “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose” ,,,
    Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65381.html

    Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study – Mary Papenfuss – June 12, 2015
    Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the “knee jerk” reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they’re purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the “Divided Mind of a disbeliever.”
    The findings “suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed,” writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers’ words, “religious non-belief is cognitively effortful.”
    Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or “default” human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether “any being purposefully made the thing in the picture,” notes Pacific-Standard.
    “Religious participants’ baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher” than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants “increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made” when “they did not have time to censor their thinking,” wrote the researchers.
    The results suggest that “the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs,” the report concluded.
    The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US.
    “Design-based intuitions run deep,” the researchers conclude, “persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them.”
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richa.....dy-1505712

    Perhaps the two most famous quotes of atheists purposely suppressing their innate ‘design inference’ are the two following quotes:

    “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
    Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21

    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case”
    – Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – 1988

    It is easy to see why Francis Crick in particular, co-discoverer of the DNA helix, would be constantly haunted by his ‘knee jerk’ intuition that life must be Intelligently Designed. DNA itself literally screams, “I AM INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED” from every angle that you look at it.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/movie-night-with-illustra-a-whale-of-a-story-and-18-trillion-feet-of-you/#comment-745611

    As David Berlinski noted, “applying Darwinian principles to problems of this level of complexity is like putting a Band-Aid on a wound caused by an atomic weapon. It’s just not going to work.”

    Verse:

    Psalm 139:13-14
    For you created my inmost being;
    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
    I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.

  488. 488
    Paxx says:

    BA77, Do you not accept what the empirical evidence itself is saying in this matter?

    Yes, I do. I am a theist. I’m very ID friendly. I do not consider the New Testament to be scripture.

    I suppose what I’m trying to get across is that I think Paul’s statement is wrong. Not only that, I think his statement is inconsistent with a just Creator, given the evidence we have about humans (they are part of nature too.) I don’t think “the truth” based on the evidence of nature is obvious or persuasive to everyone, even back in Paul’s day, when things were a lot simpler. I don’t think people are good mind-readers so it’s impossible to know what’s in Seversky’s mind. Humans are weird. He could be an NPC as far as I know. I find is astonishing that Seversky knows what I know (assuming he does) and does not fall squarely into the ID camp. So on that score you and I are apparently in agreement.

    At any rate, if you’re dead sure about Paul, then I suppose there’s nothing left to discuss. Your views are clear and that’s is all I was after.

  489. 489
    bornagain77 says:

    Well Paxx, I thought you might not accept the New Testament as authoritative, and that is exactly why I referenced the studies. i.s. ACCORDING TO THE STUDIES I listed, Paul is correct in saying that atheists are ‘suppressing the truth’.

  490. 490
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    I think Paul’s statement is wrong his statement is inconsistent with a just Creator

    I don’t think “the truth” based on the evidence of nature is obvious or persuasive to everyone

    😆 So you think that the Creator is unjust.

  491. 491
    Paxx says:

    LCD: So you think that the Creator is unjust.

    I certainly hope not.
    I think Paul’s assertion is wrong and contradicted by empirical evidence.
    I don’t consider him to be an authority in the first place.

  492. 492
    Paxx says:

    BA77: ACCORDING TO THE STUDIES I listed.

    I didn’t read them, but if they indicate that some people lie about some things, such as evidence, I have no problem accepting that. I think there are a lot of liars and deceivers in the world. But if they are suppressing the truth, knowing the consequences of their actions, they are insane, and beyond just condemnation. See the problem? In fact, it brings down the entire notion of eternal torture for the rejects. The only just punishment for the rejects (because they are insane) would be annihilation.

    In other words, Christian theology, as generally taught, where eternal torture is dished out to the rejects, is fundamentally flawed, because of the built-in excuse that the rejects have: they are insane since they choose eternal torture over bliss when they are aware of the consequences. A just Creator wouldn’t eternally torture an insane person, would he?

  493. 493
    bornagain77 says:

    Well Paxx, the studies I listed are what they are and strongly indicate that atheist’s are, in fact, ‘suppressing the truth’. Thus the studies offer strong support for Paul’s statement. i.e. “people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness”,,

    Moreover, you yourself have been around long enough to know that empirical evidence that contradicts the atheist’s worldview is simply ignored and/or rationalized away by atheists with, as Euler pointed out centuries ago, “the weakest and most ridiculous reasoning”,,,

    A Defense of the (Divine) revelation against the objections of freethinkers (atheists), by Mr. (Leonhard) Euler
    Excerpt: “The freethinkers (atheists) have yet to produce any objections that have not long been refuted most thoroughly. But since they are not motivated by the love of truth, and since they have an entirely different point of view, we should not be surprised that the best refutations count for nothing and that the weakest and most ridiculous reasoning, which has so often been shown to be baseless, is continuously repeated. If these people maintained the slightest rigor, the slightest taste for the truth, it would be quite easy to steer them away from their errors; but their tendency towards stubbornness makes this completely impossible.”
    http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/.....2trans.pdf

    Of note: (Leonhard) Euler is held to be one of the greatest mathematicians in history and the greatest of the 18th century. A statement attributed to Pierre-Simon Laplace expresses Euler’s influence on mathematics: “Read Euler, read Euler, he is the master of us all.”[4][5] Carl Friedrich Gauss remarked: “The study of Euler’s works will remain the best school for the different fields of mathematics, and nothing else can replace it.”[6]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler

  494. 494
    relatd says:

    Paxx at 488,

    Only God knows Seversky’s state of mind.

    I think it’s hard to accept some parts of Scripture. God is presented as all loving and it follows that He should somehow understand us better. But a loving father does not tell his children to go into the woods alone, knowing there are poisonous snakes there. He warns them. God gives us many warnings. Things were not “a lot simpler” in Paul’s day. Take away our cars and computers and we are back in Paul’s day. We go through the exact same temptations.

    James 1:14

    “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.”

    1 Corinthians 10:13

    “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.”

  495. 495
    Paxx says:

    Of course, this theology has its roots in apocalypticism where there is a rebel angel figure (Azazel, Satan, etc), who knew the Creator face to face, is fully aware of all his eternal powers and eternal torture if he rebels, and yet rebelled anyway. I don’t what you call it, but I call it insanity. (But I rather think it is simply a myth created during the Babylonian captivity.)

  496. 496
    Paxx says:

    relatd,

    Those verses are unrelated to the topic at hand: where people rebel against God and his offering of eternal bliss, knowing the full consequences that eternal torture awaits. The insanity of rebellion. We’re not discussing sinful acts that everyone is prone to do.

  497. 497
    zweston says:

    Paxx, do you believe Jesus existed?

  498. 498
    relatd says:

    Paxx at 492,

    You’re looking to us to tell you what God would do? And if you believe that a just God would not send an insane person to Hell, why do you need us to confirm that? If a person is incapable of telling right from wrong then yes, I would be inclined to agree that God would take that into account, but when speaking of other people, we don’t know the whole story.

  499. 499
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Paxx

    LCD: So you think that the Creator is unjust.

    I certainly hope not.
    I think Paul’s assertion is wrong and contradicted by empirical evidence.
    I don’t consider him to be an authority in the first place.

    😆 If what you say is true then the Creator must hate people because He allowed that billions of people who lived before scientific revolution to die without knowing the truth.

    I wonder how a loving God would share the truth to humanity so all people who live/d on Earth to be informed about the truth and not only people who lived in the last centuries when science advanced?

    Maybe Paul was right . 🙂

  500. 500
    AnimatedDust says:

    Paxx, my original assertion presumes that Seversky is sane and rational. The moment someone is incapable of reason and knowing right from wrong, he enters another category that a perfect judge would properly take into account.

    Your entire argument after that was kind of unnecessary.

  501. 501
    Paxx says:

    AnimatedDust,

    If someone knows the truth, as BA77 seems to be claiming about Seversky (based on Paul’s claim), and rebels against the Creator, rejecting his offer of eternal bliss, knowing that he will end up in eternal torture, wouldn’t you think that person insane?

    Related question: was Satan insane for rebelling against the Creator?

  502. 502
    relatd says:

    Paxx at 501,

    Why are you so fixated on this? How do YOU know anyone is insane?

  503. 503
    Paxx says:

    relatd,

    It seems to me you don’t understand the issue.

    As for being fixated, I wouldn’t say I’m fixated, but we’ll all interested in what we’re interested in. No explanation beyond that.

  504. 504
    Paxx says:

    BA77,

    I think I need a clarification:

    Paul said, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness”

    What exactly is “the truth” here that Paul is referring to?

    What is “the wrath” that has been revealed? And where and when was it revealed?

  505. 505
    relatd says:

    Oh, I understand the issue. YOU want a declaration of insanity from US about Seversky and Satan.

  506. 506
    Paxx says:

    relatd,

    I’m interesting in tightening up my understanding of how Christians think about their theology. Christian theology doesn’t seem consistent. I could be wrong. Which is why I ask questions.

  507. 507
    bornagain77 says:

    Paxx, I referenced studies to back up my claim and you keep claiming that I am basing my claim on Paul’s statement. I’ve corrected you on that (twice now, for instance see post 487).

    If empirical evidence means nothing to you, as apparently it doesn’t, then there is really nothing left for me to say, either theologically or scientifically. Again, I might as well be arguing with Darwinian atheists since the empirical evidence means so little to you.

    This is the last I have to say on the subject.

  508. 508
    Paxx says:

    BA77,

    Fair enough. But I have asked two questions for clarification. Maybe someone else can answer them.

    What exactly is “the truth” here that Paul is referring to?

    What is “the wrath” that has been revealed? And where and when was it revealed?

  509. 509
    Querius says:

    Paxx @506,

    I agree in general. Taking you at your word, I’d say that it’s important to understand Christianity categorically as practiced. Very briefly and off the top of my head, this includes the following:

    A. Originalist Christianity – Looks to scriptural accounts in the Bible, both the Tanakh (aka “Old Testament”) and the B’rit Chadashah (aka “New Covenant” or “New Testament”). May also reference Christian writings before about 300 CE.

    B. Traditionalist Christianity – Venerates and focuses on the historical practices of its adherents over the centuries.

    C. Cultural Christianity – Serves primarily as a social institution for fellowship, encouragement, and emotional support.

    D. Cultish Christianity – Includes a wide range of ideologies and leaders.

    E. Activist Christianity – Serves primarily as religious platform for social justice, religious feelings, positive karma, without specifically focusing on the life and teachings of the historical Yeshua ha’Machiach.

    E. Entrepreneurial Celebrity Christianity – A money-making venture that provides opportunities for people to salve their guilt with cash donations to religious celebrities.

    F. Philosophical Christianity – Provides a theologically and philosophically consistent framework upon which the Bible and Jesus are projected. Might be Theist or even Deist in worldview.

    G. Other categories that I’ve probably missed and combinations of categories.

    Hope this helps,

    -Q

  510. 510
    Paxx says:

    Querius,

    That post was in context to previous posts. Nothing you posted is specifically relevant. Answers to specific questions, such as @508, would be appreciated.

  511. 511
    Querius says:

    Paxx @510,

    In @506, you made the following request:

    I’m interesting in tightening up my understanding of how Christians think about their theology. Christian theology doesn’t seem consistent. I could be wrong. Which is why I ask questions.

    I responded to that request and specifically about your observation that “Christian theology doesn’t seem consistent.” This is why I provided the categories above, to define “Christian,” because there’s no such thing as a universal “Christian theology.”

    If you want answers to your specific questions, let me suggest posting them on
    https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/

    You’ll likely get a more satisfactory answer there rather than a topic originally about mammoths.

    -Q

  512. 512
    Paxx says:

    Querius,

    Well, okay. My intention is a casual conversation. If it takes a lot of “apologetic work”, that’s a huge red flag that something is wrong with the theology. Which actually supports my position. Contra Paul, “the truth” isn’t at all obvious, if Paul’s “truth” is the real truth. Shouldn’t it be communicatable in simple terms with simple words?

    Anyway, do you care to answer the simple questions @508?

  513. 513
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Contra Paul, “the truth” isn’t at all obvious, if Paul’s “truth” is the real truth. Shouldn’t it be communicatable in simple terms with simple words?

    It’s not light’s fault because somebody keeps his eyes closed(voluntarily or not) and then says :”I see nothing !” .
    You admitted your ignorance regarding Christianity but somehow you have opinions about something you don’t know ? (“Christian theology doesn’t seem consistent.” ).

  514. 514
    Querius says:

    Paxx @512,
    Yes, I care.

    Let me preface my answer by saying that to understand a 2,000+ year old document requires one to

    1. Avoid preconceived ideology, prejudice, philosophy, or motives.
    2. Read passages in full context rather than cherry picking quotes.
    3. Understand the circumstances, the culture, and the audience.
    4. Be aware of language translations and idioms, ancient Greek to English

    A Simple Answer
    1. The teachings, mission, and sacrifice of Jesus (aka “the Gospel”) is the truth.
    2. People can tell what God is like through what God made.
    3. God’s anger at people who obscure the above is manifested by their own, increasing depravity that results.

    My Paraphrase
    In Romans 1, Paul writes that he’s not ashamed to tell Gentiles about what Jesus taught:
    Jesus was giving everyone, not just Jews, the opportunity to have all their sins be forgiven by trusting that Jesus paid for their sins rather than in following religious rules or by worshiping idols.

    But some people want to protect their selfish life styles. They actively obscure the aforementioned truth (Jesus himself said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life and there no other way to God) by insisting on religious rules and practices, or by denying that one God exists or would even care about his creation.

    People who mislead other people by means of religion or empty philosophies are subject to God’s special anger. They are punished by their being sucked into increasing depths of depravity.

    A reasonably good paraphrase of the passage is here:
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&version=ERV

    -Q

  515. 515
    vividbleau says:

    Paxx

    “What exactly is “the truth” here that Paul is referring to?”

    Paul spells it out, did you read the following verses?

    Romans 1:19–23 (ESV): For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. “

    Vivid

  516. 516
    Querius says:

    Vivid @515,
    While Paxx hasn’t responded yet, I did want to mention that the same passage Paxx asked about has been discussed on the Biblical Hermeneutics site: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/74030/romans-121-nor-were-thankful-or-give-thanks-how-do-we-interpret-this

    This is a good place to dig deeply into the original meanings with a variety of perspectives and insights (some more scholarly than others) as a result, especially to those who want to acquire more than a surface understanding.

    I’d say the same for Uncommon Descent. One often sees a lot of parroting, preaching, and pontificating on topics relating to intelligent design and evolution. Specifically regarding the apparent “devolution” of mammoths, the Darwinists have, as usual, contributed virtually nothing of substance, preferring simply to troll all reasonable scientific discussion of the topic.

    For example, Chuckdarwin @2 writes:

    I don’t think that elephants “transformed” into mammoths. Elephants and mammoths diverged from a common ancestor 6 mya. There are two extant species, the African and Asian elephant. There’s no evidence that this so-called gene loss has had a detrimental impact on either species.

    Notice that the comment is simply an assertion without ANY evidence at all! Isn’t it odd that a self-proclaimed Darwinist should forget that reduced genetic diversity inevitably leads to EXTINCTION according to Darwinist beliefs?

    -Q

  517. 517
    Paxx says:

    Well, Querius, if you and me were sitting around having a beer…

    Are you okay with a theology that posits the Creator torturing people forever (instead of annihilation) for not measuring up?

    That is a yes or no question.

    I gotta say, if the answer is yes, well, wow. Nothing really to say after that.

  518. 518
    Querius says:

    Paxx @517,

    Thanks for the beer, but do you really have no response what Vivid and I provided to answer your previous questions? A simple “thank you” would be appreciated. 🙂

    I don’t know how many times I’ve answered your question @517 both theologically and mathematically. Let’s see whether you’re serious.

    If I were able to mathematically ***prove*** the presuppositions in your question to be incorrect, would you change your mind about God?

    But first, do you have any background in mathematics or statistics?

    -Q

  519. 519
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Are you okay with a theology that posits the Creator torturing people forever (instead of annihilation) for not measuring up?

    Let’s suppose people on Earth are immortal and some like to torture babies . For how long do you keep them in jail? Being immortal you can’t kill them but also you can’t stop them to torture babies while are not in jail.

  520. 520
    AnimatedDust says:

    LCD above. Excellent point. Peeps like Paxx think they know all there is to know about Divine Justice, and what God ought to be doing. Unreal.

  521. 521
    Paxx says:

    Querius

    The answer to my question is “yes”, right? Nothing more to discuss.

    LCD

    Are you making the claim that God cannot annihiliate a person’s conscious existence? If so, is that from the Bible? If not, I don’t see the relevance of your scenario, and means your answer is effectively “yes”, and thus nothing to discuss.

  522. 522
    Querius says:

    Lieutenant Commander Data,
    Looks like Paxx is chickening out without finding out what I have to say. Seems like Paxx’s mind is already made up and nothing will be allowed that might challenge his thinking. I can’t say I’m surprised, though.

    AnimatedDust @520,

    Peeps like Paxx think they know all there is to know about Divine Justice, and what God ought to be doing.

    People think they have all the perfect excuses that will defend them from the Creator should they appear before him. But our lives and our simple thoughts are completely transparent to the Creator. I once had those same kind of thoughts as well, including how life was so unfair to me, and how God should be obligated to rectify those injustices, etc.

    A lot of people think of God as some kind of cosmic moron who wouldn’t be able to tell whether someone is twisting the truth, cherry picking facts, or accusing the Being who designed DNA, the complex chemical cycles for vision and for energy, and who has great love for His creation, desiring to save as many people as possible for what He prepared for Satan and his angels.

    Again, Paxx has NO IDEA what I was going to present both mathematically and theologically, but only knows that whatever it might be, it would be totally unacceptable . . . sadly, a closed mind pretending to be open.

    -Q

  523. 523
    Paxx says:

    Querius, you are free to post whatever you like. But, given your apparent answer is “yes” to my question, there’s no need to do it on my account. I’ll probably read it. But I’m not interested in tediuous, tortured apologetics for a simple question. I asked a question and got an answer.

  524. 524
    Querius says:

    Paxx @523,
    I’ve researched the topic biblical topic with intensity and your leap to a conclusion was dead wrong.

    But you want short answers. Ok, here you go.

    According to the Bible . . .

    1. Hell and the “lake of fire” are two different things.
    2. You really, really don’t want to go there.
    3. God provided a way out.

    A question to ask yourself is

    “IF GOD EXISTS and designed the overwhelming complexities of a living cell, of human physiology, and quantum mechanics, why would anyone think he’s a complete moron and not be able to accurately judge every person’s character, motives, and fully understand their complete history?”

    Incidentally, did you know that a significant percentage of physicists believe there’s about a 60% chance that we are living in a simulation?

    -Q

  525. 525
    Paxx says:

    Querius,

    You’re a weirdo.

    Shut up.

  526. 526
    Querius says:

    P.S. One knows one has won an argument when the other person resorts to abuse (i.e. ad hominem attacks).

    Paxx,
    How does whether I’m a weirdo affect the truth of what I posted?

    A Story
    One dark and stormy night, a man discovered while driving on a lonely road that he has a flat tire. “Oh great,” he thought to himself as he pulled over onto the muddy shoulder in the driving rain.

    Luckily his spare wasn’t also flat and he changed the flat, being careful to put the lug nuts on a piece of cardboard so he wouldn’t lose them. However, while wrestling off the wheel, he accidentally kicked the cardboard sending the lug nuts flying into the mud. He could find none of them and despaired when he discovered that his cell phone was dead.

    Then he noticed a homeless man standing in the rain nearby watching him. The homeless man said, “I saw what happened. Why don’t you just borrow a lug nut from each of the other wheels. That should be enough to get you a gas station in the next town.”

    “Wow!” said the driver, “That’s brilliant!” “The homeless guy replied, “Well, I may be crazy, but I’m not stupid.”

    -Q

  527. 527
    Querius says:

    Looks like Paxx vanished! LOL

    -Q

  528. 528
    Querius says:

    Or maybe his head exploded.

    -Q

Leave a Reply