Intelligent Design

Deaths From Global Famine Caused by Locking Down World’s Economy Could Dwarf Deaths Caused by Virus

Spread the love

Even the mouthpiece of the progressive movement (CNN) is waking up to a reality that was always glaringly obvious.

In this story CNN reports on a new UN report:

The world is facing multiple famines of “biblical proportions” in just a matter of months, the UN has said, warning that the coronavirus pandemic will push an additional 130 million people to the brink of starvation . . .

“While dealing with a Covid-19 pandemic, we are also on the brink of a hunger pandemic,” David Beasley told the UN’s security council. “There is also a real danger that more people could potentially die from the economic impact of Covid-19 than from the virus itself.” . . .

When added to the 821 million people already chronically hungry, that scenario would push more than 1 billion people into dire situations. . . .

“These countries may face an excruciating trade-off between saving lives or livelihoods or, in a worst-case scenario, saving people from the coronavirus to have them die from hunger,” the report said. . . . we could be facing multiple famines of biblical proportions within a short few months.

For weeks we have been listening to the “let’s lock everyone down for 18 months crowd.” And when anyone pushes back they have responded with a smug air of moral superiority that they are on the side of life and anyone who disagrees with them is just a money-grubbing bastard.

As I have said before, the response to the virus has never been a discrete choice between saving lives and saving the economy. Burning the world’s economy has a price in lives. Now even the most liberal of liberals are starting to wake up to the fact that the choice has never been so simple. Lives will be lost no matter what we do. The terrible choice we must make is between which policy decision will result in the fewest lives lost.

And if even 20% of those additional 130 million people pushed to the brink of starvation actually go over the brink, the death toll would be 26 million, far more than even the most dire estimates of deaths from the virus.

84 Replies to “Deaths From Global Famine Caused by Locking Down World’s Economy Could Dwarf Deaths Caused by Virus

  1. 1
    Ed George says:

    Barry, I think this is only the tip of the iceberg. A large part of our agriculture system relies on migrant workers to get crops in the field and harvested. Migrant workers that are not allowed to cross borders.

  2. 2
    Barry Arrington says:

    Ed, you make a fair point that closing down the supply of migrant workers in the US will surely impact the food supply. But in the US that likely means that prices will go up. It is unlikely anyone will will starve in this country. The real impact in terms of lives lost will be in the developing world, as the UN reports warns.

  3. 3
    Ed George says:

    Barry, possibly not starve, but higher prices force those at the lowest poverty levels to make decisions. And, sadly, the cheapest and most filling foods are usually the least nutritious. We may not see starvation, but we are likely to see an increase in diet related health issues.

  4. 4
    Barry Arrington says:

    Ed, you say we are likely to see an increase in diet related health issues. True. But the problem will not be starvation. It will be increased levels of obesity. The connection between obesity and poverty in the US has been long-noted. This is a problem, to be sure. But is a problem of a wholly different magnitude than mass starvation. It is a problem of choices, not of circumstances. BTW, it is not true that poorer people have no affordable healthy food choices. They just tend not to make them.

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    BA,

    This is an example of why Economics has been called the dismal science:

    the response to the virus has never been a discrete choice between saving lives and saving the economy. Burning the world’s economy has a price in lives. Now even the most liberal of liberals are starting to wake up to the fact that the choice has never been so simple. Lives will be lost no matter what we do. The terrible choice we must make is between which policy decision will result in the fewest lives lost.

    Ponder the challenges faced by a policy-maker facing such a choice, with its implications (including, an implied price of a life).

    Then, multiply by a deeply polarised, irresponsible political and media culture.

    Does that picture sound familiar?

    KF

  6. 6
    polistra says:

    The important comparison is that the deaths caused by this virus were expected to happen this year. Those people were already out of action, already in the medical system. This special branded flu is simply taking over deaths from generic flu or other diseases. Cornering the market of regular customers, but not adding new customers.

    Deaths caused by the state of siege are NOT expected deaths, not rebranded deaths. The siege kills people who are active and producing and reproducing.

  7. 7
    BobRyan says:

    It isn’t just the global food supply that will lead to mass starvation in the world, but also the suicides that have already occurred and will continue to occur. When people hear nothing but doom and gloom, people lose hope. The global economy has been crashed and people have no idea if they have a job waiting for them when the lockdowns come to an end. That will lead to more suicides.

    People need a release for their stress and in many places, that release has been taken away. They cannot go to a bar to relax, or whatever else they do, which means the pressure builds to an unhealthy level. There has been an increase in spousal and child abuse.

    None of these matter to socialists. The ends will always justify the means. There are police states in the United States, which is what they want. They care nothing about misery and suffering, only empowering governments.

  8. 8
    Truthfreedom says:

    Wait, was not ‘Science’ going to save us from all forms of suffering? To make us invincible and forever young with unending erections? Oh. Wait.
    Reality check.

  9. 9
    asauber says:

    Truthfreedom,

    Ironically, establishment science has helplessly overseen the worst virus breakout ever known and the streets are strewn with dead bodies due to establishment scientists incompetence.

    Andrew

  10. 10
    asauber says:

    What’s even funnier is we have our regular trolls touting the grisly failure of their tribe.

    I can’t stop laughing.

    Andrew

  11. 11
    MatSpirit says:

    9 asauber April 24, 2020 at 7:06 am

    “Ironically, establishment science has helplessly overseen the worst virus breakout ever known and the streets are strewn with dead bodies due to establishment scientists incompetence. ”

    Lucky for all of us that we had ID_Science(tm) to step in and save the day!

    Unfortunately, I missed actually seeing you guys saving the world. What exactly did you guys do besides whine and print massive quantities of gibberish? (I’m looking at you, KF and BA77. Barry, you’re going to have to start working on your quantity if you expect to score in this league. Don’t worry about what the words actually say, just make sure each post is at least a half megabyte long.)

    By the way, does anybody remember Dembski and the Eric Pianka Affair? Pianka was accepting the Texas Academy of Science’s Distinguished Texas Scientist Award back in 2006. In his speech, he described some of the things that would happen to us if we overpopulated the world. Mainly plagues and diseases, although there was a little starvation thrown in.

    This greatly distressed a guy named Forrest Mims and Mims confided in Dembski. On April 2, 2006, Dembski stated on this very blog that he had reported Pianka (the Distinguished Texas Scientist, remember) to Homeland Security.

    And here we are just 14 years later, enveloped in plague and talking about the coming starvation. That’s ID_Science(tm) at its best.

  12. 12
    Seversky says:

    I seem to remember that, according to the OT, God did His fair share of population-thinning on occasion. Maybe this is all His doing and we shouldn’t be interfering as anything He does is in our best interests.

  13. 13
    asauber says:

    “Lucky for all of us that we had ID_Science(tm) to step in and save the day!”

    We didn’t. We had incompetent establishment stuffed labcoats giving us scrolling body counts on TV.

    Way to go establishment. Thanks for all the help.

    Andrew

  14. 14
    MatSpirit says:

    So where were the ID_Scientists(tm)?

    Answer: They don’t exist.

  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    MS, no true Sassenach. besides, more scientists agree with the design inference on observable, reliable signs than you think. Even, among physicians. KF

  16. 16
    FourFaces says:

    Based on CDC numbers, 39% of New York’s population have had the COVID-19 virus. This means that 7.5 million New Yorkers were infected; New Yorkers have a 0.1% chance of dying from COVID. IOW, it’s no worse than the flu even though NY suffered the worst outbreak! Fauci and the globalist left are lying to us about the severity of this outbreak. They’ve crippled the world’s economy for no other reason than grabbing more power for their one-world globalist goals. It’s evil.
    https://youtu.be/xfLVxx_lBLU?t=425

  17. 17
    Ed George says:

    KF

    Even, among physicians. KF

    One of the physicians I know of that supports ID also claims that all mass shooters are Democrats.

  18. 18
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, irrelevant and invidious, where in fact as a point of note insofar as someone demonically insane enough to be or attempt to be a mass murderer is concerned and can be allocated to an ideological rather than a degree of demonised insanity spectrum , a significant number have in fact come from the left side of the political spectrum, including in the USA. Some of these used guns, others bombs. Sadly, some commanded states, secret police and armies. Also, it is fairly easy to show that the NSDAP was the national socialist german workers party, and more.When it comes to doctors, not a few have become murderers, IIRC including one of the most prolific contributors to the original OED. Such is irrelevant to the fact that any number of medical doctors and medical researchers accept the validity of the design inference. KF

  19. 19
    MatSpirit says:

    I couldn’t care less what a physician things about the design inference, except I would avoid him if I can because I don’t like or trust idiots. You have on this very blog a prime example of a physician, a brain surgeon even, who believes in the design inference. I’ve read about a megabyte of his writings here and he makes blunder after blunder. I presume he operates on brains for mechanical defects because he certainly has no idea about how the mind works.

  20. 20
    MatSpirit says:

    Some more on Eric Pianka and the current situation:

    “Pianka … posted a statement on his University of Texas website that said in part:

    I have two grandchildren and I want them to inherit a stable Earth. But I fear for them. Humans have overpopulated the Earth and in the process have created an ideal nutritional substrate on which bacteria and viruses (microbes) will grow and prosper. We are behaving like bacteria growing on an agar plate, flourishing until natural limits are reached or until another microbe colonizes and takes over, using them as their resource. In addition to our extremely high population density, we are social and mobile, exactly the conditions that favor growth and spread of pathogenic (disease-causing) microbes. I believe it is only a matter of time until microbes once again assert control over our population, since we are unwilling to control it ourselves. This idea has been espoused by ecologists for at least four decades and is nothing new. People just don’t want to hear it. I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us. Simply stopping the destruction of rainforests would help mediate some current planetary ills, including the release of previously unknown pathogens. The ancient Chinese curse “may you live in interesting times” comes to mind – we are living in one of the most interesting times humans have ever experienced. For example, consider the manifold effects of global warming. We need to make a transition to a sustainable world. If we don’t, nature is going to do it for us in ways of her own choosing. By definition, these ways will not be ours and they won’t be much fun. Think about that.

    As a consequence of the controversy, Pianka and members of the Texas Academy of Science received death threats. According to Pianka, his daughters were worried about his and their safety, and his life had been “turned upside-down by ‘right-wing fools’.””
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Pianka

    So a very distinguished Professor (read the Wikipedia article for details) gives a pretty standard speech telling us what is going to happen if we don’t change our ways* and he, his daughters and other members of the Texas Academy of Science receive death threats. That’s ID_Science(tm) at its best!

    * Sounds like Jesus.

  21. 21
    kairosfocus says:

    MS, pardon, your ill-informed contempt is showing and is rather unflattering when we ponder say GPuccio and other medical practitioners. But then, the fundamental challenge you face is that for nearly seventy years we have had good reason to know that in the heart of cell based life is DNA, an alphanumerical coded molecule that in key part stores algorithmic information. That is, language and manifest purpose. Where, language is as strong a sign of design as material causal factor as anything. KF

  22. 22
    Barry Arrington says:

    MatSpirit

    he certainly has no idea about how the mind works.

    And you do? Pray tell us. If you do, we will dedicate an entire post to singing your praises when you are collecting your prize in Stockholm.

  23. 23
    BobRyan says:

    MS must believe the laws of physics do not exist, since they cannot exist without intelligence to put them in place. He calls anyone who believes in ID is an idiot, in his own words, yet he is the one drooling at the altar of Darwin. Darwinists are not particularly bright people. They suspend science for magic.

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    BA, once the mind is rationally credible, it must be significantly free. That means it cannot be wholly explained on computation on a material substrate. On pain of self-referential incoherence about rationality. KF

  25. 25
    Bob O'H says:

    kf @ 15 – you might want to look up “Sassenach” in a dictionary.

    Yours, a true Englishman.

  26. 26
    kairosfocus says:

    Bo’H, AMHD, Sassenach (?sæs??næk; Scottish -næx)
    n
    (Peoples) sometimes Scot and Irish an English person or a Lowland Scot
    [C18: from Scottish Gaelic Sasunnach, Irish Sasanach, from Late Latin saxon?s Saxons]

    Where, of course, Darwin’s reference to Saxons in his Descent of Man, is in this context.

    KF

  27. 27
    ET says:

    Any physician who thinks that minds arose from the mindless via blind and mindless processes should be stripped of their medical license. They are not fit to practice medicine. They are only fit to wear a dunce cap. The same goes for any and all scientists who hold such an asinine belief. They should be stripped of their degrees and force to bag groceries or flip burgers.

  28. 28
    JVL says:

    ET: Any physician who thinks that minds arose from the mindless via blind and mindless processes should be stripped of their medical license.

    You wouldn’t have many doctors and nurses left if you did that.

    The same goes for any and all scientists who hold such an asinine belief. They should be stripped of their degrees and force to bag groceries or flip burgers.

    So, if you were in charge, would you make anyone sign a document accepting ID before they were granted their PhD in a science?

  29. 29
    JVL says:

    BobRyan: Darwinists are not particularly bright people. They suspend science for magic.

    Just curios .. . . what scientific work have you done and published?

  30. 30
    ET says:

    I don’t know of any doctors or nurses who accept the premise of mins arising from the mindless via blind and mindless processes. And I know for a fact that not one doctor or nurse can scientifically test such a thing.

    If I was in charge I would make any PhD demonstrate how to scientifically test the claim that minds arose from the mindless via blind and mindless processes- if they can’t then they would have to denounce the premise or admit that they don’t understand science.

  31. 31
    JVL says:

    Et: I don’t know of any doctors or nurses who accept the premise of mins arising from the mindless via blind and mindless processes. And I know for a fact that not one doctor or nurse can scientifically test such a thing.

    Ok, we have very different experiences then.

    If I was in charge I would make any PhD demonstrate how to scientifically test the claim that minds arose from the mindless via blind and mindless processes- if they can’t then they would have to denounce the premise or admit that they don’t understand science.

    Well, I can see that for a lot of scientific work how human minds arose isn’t pertinent but I rather doubt you’d get far forcing PhD candidates to sign such a denouncement; they tend to be a rather stubborn bunch. But you did answer the question so thanks for that.

    Supposing someone said they could scientifically test the claim how would you evaluate that? How would you decide if they were right or wrong?

  32. 32
    ET says:

    As if JVL has asked any doctors or nurses if they accept that minds arose from the mindless via blind and mindless processes. 🙄

    And if someone said they could test it I would ask for a demonstration. Then point and laugh when it failed.

    And PhD’s should be reasonable. If they don’t understand that science mandates that claims be testable then they should be able to understand what that entails. If not then they don’t deserve that PhD.

  33. 33
    JVL says:

    ET: As if JVL has asked any doctors or nurses if they accept that minds arose from the mindless via blind and mindless processes.

    I didn’t ask that question per say but I have asked about unguided evolutionary processes.

    And if someone said they could test it I would ask for a demonstration. Then point and laugh when it failed.

    How would you judge if it had failed is my question.

  34. 34
    ET says:

    I would judge that it failed because it wouldn’t produce a mind from the mindless via blind and mindless processes. Very simple, actually.

  35. 35
    JVL says:

    ET: I would judge that it failed because it wouldn’t produce a mind from the mindless via blind and mindless processes. Very simple, actually.

    You did say test and now we’re talking about demonstrating something that might work but we’ll go with that.

    If someone was able to justify and demonstrate a series of steps which plausibly fed into each other then . . .

    What I’m getting at is that IF the original process took thousands or millions of years then it’s not realistic to ask someone to demonstrate the whole thing all at once. But they might be able to justify different stages. Is that still a fail?

  36. 36
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    The Crackpot Index:

    40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

  37. 37
    ET says:

    Hiding behind time proves the concept is not scientific. You lose. Heck no one can demonstrate that prokaryotes can evolve in to something other than prokaryotes. An they have genetic engineering to help them along and still nothing.

  38. 38
    ET says:

    Even the alleged best evidence for macroevolution is without an accompanying mechanism. Which is strange as mechanism determines pattern and said evidences are all about patterns.

    When evos figure out how to test their claims the Nobel committee will take note, I am sure. Until then all you have is a bunch of liars pushing their lies because they are afraid of reality.

  39. 39
    Ed George says:

    ET

    Hiding behind time proves the concept is not scientific.

    Then much of physics, chemistry and geology is not science.

  40. 40
    ET says:

    Hiding behind time proves the concept is not scientific.

    Ed George:

    Then much of physics, chemistry and geology is not science.

    You have to do more than just say so.

  41. 41
    JVL says:

    ET: Hiding behind time proves the concept is not scientific. You lose. Heck no one can demonstrate that prokaryotes can evolve in to something other than prokaryotes. An they have genetic engineering to help them along and still nothing.

    Since some natural processes (like continental drift) do take hundreds, thousands, millions of years then I don’t see that point. Surely continental drift is scientific? Dendrochronology can track hundreds of years but that’s scientific. Many of the radioactive dating techniques cover vast periods of time. Are you saying there are no historical scientific disciplines?

    When evos figure out how to test their claims the Nobel committee will take note, I am sure. Until then all you have is a bunch of liars pushing their lies because they are afraid of reality.

    You really think hundreds, thousands, even millions of working biologists and other scientists are afraid of reality? Geologists first established the age of the earth even though none of them were around to witness what they claimed happened. Are they just making things up? What for?

    If you look at the changes in physics, chemistry, biology and geology in the last couple of hundred years it’s pretty clear that many, many new ideas have taken root and become accepted. Is that the sign of people who are afraid to change old ideas for new ones that better match reality?

  42. 42
    ET says:

    You have to be desperate, stupid or both to compare continental drift to biology.

    You really think hundreds, thousands, even millions of working biologists and other scientists are afraid of reality?

    If they accept evolutionism, then yes.

    No one knows the age of the earth. You have to know how it was formed to do that. So yes, they are just making stuff up to prop up their untestable beliefs.

    But all that is moot as biology is nothing like physics or geology. Science mandates that the claims be testable. Unguided evolution doesn’t make testable claims.

  43. 43
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL,

    There is a real problem, one expressed in a 1971 TV interview by Jacques Monod:

    [T]he scientific attitude implies what I call the postulate of objectivity—that is to say, the fundamental postulate that there is no plan, that there is no intention in the universe. Now, this is basically incompatible with virtually all the religious or metaphysical systems whatever, all of which try to show that there is some sort of harmony between man and the universe and that man is a product—predictable if not indispensable—of the evolution of the universe.— Jacques Monod [Quoted in John C. Hess, ‘French Nobel Biologist Says World Based On Chance’, New York Times (15 Mar 1971), p. 6. Cited in Herbert Marcuse, Counter-Revolution and Revolt (1972), p. 66.]

    That is serious worldview level question begging dressed in a lab coat and baked into institutions, causing endless crooked yardstick problems.

    KF

  44. 44
    JVL says:

    ET: You have to be desperate, stupid or both to compare continental drift to biology.

    So there are historical sciences that depend on making inferences from what we see now to make statements about what happened in the past. Yes?

    If they accept evolutionism, then yes.

    You mean unguided evolutionary theory since you’ve said in the past ID is not anti-evolution. Yes? so, you think the evidence for intelligent design is so strong that people who do not accept it are denying reality?

    No one knows the age of the earth. You have to know how it was formed to do that. So yes, they are just making stuff up to prop up their untestable beliefs.

    I guess I spoke too soon! So, you question all the radiometric dating techniques? Why? Do you think the laws/rules of physics changed? Or . . .

    Do you accept continental drift over billions of years?

    But all that is moot as biology is nothing like physics or geology. Science mandates that the claims be testable. Unguided evolution doesn’t make testable claims.

    Let’s stick with some physics first: are the claims for dating techniques testable? What about radiocarbon dating?

  45. 45
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: That is serious worldview level question begging dressed in a lab coat and baked into institutions, causing endless crooked yardstick problems.

    I’m just asking ET some questions to find out what he (?) thinks. I’m trying to NOT put words in his mouth our attack his views. If I cross the line of respect then you’re welcome to call me on it.

  46. 46
    ET says:

    JVL:

    So there are historical sciences that depend on making inferences from what we see now to make statements about what happened in the past. Yes?

    They are all testable or not part of science.

    Evolutionism is unguided evolution. And yes, denying ID is denying reality. That is easy to see as those people don’t have a viable scientific alternative to ID. All they can do is hide behind time.

    So, you question all the radiometric dating techniques?

    Nope. The rad dating for the age of the earth depends on the untestable assumption that all accretion material became molten and then re-hardened.

    Do you accept continental drift over billions of years?

    I don’t accept the science behind the billions of years.

    Let’s stick with some physics first: are the claims for dating techniques testable?

    Make a case instead of going fishing. Or are you too afraid to do so?

  47. 47
    ET says:

    If the accretion material that formed the earth did not become molten then all rad dating is measuring the age of said material and not the age of the earth. A desk is not as old as the wood it is made from.

  48. 48
    JVL says:

    ET: Evolutionism is unguided evolution. And yes, denying ID is denying reality. That is easy to see as those people don’t have a viable scientific alternative to ID. All they can do is hide behind time.

    Okay, that’s clear.

    Nope. The rad dating for the age of the earth depends on the untestable assumption that all accretion material became molten and then re-hardened.

    So you have no suggestion of how old the earth is? Do you think it’s even a question worth pursuing?

    I don’t accept the science behind the billions of years.

    Okay.

    Make a case instead of going fishing. Or are you too afraid to do so?

    I’m trying to figure out what you think is reality if that’s okay!

    If the accretion material that formed the earth did not become molten then all rad dating is measuring the age of said material and not the age of the earth.

    So, you think it’s possible some of the material was not molten when it formed the earth less than 4.5 billion years ago? How did that happen then? Where did the material come from?

    Obviously a desk is not as old as the wood but, to get back to that question: do you think the use of properly calibrated carbon-14 dating is accurate, within certain limits of course.

  49. 49

    .
    JVL, how ’bout you sit quiet until you are willing to answer questions, as you expect others to do.

  50. 50
    ET says:

    What would prevent the accretion material from becoming molten? Lack of energy to make it so.

    And all I am saying is that to determine the age of the earth you need to know how it was formed. Obviously the material that made the earth had to be older than the earth, in any scenario. But was it all melted, homogenized and then recrystallized?

    Now that more planets around distant stars have been discovered, we know that nature just doesn’t spit out systems like ours. If science only allows for so much luck, what good is a position that relies on it?

  51. 51
    JVL says:

    UprightBiPed: JVL, how ’bout you sit quiet until you are willing to answer questions, as you expect others to do.

    How about we let the people I am having a conversation with decide? Much like you requested earlier? Fair enough?

  52. 52
    JVL says:

    ET: What would prevent the accretion material from becoming molten? Lack of energy to make it so.

    Okay but . . . how did the accretion material arrive at the proto-earth? If it plunged into the gravity well then it would have a lot of kinetic energy. I’m just wondering how you scope all this out.

    And all I am saying is that to determine the age of the earth you need to know how it was formed. Obviously the material that made the earth had to be older than the earth, in any scenario. But was it all melted, homogenized and then recrystallized?

    Sure, sure. You are saying we can’t be sure of the accepted story. I get that. Do you have an alternate narrative? Without another viable alternative then the accepted paradigm stays doesn’t it?

    Now that more planets around distant stars have been discovered, we know that nature just doesn’t spit out systems like ours. If science only allows for so much luck, what good is a position that relies on it?

    I guess. I’m interested in your ideas of what could or did happen.

    And what about the carbon-14 dating technique? You did discuss that and I would really like to know your view. Sorry if I’m being insistent.

  53. 53
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    Sure, sure. You are saying we can’t be sure of the accepted story. I get that. Do you have an alternate narrative? Without another viable alternative then the accepted paradigm stays doesn’t it?

    They definitely don’t understand this w/r/t evolution.

  54. 54
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    @JVL you wouldn’t use C14 to date the Earth. The half life of C14 is 5,730 years. To date the Earth you’d want U->Pb ratios.

  55. 55
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Okay but . . . how did the accretion material arrive at the proto-earth?

    Exactly as it was directed to.

    If it plunged into the gravity well then it would have a lot of kinetic energy.

    What gravity well?

    Do you have an alternate narrative?

    So to you science is whoever has the best story? Really? An alternative narrative to shit happened- and a lot of just-so shit at that?

    Without another viable alternative then the accepted paradigm stays doesn’t it?

    That isn’t how science is done. If what you are proposing isn’t testable it isn’t science. And what you are proposing isn’t testable. It is all sheer dumb luck.

    And what about the carbon-14 dating technique?

    What about it?

  56. 56
    ET says:

    Earth to Jim and JVL- Science is NOT done by who has the best narrative. You have to actually be able to test the claims that narrative makes or else it is just another fable.

    Your side doesn’t have a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life. Without that yours is just a BS story meant to fool the fools.

  57. 57
    JVL says:

    Jim Thibodeau: JVL you wouldn’t use C14 to date the Earth. The half life of C14 is 5,730 years. To date the Earth you’d want U->Pb ratios.

    Of course not! But, you can use carbon-14 dating to check one of the other forms of dating for recent dates. It’s a matter of cross-checking.

  58. 58
    JVL says:

    ET: Exactly as it was directed to.

    Directed by whom?

    What gravity well?

    There was no mass there ahead of time then?

    So to you science is whoever has the best story? Really? An alternative narrative to shit happened- and a lot of just-so shit at that?

    Science is a matter of finding models that match reality. If you dispute one model then it would be good if you had a better one.

    That isn’t how science is done. If what you are proposing isn’t testable it isn’t science. And what you are proposing isn’t testable. It is all sheer dumb luck.

    Again, what is your better alternative?

    You keep not addressing carbon-14 dating. Is it accurate? Do you agree with it being used under certain limitations?

    Earth to Jim and JVL- Science is NOT done by who has the best narrative. You have to actually be able to test the claims that narrative makes or else it is just another fable.

    Yes but if you dispute the accepted model then you have to have an alternative which works better. Have you got that?

    Your side doesn’t have a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life. Without that yours is just a BS story meant to fool the fools.

    Fine. What’s ;your alternative that has more explanative power?

  59. 59

    .

    JVL: How about we let the people I am having a conversation with decide?

    You want to ask a question to decide if its inequitable to pursue questions of others that you are unwilling to have pursued of you. Why does that not surprise me.

  60. 60

    .

    JVL: Science is a matter of finding models that match reality. If you dispute one model then it would be good if you had a better one.:

    Let’s compare models for the physical conditions required of autonomous open-ended self-replication. Let us see which models “match reality”.

  61. 61
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: You want to ask a question to decide if its inequitable to pursue questions of others that you are unwilling to have pursued of you. Why does that not surprise me.

    I’m happy to let ET decide how our conversation progresses. If that’s okay with you.

    If you want to start a separate conversation then be my guest. Just be clear about it instead of playing some rhetorical game.

  62. 62
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: Let’s compare models for the physical conditions required of autonomous open-ended self-replication. Let us see which models “match reality”.

    That’s a pretty big topic. Tell me what your model is.

  63. 63

    .

    JVL: Tell me what your model is.

    I argue for the model successfully predicted by Von Neumann (confirmed by Crick, Brenner, Hoagland, Zamecnik, Nirenberg, et al) and documented in the literature by Pattee, Barbieri, and others. It simultaneously requires a symbol system (i.e. a system of discontinuous association), a language structure (i.e. the onset of spatial orientation to enable multiple referents), a set of non-integrable constraints, and semantic closure in order to begin to function (i.e. persist over time). I am prepared to walk through the details of each of these requirements.

    What model do you conclude best “matches reality” and what details of that model will you be arguing support your conclusion?

  64. 64
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Science is a matter of finding models that match reality.

    That’s part of science. Science still mandates any claims being made also have to be testable.

    If you dispute one model then it would be good if you had a better one.

    So a model is just some made-up story, then? A better model then one that doesn’t exist? Or is there a model on how cosmic collisions can bring about this type of solar system?

    Again, what is your better alternative?

    A better alternative to what? Your “something happened sometime in the past just because it did” isn’t really a model.

    You keep not addressing carbon-14 dating. Is it accurate?

    I don’t care about it. I never brought it up. And yes, if done correctly, it can be accurate.

    Yes but if you dispute the accepted model then you have to have an alternative which works better.

    “Shit happened” isn’t a model.

    What’s ;your alternative that has more explanative power?

    Intelligent Design has more explanatory power than “shit happened”. ID offers the only explanation for life and its diversity. No one uses unguided evolution for anything. It doesn’t explain anything because it doesn’t have a mechanism that can be tested to see if it is capable.

  65. 65
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: What model do you conclude best “matches reality” and what details of that model will you be arguing support your conclusion?

    Oh, you know, the standard unguided evolutionary model which I’m sure I will not be able to defend to your satisfaction (I’m pretty sure you’ve been down that road many times). So I’m happy to let it drop if you are.

  66. 66
    JVL says:

    ET:

    I don’t think “shit happens” is the unguided evolutionary model but I doubt we’ll get very far arguing about it so I’m happy to drop that part of the conversation.

    What I was going to say about carbon-14 testing had to do with using it to calibrate other dating methods but I guess you’ve got that covered when you suggest the Earth might have been formed by older bits that came from someplace else. So I won’t pursue that.

    Anyway, I think I’m done now. Thanks for indulging my questions.

  67. 67
    ET says:

    There isn’t any unguided evolutionary model. There isn’t any scientific theory of unguided evolution. There aren’t any testable hypotheses for unguided evolution. All unguided evolution has are liars, bluffers and deniers.

  68. 68
    jerry says:

    There aren’t any testable hypotheses for unguided evolution.

    Yes there are. We have disagreed in the past on this. But gene studies of similar but separate species with have slightly different protein generating DNA sequences should show if new proteins have developed and how. Similar but inadequate DNA structures should exist in these similar species that do not produce a protein. It could be done all across the board going back in biological history. It is a valid approach and would be conclusive.

    My guess is that it will show no development of new proteins from mutations in the DNA. In which case it would just be another nail in the coffin. I also suspect that some have tried to do this and failed but it wouldn’t make them popular with the evolutionary biology establishment to publish such results.

    Ann Gauger and I had a brief discussion about this within the last 3 years. She provided some plant studies on just how many different proteins there are in very similar species. This would seem to seal the deal.

    See https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/do-nylon-eating-bacteria-show-that-new-functional-information-is-easy-to-evolve/

  69. 69
    ET says:

    How is that a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution?

  70. 70

    .

    Oh, you know, the standard unguided evolutionary model

    JVL, biological evolution doesn’t even exist as a process until an entity can specify itself among alternatives and pass that specification from one generation to another. This requirement is the very thing brought on by the system/model under discussion. In other words, you have the cart before the horse. If A requires B for A to exist, then A cannot be the source of B.

    which I’m sure I will not be able to defend to your satisfaction

    It is rather cheap rhetoric to try to implicate me in your situation here. I have absolutely nothing to do with your inability to defend your conclusions. And please note, you are not merely defending your beliefs badly; you are choosing to not defend them at all. To do so would highlight a contradiction that doesn’t serve your purposes – a very clear contradiction between the person who claims he finds “nothing convincing” and no “hard evidence” of his opponent’s position, versus the guy who wants to quickly “drop it” when confronted with that evidence.

    So I’m happy to let it drop if you are.

    No one is forcing you to hang out on an ID blog and ignore the physical evidence, that is all on you. If you are asking to be allowed to continue your little passive/aggressive stint here, acting out any and every irrelevant meme ever created to aggravate against the physical evidence of design in biology — without ever being bothered to respond to it — then I think your request is preposterous.

  71. 71
    jerry says:

    How is that a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution?

    Hypothesis – There are natural processes that lead to new protein families. One process is mutations caused by X. X could be anyone of known mutation processes.

    Method – examination of DNA sequences within a genus or family to see DNA sequences leading to proteins. Then examining unique
    DNA sequence leading to proteins with any non coding sequences in other members of family.

    Potential Finding – every unique coding sequence in family has non coding DNA sequences In most other family member that are very similar. Conclusion- verification of natural processes leading to new proteins

    Potential Finding – There were no non coding sequences in family that remotely resemble those of unique coding sequences. Conclusion – there does not exist any pattern of protein evolution in genomes of similar species.

    Potential Finding – There were some non coding sequences in family that resemble those of unique coding sequences. these are best explained by devolution or lost of coding ability Conclusion – there exist evidence of genome devolution over time.

    Probably several other potential findings. First finding would lead to Noble prize in Biology. Second finding would never be published.
    Third maybe but would raise unwanted questions

  72. 72
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed:

    I meant no insult or slight. It just seemed to me that pursuing our discussion would end up being more frustrating than productive. If I phrased that in a way you find objectionable then I apologise. But I do not want to waste your time so I figured it would be better if I just bowed out.

  73. 73
    Barry Arrington says:

    JVL

    It just seemed to me that pursuing our discussion would end up being more frustrating than productive.

    Doubtless it is frustrating for you to be presented with evidence for design that you cannot refute. Certainly it is not productive when you are asked to defend your position and fail/refuse to do so. Yes, a strategic retreat on your part is called for — until the dust clears and you can once again spew content-free talking points.

  74. 74
    JVL says:

    Barry Arrington: Doubtless it is frustrating for you to be presented with evidence for design that you cannot refute.

    That’s not it at all. It’s the way any evidence disputing ID is treated that I find trying to fight. So I tend not to.

    Certainly it is not productive when you are asked to defend your position and fail/refuse to do so.

    True, but when I can see how a particular conversation is going to progress because of having had the experience before is there really a point for going through it all again? None of us are making any really new points are we? We just keep rehashing the same issues over and over and over again with no change in anyone’s stance. So, what’s the point?

    Yes, a strategic retreat on your part is called for — until the dust clears and you can once again spew content-free talking points.

    I won’t bother when I know you’ve already made up your mind.

    Look, I am not going to say anything you haven’t already heard. You already have your counter points locked and loaded. So what’s the point of having the same conversation again and again and again?

    I have asked ET and some other contributors some questions so that I better understand their views NOT so that I can generate a conversation whose direction I can predict. I am trying to understand people I disagree with. I trust that is okay.

  75. 75
    Barry Arrington says:

    JVL @ 74.

    I am trying to understand people I disagree with.

    Then why do you evade Upright Biped’s questions? If you want to engage and learn, then you should be willing to put your views at risk. If you find that you can’t answer his questions (which will be the case BTW), then you really should consider changing your view. I won’t hold my breath. Changing views about fundamental things — even when overwhelming evidence demands it — is psychologically painful. You are not alone in trying to insulate yourself from that pain.

  76. 76
    ET says:

    Jerry:

    Hypothesis – There are natural processes that lead to new protein families. One process is mutations caused by X. X could be anyone of known mutation processes.

    Natural as opposed to what? The debate is whether or not those known mutation processes occur by design or are they happenstance?

  77. 77
    StephenB says:

    Why is everyone ignoring Barry’s point?

    Confronting this virus involves a terrible trade off that cannot be avoided. Knowing that people will die no matter what we do, how do we find the proper balance between placing them at risk of dying from the disease and the risk of dying from a lack of life-sustaining resources, especially from a world-wide perspective. To say that a collapsed economy is acceptable if it “saves even one life” is nothing short of insane.

    And let’s not forget that the leaders of one of America’s political parties (symbolized by a donkey) has confessed publicly and proudly that this tragedy provides them with an opportunity to advance their power-seeking agenda. They have made it clear that they would prefer a ruined economy over the reelection of an incumbent president. Why would anyone vote for such evil people?

  78. 78

    .
    Hello SB,
    I hope you and yours are all safe and well. Good to see your name in the comments list.

  79. 79
    StephenB says:

    Hello UB,

    Thanks for the greeting. I am pleased that you continue to ask all the right questions.

  80. 80
    kairosfocus says:

    SB, good to hear, trust you and yours fare well. KF

    PS: When bad news for a community is good news for you and vice versa, what does that say?

  81. 81
    bornagain77 says:

    I was just wondering the other day where StephenB, with his insightful comment, was. I’ve missed you.

    I sure the Darwinists on UD didn’t miss you though! 🙂

  82. 82
    Barry Arrington says:

    SB, allow me join the chorus of voices welcoming you back to UD. You have been missed.

  83. 83
    StephenB says:

    Born again, KF, and Barry, thanks for the kind welcome.

  84. 84
    vividbleau says:

    SB
    Welcome back SB !!! Your sound wisdom and intellect has been very helpful to me.

    Vivid

Leave a Reply