Intelligent Design

Leyden and Teixeira: Political “Civil War” Coming Because of Global Warming

Spread the love

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey recently tweeted that Peter Leyden’s and Ruy Teixeira’s article, “The Great Lesson of California in America’s New Civil War,” is a “Great read.” The article both urges and forecasts a blue-state takeover of America where our current political divide gives way to a Democrat dominion. This new “Civil War” is to begin this year and, like the last one will have an economic cause. Unfortunately, the thinking of Leyden and Teixeira is steeped in scientific ignorance which drives their thesis.  Read more

167 Replies to “Leyden and Teixeira: Political “Civil War” Coming Because of Global Warming

  1. 1

    Civil war may indeed be forthcoming in the United States. It certainly seems like we are in the early stages of such a conflict. Hatred between the two rival tribes (reds and blues) is very real, and seemingly unreconcilable without a clear winner arising through large scale violence.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    A few inconvenient facts for our Atheistic chicken little global warming alarmists:

    First off Global warming is not unprecedented

    Temperature of Earth for the last 10,000 years
    http://climate.geologist-1011……atures.png
    The evidence shows repeatedly that global warming is not unprecedented and according to Ruddiman (2001) as well as Singer & Avery (2006), global warming is a regular cyclic phenomenon on planet Earth. In fact, the normal global mean temperature for planet earth given the Phanerozoic history, is actually 19.5 degrees Celcius; a full three degrees higher than the present mean.
    http://climate.geologist-1011.net/
    Temperature of earth last 5 million years:
    https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/fig1.gif

    Moreover, CO2 does not directly correlate to temperature

    What They Haven’t Told You about Climate Change – PragerU – video
    CO2 and Temperature have not directly correlated for millions of years.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc

    Does CO2 correlate with temperature history? – A look at multiple timescales in the context of the Shakun et al. Paper – Anthony Watts / April 11, 2012
    Excerpt: Only at greater time scales is there time for even seawater thousands of meters deep to fully warm and release more CO2. Accordingly, only at greater “medium” time scales does CO2 and temperature correlate highly, as can be seen contrasting the 400,000-year graph to the 11,000-year graph.
    Evidence for how CO2 in ice core data lags temperature by centuries has been discussed before at Watts Up With That, including articles in 2009 by Frank Lansner and R. Taylor.
    A simple Henry’s Law formula is applicable to a glass of water on a table releasing more previously-dissolved gas when warmed, but it is not literally valid when there are chemical reactions with the solute (CO2). The oceans are a far more complex system in general. However, still, more CO2 is released eventually when the planet warms. The atmosphere and the ocean surface (or shallow zones) warms much first, then deeper waters later.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

    The Truth about CO2 – Patrick Moore – co-founder GreenPeace – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc

    Moreover, CO2 levels for optimal plant growth are actually much higher than they presently are

    Human Emissions Saved Planet
    Excerpt: Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.
    At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.
    We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....l-warming/

    Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses
    Introduction
    The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.
    For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels.
    http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/en.....00-077.htm

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    And to top all that off, Atheists have no explanation for why the climate on Earth has remained ‘surprising stable’ for billions of years in the first place

    A Stable Atmosphere: Another Reason Our Planet Is Special – Daniel Bakken – January 20, 2015
    Excerpt: David Waltham’s central argument in Lucky Planet is that the geological evidence shows the Earth has had a “surprisingly stable climate.”1 There are many reasons the Earth shouldn’t have one. He observes, “[O]ur beautiful, complex biosphere could never have occurred if Earth had not enjoyed billions of years of reasonably good weather.”2
    There are many processes that keep Earth’s environment habitable, “which [in] the Earth’s case may be special rather than universal.”3
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92851.html

    The following articles highlight just how ‘special’ Earth’s case turns out to be:

    We may be overlooking a critical factor in our quest to find alien life – August 2016
    Excerpt: Many scientists assume that plate tectonics is a given on rocky, Earth-like worlds, but this may be rarer than anyone imagined.
    A new study in the journal Science Advances questions the idea that rocky worlds “self regulate” their heat after forming.
    The implications could be enormous, says study author Jun Korenaga, a geophysicist at Yale University. Essentially, we could be overlooking another “Goldilocks” factor in our searches for worlds habitable to aliens: a planet’s initial temperature.
    If you’re a planet and you start out too hot, the thick layer of rock below the crust called the mantle doesn’t give you plate tectonics. If you’re too cold, you also don’t get plate tectonics. The mantle is not as forgiving as scientists once assumed: you have to have the right internal temperature to begin with.
    “Though it’s difficult to be specific about how much, it surely does reduce the number of habitable worlds,” Korenaga wrote in an email to Business Insider. “Most … Earth-like planets (in terms of size) probably wouldn’t evolve like Earth and wouldn’t have an Earth-like atmosphere.”
    That would mean that many planets in the “Goldilocks” zone may not be habitable after all.,,,
    ,,, Mars and Venus weren’t so lucky. Those planets have a “stagnant lid” of relatively unbroken crust, and in Venus’ case, the consequences are clear: Without the ability to bury carbon in the atmosphere, the surface turned into an 860-degree-Fahrenheit hell.
    The new models suggest that rocky planets which can regulate their temperature, and thus develop all the geologic support systems life needs to emerge and thrive, are much rarer than we might hope.,,,
    he wrote. “[A] planet like Earth could well be the one of a kind in the universe.”
    http://www.businessinsider.com.....eat-2016-8

    Scientists ‘Iron Out’ Phenomenon That Sustains Magnetic Field Of Earth – 2 June 2016
    Excerpt: “Without Earth’s magnetic field, life on the planet might not exist.
    For 3.4 billion years, this magnetic field has prevented Earth from becoming extremely vulnerable to high-energy particles called cosmic radiation.
    Scientists know that what generates the protective magnetic field is the low heat conduction of liquid iron in the planet’s outer core. This phenomenon is known as “geodynamo.”
    However, although geodynamo has been identified, experts have yet to understand how it was first created and sustained all throughout history….In the end, researchers found that the ability of iron to transmit heat were not at par with previous estimates of thermal conductivity in the core. It was actually between 18 and 44 watts per meter per kelvin.
    This suggests that the energy needed to sustain the geodynamo has been present since very early in Earth’s history, researchers concluded.
    http://www.techtimes.com/artic.....-earth.htm

    Moreover, besides having the just right conditions to enable long term plate tectonics, and a magnetic field, which is a necessary condition for advanced human life, solar systems which are able to maintain a proper ‘goldilocks’ orbit for billions of years for any planet like earth are much rarer than was previously thought:

    “You might also think that these disparate bodies are scattered across the solar system without rhyme or reason. But move any piece of the solar system today, or try to add anything more, and the whole construction would be thrown fatally out of kilter. So how exactly did this delicate architecture come to be?”
    R. Webb – Unknown solar system 1: How was the solar system built? – New Scientist – 2009

    Milankovitch Cycle Design – Hugh Ross – August 2011
    Excerpt: In all three cases, Waltham proved that the actual Earth/Moon/solar system manifests unusually low Milankovitch levels and frequencies compared to similar alternative systems. ,,, Waltham concluded, “It therefore appears that there has been anthropic selection for slow Milankovitch cycles.” That is, it appears Earth was purposely designed with slow, low-level Milankovitch cycles so as to allow humans to exist and thrive.
    http://www.reasons.org/milankovitch-cycle-design

    Evidence from self-consistent solar system n-body simulations is presented to argue that the Earth- Moon system (EM) plays an important dynamical role in the inner solar system, stabilizing the orbits of Venus and Mercury by suppressing a strong secular resonance of period 8.1 Myr near Venus’s heliocentric distance. The EM thus appears to play a kind of “gravitational keystone” role in the terrestrial precinct, for without it, the orbits of Venus and Mercury become immediately destabilized. … First, we find that EM is performing an essential dynamical role by suppressing or “damping out” a secular resonance driven by the giant planets near the Venusian heliocentric distance. The source of the resonance is a libration of the Jovian longitude of perihelion with the Venusian perihelion longitude.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1538.....4_2055.pdf

    Of Gaps, Fine-Tuning and Newton’s Solar System – Cornelius Hunter – July 2011
    Excerpt: The new results indicate that the solar system could become unstable if diminutive Mercury, the inner most planet, enters into a dance with Jupiter, the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest of all. The resulting upheaval could leave several planets in rubble, including our own. Using Newton’s model of gravity, the chances of such a catastrophe were estimated to be greater than 50/50 over the next 5 billion years. But interestingly, accounting for Albert Einstein’s minor adjustments (according to his theory of relativity), reduces the chances to just 1%.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....solar.html

    Is the Solar System Stable? By Scott Tremaine – 2011
    Excerpt: So what are the results? Most of the calculations agree that eight billion years from now, just before the Sun swallows the inner planets and incinerates the outer ones, all of the planets will still be in orbits very similar to their present ones. In this limited sense, the solar system is stable. However, a closer look at the orbit histories reveals that the story is more nuanced. After a few tens of millions of years, calculations using slightly different parameters (e.g., different planetary masses or initial positions within the small ranges allowed by current observations) or different numerical algorithms begin to diverge at an alarming rate. More precisely, the growth of small differences changes from linear to exponential:,,,
    As an example, shifting your pencil from one side of your desk to the other today could change the gravitational forces on Jupiter enough to shift its position from one side of the Sun to the other a billion years from now. The unpredictability of the solar system over very long times is of course ironic since this was the prototypical system that inspired Laplacian determinism.
    Fortunately, most of this unpredictability is in the orbital phases of the planets, not the shapes and sizes of their orbits, so the chaotic nature of the solar system does not normally lead to collisions between planets. However, the presence of chaos implies that we can only study the long-term fate of the solar system in a statistical sense, by launching in our computers an armada of solar systems with slightly different parameters at the present time—typically, each planet is shifted by a random amount of about a millimeter—and following their evolution. When this is done, it turns out that in about 1 percent of these systems, Mercury’s orbit becomes sufficiently eccentric so that it collides with Venus before the death of the Sun. Thus, the answer to the question of the stability of the solar system—more precisely, will all the planets survive until the death of the Sun—is neither “yes” nor “no” but “yes, with 99 percent probability.”
    https://www.ias.edu/about/publications/ias-letter/articles/2011-summer/solar-system-tremaine

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Comparisons to other solar systems that have now been made bares out just how special the Earth’s stable solar system actually is:

    Paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Suggests Our Solar System Is Exceptional – Casey Luskin – September 10, 2015
    Excerpt: our solar system stands out dramatically compared to other solar systems we’ve discovered and that getting rocky planets orbiting near their star as Earth does, in the circumstellar habitable zone, requires a very exceptional set of circumstances.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....99171.html

    Earth Resides in an “Oddball” Solar System – January 19, 2018
    Excerpt: Our solar system may be an oddball in the universe. A new study using data from NASA’s Kepler Space Telescope shows that in most cases, exoplanets orbiting the same star have similar sizes and regular spacing between their orbits.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/yer-average-planet-watch-earth-resides-in-an-oddball-solar-system/

    How weird is our Solar System? Is it odd like your quirky uncle, or odd like a leprechaun riding a unicorn? – May 2015
    Excerpt: “It’s increasingly seeming that the solar system is something of an oddball,” says Gregory Laughlin, a planetary scientist at the University of California, Santa Cruz in the US.,,,
    Once you get over the fact that planets are as common as stars, you’re faced with their startling diversity. “We kind of always vaguely hoped and expected planets to be common,” Laughlin says. “And that’s absolutely right – they are common. But they are weirder than our own solar system would lead us to expect.”,,,
    “Having nothing interior to Mercury’s orbit and having Jupiter itself – a massive planet on a Jupiter-like orbit – combine to make us unusual,” Laughlin says.,,,
    “Every indication right now looks like we might be rare,” Walsh says.,,,
    “There’s zero evidence that Earth-like environments are common,” Laughlin says. “There’s zero evidence that life is common.”
    http://www.bbc.com/earth/story.....lar-system

    Planet-Making Theories Don’t Fit Extrasolar Planets;
    Excerpt: “The more new planets we find, the less we seem to know about how planetary systems are born, according to a leading planet hunter.” We cannot apply theories that fit our solar system to other systems:
    https://crev.info/2011/02/bustednbsp_planetmaking_theories_don146t_fit_extrasolar_planets/

    In particular, the atmospheres, and chemical compositions, of exoplanets are turning out to be far more diverse than was expected:

    Compositions of Extrasolar Planets – July 2010
    Excerpt: ,,,the presumption that extrasolar terrestrial planets will consistently manifest Earth-like chemical compositions is incorrect. Instead, the simulations revealed “a wide variety of resulting planetary compositions.
    http://www.reasons.org/composi.....ar-planets

    Hubble reveals diversity of exoplanet atmosphere: Largest ever comparative study – December 14, 2015
    Excerpt: “We found the planetary atmospheres to be much more diverse than we expected.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-h.....phere.html

    Rains On Different Worlds – info graphic (sulfuric acid rain, glass rain, diamond rain, iron rain, methane rain)
    http://tehgeektive.com/wp-cont.....lanets.jpg

    Molten glass files: Blue alien planet is NOT like Earth – Nov. 3, 2016
    Excerpt: And then there’s the weather. The winds on HD 189733b (which lies about 63 light-years from Earth, in the constellation Vulpecula) blow at up to 5,400 mph (8,700 km/h) — about seven times the speed of sound. And if that’s not crazy enough for you, scientists think the rain on this world is made not of water, but of molten glass.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ike-earth/

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    In the following articles, Michael Denton and Eric Metaxus gives us a glimpse at just how special Earth’s atmosphere actually is:

    The Cold Trap: How It Works – Michael Denton – May 10, 2014
    Excerpt: As water vapor ascends in the atmosphere, it cools and condenses out, forming clouds and rain and snow and falling back to the Earth. This process becomes very intense at the so-called tropopause (17-10 km above sea level) where air temperatures reach -80°C and all remaining water in the atmosphere is frozen out. The air in the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere in the stratosphere (extending up to 50 km above mean sea level) is absolutely dry, containing oxygen, nitrogen, some CO and the other atmospheric gases, but virtually no H2O molecules.,,,
    ,,,above 80-100 km, atoms and molecules are subject to intense ionizing radiation. If water ascended to this level it would be photo-dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen and, the hydrogen being very light, lost into space. Over a relatively short geological period all the water and oceans would be evaporated and the world uninhabitable.,,,
    Oxygen, having a boiling point of -183°C, has no such problems ascending through the tropopause cold trap into the stratosphere. As it does, it becomes subject to more and more intense ionizing radiation. However this leads,, to the formation of ozone (O3). This forms a protective layer in the atmosphere above the tropopause, perfectly placed just above the cold trap and preventing any ionizing radiation in the far UV region from reaching the H2O molecules at the tropopause and in the troposphere below.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....85441.html

    Existence Itself Is a Miracle – Oct. 2014
    Excerpt: “For instance, if the earth were slightly larger, it would of course have slightly more gravity. As a result, methane and ammonia gas, which have molecular weights of sixteen and seventeen respectively, would remain close to the surface of the earth. Since we can’t breathe methane or ammonia because of their toxicity, we would die.
    If Earth were slightly smaller, water vapor would not stay close to the planet’s surface, but would instead dissipate into the atmosphere. Obviously, without water we couldn’t exist.”
    Eric Metaxus
    https://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/26299

    In the following articles and video, Michael Denton further reflects on just how extraordinary the chemistry of Earth’s atmosphere is for human life:

    The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis – Michael J. Denton – February 25, 2013
    Summary (page 11)
    Many of the properties of the key members of Henderson’s vital ensemble —water, oxygen, CO2, HCO3 —are in several instances fit specifically for warm-blooded, air-breathing organisms such as ourselves. These include the thermal properties of water, its low viscosity, the gaseous nature of oxygen and CO2 at ambient temperatures, the inertness of oxygen at ambient temperatures, and the bicarbonate buffer, with its anomalous pKa value and the elegant means of acid-base regulation it provides for air-breathing organisms. Some of their properties are irrelevant to other classes of organisms or even maladaptive.
    It is very hard to believe there could be a similar suite of fitness for advanced carbon-based life forms. If carbon-based life is all there is, as seems likely, then the design of any active complex terrestrial being would have to closely resemble our own. Indeed the suite of properties of water, oxygen, and CO2 together impose such severe constraints on the design and functioning of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems that their design, even down to the details of capillary and alveolar structure can be inferred from first principles. For complex beings of high metabolic rate, the designs actualized in complex Terran forms are all that can be. There are no alternative physiological designs in the domain of carbon-based life that can achieve the high metabolic activity manifest in man and other higher organisms.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.1

    Privileged Species – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoI2ms5UHWg

    A Reasonable, but Incomplete, Account of How Humans Mastered Fire – Michael Denton – August 4, 2016
    In short, the discovery of fire, our subsequent mastery of it, and the road it opened up to an advanced technology were only possible because of our inhabiting a world almost exactly like planet earth, complete with atmospheric conditions exactly as they are, along with the properties of carbon and oxygen atoms (and indeed many of the other atoms of the periodic table), and because we possessed a unique anatomical design (including the hand) uniquely fit for fire-making.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....03048.html

    Indeed, the earth and humans in particular are now shown to have far more significance in this universe than atheists had ever presupposed that we would have:

    Humanity – Chemical Scum or Made in the Image of God? – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElBWAwjPzyM

    Moreover as was mentioned previously, although other atmospheres on other planets are quite different from Earth’s atmosphere, (in fact all other planets that we know about, with substantial atmospheres, all have opaque atmospheres which do not allow sunlight to penetrate to their surfaces), It is important to note just how fine-tuned our atmosphere for visible light to penetrate it.

    Quote: “,,,These specific frequencies of light (that enable plants to manufacture food and astronomers to observe the cosmos) represent less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth (10^-24) of the universe’s entire range of electromagnetic emissions.”
    – Fine tuning of Light, to Atmosphere, Water, Photosynthesis, and Human Vision (etc.) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiN9dU0W6rQ

    Thus in conclusion, the atheist’s assumption for a stable climate that is optimal for life is actually a hidden Theistic assumption on his part. On Atheism there simply is no reason to presuppose that the climate should have been ‘surprisingly stable’ for life for all these billions of years, or to presuppose that the climate will remain ‘surprisingly stable’ for any extended period of time hereafter.
    Only on Theism is the assumption of a stable climate warranted:

    Genesis 8:22
    While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”

  6. 6
    Bob O'H says:

    A few inconvenient facts for our Atheistic chicken little global warming alarmists:

    What about Christian chicken little global warming alarmists?

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob O’Hara as to:

    BA77: A few inconvenient facts for our Atheistic chicken little global warming alarmists:

    Bob O’H: What about Christian chicken little global warming alarmists?

    You are right. History is replete with people who have called themselves Christians and who have championed Atheistic positions. Darwin himself was not trained in advanced math, or in any other field that would be conducive to the founding of a new field of science, but was trained in liberal Christian theology. And almost immediately the liberal Christians of his day backed Darwin’s pseudo-theory whilst the conservative ‘scientific’ Christians shunned his theory as being unscientific.

    “Religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.....of_Species

    In fact, Darwin’s book, instead of being based on any math or experimentation, is replete with (bad) theological argumentation.

    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

    To this day, Darwinian theory is dependent on (bad) theological argumentation.

    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

    The Biologos organization, i,e “Theistic Evolution”, itself is a modern day example of severely compromised Christian theology masquerading as real science.

    Michael Gerson: How Rejecting Evolution Led to Evangelical Support for Trump – March 14, 2018
    Excerpt: Here is (Stephen Meyer) on theistic evolution,,,
    “This tangled — indeed, convoluted — view of the origin of living systems adds nothing to our scientific understanding of what caused living organisms to arise. As such, it also represents an entirely vacuous explanation. Indeed, it has no empiric or scientific content beyond that offered by strictly materialist evolutionary theories. It tells us nothing about God’s role in the evolutionary process or even whether or not he had a role at all. It thus renders the modifier “theistic” in the term “theistic evolution” superfluous. It does not represent an alternative theory of biological origins, but a reaffirmation of some materialist version of evolutionary theory restated using theological terminology.”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/03/michael-gerson-how-rejecting-evolution-led-to-evangelical-support-for-trump/

    Thus when we see present day liberal Christians jumping on the pseudoscience of AGW it should not be all that surprising.

    Of course, my position would be to question whether anyone can truly be a Christian whilst championing atheistic positions which are based on (bad) liberal theology.

    Of course, it is not for me to to judge who is and who is not a Christian, but I certainly would not feel comfortable with such hypocrisy of logic in my own way of thinking.

    Verse:

    Matthew 7:15-17
    Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
    Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
    Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

    As to ‘evil fruit’:

    From Darwin to Hitler – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anq6SAo1ue4
    In his book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (2004), Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially the view that human life is sacred

  8. 8
    asauber says:

    The idea that AGW is the driver behind a new Civil War in America to start, err, later this year is simply absurd.

    The problem is there are some Really Stupid Global Warming Believers that are capable of some really stupid behaviors based on their weather fantasies.

    Andrew

  9. 9
    ET says:

    Strange that they have to fudge with the data in order to see any global warming.

  10. 10
    asauber says:

    I wonder if some of the flaming a/mat progs who comment on this site would join an actual Army of Global Warming Blockheads if a recruiter came to their door or sent them an email to click and join. 😉

    Andrew

  11. 11
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 7 – I’m now curious to know what AGW is an atheistic position. Are you saying that God would stop the world from warming? And if one could demonstrate that mankind was affecting the global climate, would that be a demonstration of the non-existence of God?

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    From post 5 which Bob (and weave) apparently did not bother to read:

    Thus in conclusion, the atheist’s assumption for a stable climate that is optimal for life is actually a hidden Theistic assumption on his part. On Atheism there simply is no reason to presuppose that the climate should have been ‘surprisingly stable’ for life for all these billions of years, or to presuppose that the climate will remain ‘surprisingly stable’ for any extended period of time hereafter.
    Only on Theism is the assumption of a stable climate warranted:

    Genesis 8:22
    While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”

    Also of note, It seems that the data for supposed Global warming has been massaged so as to arrive at a predetermined conclusion:

    The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare – March 2018
    https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/

    Christopher Booker: The Fiddling With Temperature Data is the Biggest Science Scandal Ever – February 8, 2015
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....-with.html

    And let’s not forget the infamous ‘hide the decline’ hockey stick:

    Hide the decline – satire on global warming alarmists
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

    “Scientists” who massage data are not worthy of being called scientists,,, (that criticism applies to Darwinists also)

  13. 13
    Bob O'H says:

    bs77 – Now could you answer my question? I wasn’t asking about geologic time.

    If God has been keeping the climate stable, how do you explain the ice ages?

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    And why do you presuppose that God should not want ice ages?

    That is a Theological argument, based on your limited knowledge, as to what you think God should and should not do. May I suggest that God has a reason for ice ages that you just might not be aware of???

    After all He is omniscient and you are, well I hate to break it to you, but you are just little ole finite Bob no matter how highly you may think of yourself.

    In the following video, around the 35 minute mark, Hugh Ross covers ice ages, as well as many other factors, that were necessary to produce a habitat that is suitable for a technology advanced civilization to exist on earth:

    Life and Earth History Reveal God’s Miraculous Preparation for Humans – Hugh Ross, PhD – video (2014)
    https://youtu.be/n2Y496NYnm8?t=2097

    Of related note is this article:

    Ice Age is Ideal for Humanity
    Table 1: Ice Age Cycle Benefits for Humanity

    Melting ice fields brought nutrient-rich alluvial silt to the plains.
    Wind-blown dust delivered other nutrients to the plains.
    Melting glaciers water the plains.
    Ice field and glacier retreat formed millions of lakes.
    Formations of lakes and connecting rivers transformed barren deserts into productive land regions.
    Geological relief yielded abundant hydropower resources.
    Retreating ice sheets formed land bridges warm enough to facilitate human migration.
    Glacial retreat formed many safe harbors.
    Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers formed rich ore deposits.
    Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers made possible enhanced abundance of plants and animals during the warm interglacial episodes.
    Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers created spectacular scenery.
    https://ses.edu/ice-age-is-ideal-for-humanity/

  15. 15
    ET says:

    AGW is an atheistic thing because only atheists are gullible enough to believe it. 😛

    But I digress- AGW is real because humans have adjusted the data that makes it come to life. Leave the data alone and it all looks like natural variation.

  16. 16
    asauber says:

    AGW is also related to atheism because they both inflate the human ego with I Know Everythingism.

    C02 vs Temp will only ever be a statistical correlation, yet it’s assumed in certain Smarter Than Thou circles that C02 forces the temp.

    This is beyond a simple error. This is Group A trying to get over on Group B an a global scale.

    Andrew

  17. 17
    Bob O'H says:

    And why do you presuppose that God should not want ice ages?

    Err, you were the one who was claiming to know the mind of God by saying that he had kept the climate stable. I was just pointing out that is isn’t so stable.

    The argument that ice ages happened, therefore there is no God does have some appeal, but alas not much validity.

  18. 18
    ET says:

    Bob, what are you talking about now? Where did bornagain77 claim to know the mind of God by saying that he had kept the climate stable?

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    “I was just pointing out that it isn’t so stable.”

    And I was just pointing out that there are good reasons for the ice ages, (part of the terraforming of the earth to make a suitable habitat for advanced human civilization), and I also just pointed out that, on atheism, there is no reason to presuppose the earth’s climate to have been, as the researchers themselves admit, ‘surprisingly stable’ to allow life to exist on it for 4 billion years.

    The multiple factors that allow life to exist on earth within this universe are literally balanced within a knife’s edge limit of tolerance of the variance allowed for the climate so that life may continue to exist on earth.

    That the climate of earth varies within that knife’s edge limit for tolerance, without ever going over that tolerance for what is allowed for life to continue to exist on earth, for 4 billion years no less, is nothing short of miraculous.

    Moreover, photosynthetic life appearing on earth as soon as water appeared on earth 4 billion years ago, is something else that should have caused great ‘surprise’ for the atheist. But alas, like everything else, atheists basically ignored the Theistic implications and said, “life spontaneously originating must be easy since it appeared so quickly on the primordial earth”.,,, Funny that no one can ever seem to catch life ‘spontaneously originating’ now. 🙂

    Origin of Life: An Inside Story – Professor James Tour – May 1, 2016
    Excerpt: “All right, now let’s assemble the Dream Team. We’ve got good professors here, so let’s assemble the Dream Team. Let’s further assume that the world’s top 100 synthetic chemists, top 100 biochemists and top 100 evolutionary biologists combined forces into a limitlessly funded Dream Team. The Dream Team has all the carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids and nucleic acids stored in freezers in their laboratories… All of them are in 100% enantiomer purity. [Let’s] even give the team all the reagents they wish, the most advanced laboratories, and the analytical facilities, and complete scientific literature, and synthetic and natural non-living coupling agents. Mobilize the Dream Team to assemble the building blocks into a living system – nothing complex, just a single cell. The members scratch their heads and walk away, frustrated…
    So let’s help the Dream Team out by providing the polymerized forms: polypeptides, all the enzymes they desire, the polysaccharides, DNA and RNA in any sequence they desire, cleanly assembled. The level of sophistication in even the simplest of possible living cells is so chemically complex that we are even more clueless now than with anything discussed regarding prebiotic chemistry or macroevolution. The Dream Team will not know where to start. Moving all this off Earth does not solve the problem, because our physical laws are universal.
    You see the problem for the chemists? Welcome to my world. This is what I’m confronted with, every day.“
    James Tour – leading Chemist
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nt-design/

    My main point, none of this is expected on atheistic presuppositions whereas Theists would expect as such.

    Take away from it what you will, but, as a Christian Theist, I am more than comforted by what the science reveals.

  20. 20
    ScuzzaMan says:

    “… while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.”

    To be fair to the liberal Anglicans, natural selection IS an instrument of God’s design.

    In a fallen and still falling world, it preserves a species, stabilising it around its norms, eliminating the outliers.

    It is one of life’s wonderful ironies that natural selection would prevent evolution occurring, were evolution possible.

  21. 21
    EDTA says:

    TWSYF @ 1,

    As long as we are so entertained and distracted by Hollywood and the media, I’m not sure we’re up for a civil war…wars aren’t fun, and we Americans are all about having fun these days…sadly.

  22. 22
    Bob O'H says:

    And I was just pointing out that there are good reasons for the ice ages, (part of the terraforming of the earth to make a suitable habitat for advanced human civilization),

    What specific pieces of terraforming were needed? And what evidence is there that this is what God, specifically, intended?

    (of course, if by “advanced civilisation” you mean Norway, then you might have a point. :-))

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “What specific pieces of terraforming were needed? And what evidence is there that this is what God, specifically, intended?”

    The ‘good reasons’ for the ice ages were already listed,,,

    In the following video, around the 35 minute mark, Hugh Ross covers ice ages, as well as many other factors, that were necessary to produce a habitat that is suitable for a technology advanced civilization to exist on earth:

    Life and Earth History Reveal God’s Miraculous Preparation for Humans – Hugh Ross, PhD – video (2014)
    https://youtu.be/n2Y496NYnm8?t=2097

    Of related note is this article:

    Ice Age is Ideal for Humanity
    Table 1: Ice Age Cycle Benefits for Humanity

    Melting ice fields brought nutrient-rich alluvial silt to the plains.
    Wind-blown dust delivered other nutrients to the plains.
    Melting glaciers water the plains.
    Ice field and glacier retreat formed millions of lakes.
    Formations of lakes and connecting rivers transformed barren deserts into productive land regions.
    Geological relief yielded abundant hydropower resources.
    Retreating ice sheets formed land bridges warm enough to facilitate human migration.
    Glacial retreat formed many safe harbors.
    Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers formed rich ore deposits.
    Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers made possible enhanced abundance of plants and animals during the warm interglacial episodes.
    Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers created spectacular scenery.
    https://ses.edu/ice-age-is-ideal-for-humanity/

    Might I also suggest that you read Hugh Ross’s fairly recent book,,

    Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home
    https://www.amazon.com/Improbable-Planet-Earth-Became-Humanitys/dp/0801016894

    ,,, and also read this pdf for a more complete list of ‘terraforming’ features,,

    Part 4. Probability Estimates on Different Size Scales For the Features Required by Advanced Life
    by Hugh Ross
    http://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfron.....4_ver2.pdf

    On atheism, as you yourself tried to imply, there simply should have been no good reasons for God allowing ice ages.

    “If God has been keeping the climate stable, how do you explain the ice ages?”
    – Bob (and weave)

    I merely pointed out that you were wrong in what you were trying to imply.

    If you read Dr. Ross’s book or go though Dr. Ross’s pdf list you will find many more ‘amazing coincidences upon amazing coincidences’ that ‘just so happened’ to be beneficial for humans.

    Might I ask you a honest question? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Or is that simply a question that you will never ask yourself? i.e. Is it simply a matter that there is no amount of scientific evidence that will ever make you change your mind? If so, that is called dogmatism not honest inquiry.

    Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
    The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone? – By ERIC METAXAS – Dec. 24, 2014
    Excerpt: Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life —every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart.
    Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.
    Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces?
    Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?
    http://inters.org/files/metaxa.....singly.pdf

    Eric Metaxas – Does Science Argue for or against God? – (2015) video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjGPHF5A6Po

  24. 24
    Bob O'H says:

    Wow. That’s some list. I don’t understand why, if an ice age was so necessary, civilisation developed in an area that was little affected by glaciation. The plains of the Levant aren’t glacial.

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob (and weave) O’Hara, you didn’t answer the honest question I asked, but tried to, once again, dodge the main issue with essentially a non-point,, so again,,

    “At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces?”

    If not any of the evidence that Ross and Metaxas listed for a habitable planet, well then advances in quantum biology reveal that your very own material body, and how it developed from a single cell to the trillions upon trillions of cells that is now your material body, is not the result of ‘random forces’?

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – video
    https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am1g5Y

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    And advances in quantum mechanics also now reveal that your very own mind is not the result of natural laws but is integral to quantum mechanics at a very foundational level

    Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4

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

    So again, At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Or is that simply a question that you will never ask yourself? i.e. Is it simply a matter that there is no amount of scientific evidence that will ever make you change your mind?

  26. 26
    Bob O'H says:

    bs77 – I see. So it’s a non-point that the argument for the importance of ice ages on civilisation makes no sense at all?

    The “Glaciers therefore God” argument looks absurd. That does not necessarily mean that it is absurd, but if you’re seriously going to advance it as an argument, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for you to actually defend it, rather than try to change the subject.

    So, once again, if an ice age was so necessary for civilisation, why did it develop in an area that was little affected by glaciation?

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    Funny, it is a ‘non-point’ precisely because it is a ‘non-point’. i.e. you are making up your own criteria so as to dodge what constitutes a valid point. You stated:

    I don’t understand why, if an ice age was so necessary, civilisation developed in an area that was little affected by glaciation. The plains of the Levant aren’t glacial.

    Yet the word ‘plains’ is mentioned in the first three points that Dr. Ross named:

    Ice Age is Ideal for Humanity
    Table 1: Ice Age Cycle Benefits for Humanity

    Melting ice fields brought nutrient-rich alluvial silt to the plains.
    Wind-blown dust delivered other nutrients to the plains.
    Melting glaciers water the plains.

    Ice field and glacier retreat formed millions of lakes.
    Formations of lakes and connecting rivers transformed barren deserts into productive land regions.
    Geological relief yielded abundant hydropower resources.
    Retreating ice sheets formed land bridges warm enough to facilitate human migration.
    Glacial retreat formed many safe harbors.
    Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers formed rich ore deposits.
    Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers made possible enhanced abundance of plants and animals during the warm interglacial episodes.
    Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers created spectacular scenery.
    https://ses.edu/ice-age-is-ideal-for-humanity/

    Do you have a reading comprehension issue? Or did you just completely ignore the article that I have cited twice now because of what can be termed ‘willful blindness’ on your part?

    Perhaps you think farming is possible without the necessary nutrients that were supplied by the erosion processes of glaciation on the nutrient bearing rocks, (or perhaps you think the necessary nutrients ‘randomly’ appeared out of nowhere), or perhaps you think that farming can occur without an adequate supply of water,,, but, if so, I know many farmers, around where I live, that would certainly like to give you an education on how many factors it takes to successfully farm.

    And again, it is also a ‘non-point’ because of the fact that it is clearly you using your usual tactic of ‘bobbing and weaving’ so as to avoid the meatier issue that is now on the table. Namely, At what point is it fair (for you the atheist) to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces?

    Or is that simply a question that you will never ask yourself? i.e. Is it simply a matter that there is no amount of scientific evidence that will ever make you change your mind?

    And if you will never allow any scientific evidence to ever change your mind, then what is the point of me, or anybody else on UD, trying to pretend that you are anything other than insincere?

  28. 28
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – Actually, farming is possible without erosion from glaciers: rivers do the job nicely. Look at the Nile, for example. Or the area around the Tigris and Euphrates. Or, in North America, look at the Mississippi. Or the Murray-Darling in Australia. Liquid water erodes, and this provides nutrients that are washed downstream. Seriously, read up about the Nile and its annual floods.

  29. 29
    ET says:

    Yes, Bob, the earth was intelligently designed and rivers are part of that. Do you have a point?

    Glaciers bring water where there aren’t rivers.

    Read “The Privileged Planet”

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob you made an unsubstantiated claim that ‘farming is possible without erosion from glaciers’.

    You claim liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine.

    You do realize that it is the freezing and expansion of water that breaks up nutrient bearing rocks into suitable farming land do you not? Liquid water by itself will certainly not do just fine.

    And you do realize that the grinding, pulverizing, action of glaciers on the nutrient bearing rocks of entire mountains is also a necessary part of this process for providing land areas that are rich in nutrients that can host plant life.

    Ross goes into much more detail of ice ages throughout the entire history of earth and how they have, crucially, enabled habitats suitable for plant life.

    I, again. suggest you watch the video and read the books and links I have provided.

    You arguments are, basically, based on ‘self-assured’ ignorance.

    And again, you, in typical ‘bob and weave’ fashion, failed to answer the much more important questions that are now on the table:

    At what point is it fair (for you the atheist) to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces?

    Or is that simply a question that you will never ask yourself? i.e. Is it simply a matter that there is no amount of scientific evidence that will ever make you change your mind?

    And if you will never allow any scientific evidence to ever change your mind, then what is the point of me, or anybody else on UD, trying to pretend that you are anything other than insincere?

  31. 31
    Bob O'H says:

    You claim liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine.

    It’s not just me who claims that. People who study rivers do too. It’s how the Grand Canyon was formed, for example. Most of the valleys in the UK were also formed by rivers, not glaciers.

    And you do realize that the grinding, pulverizing, action of glaciers on the nutrient bearing rocks of entire mountains is also a necessary part of this process for providing land areas that are rich in nutrients that can host plant life.

    Necessary? Really? So what glaciers were there in Australia? And how come the Nile Delta is so fertile? Or the Congo basin?

    Both of my parents taught geography, so I literally learned this stuff at their knee.

  32. 32
    ET says:

    Bob:

    It’s how the Grand Canyon was formed, for example.

    Question-begging

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    So water rushing over nutrient rich sedimentary rocks in the Grand Canyon and UK and then creating valleys out of sedimentary rocks tells us how those nutrient rich sedimentary rocks were formed in the first place? Really???

    Where did the nutrient rich sedimentary rock come from in the first place?

    Your claim is that liquid water can do the trick all by itself. Without freezing and expansion and glacial erosion. You are wrong!

    A little science 101 for you:

    Water Breaks Down Rocks
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwT1e8R4hz0

    as to:

    So what glaciers were there in Australia?

    The Last Ice Age in Australia
    The technique of ‘exposure dating’ is a new tool which has revolutionised the way we study the history of glaciers and ice sheets. ANU scientists are using this technique to take a fresh look at the history of glaciation and climate change in Australia. By directly dating glacial debris and eroded bedrock, the timing of the advance and retreat of the ice (a sensitive indicator of climate) can be determined with unprecedented reliability.,,,
    It transpires that there was not just one but at least four major advances of glacier ice during the last 70,000 years. The coldest part of the last ice age was 20,000-22,000 years ago and only lasted a few thousand years.
    http://sciencewise.anu.edu.au/articles/ice_age

    Apparently you still think that nutrient rich farmland can appear out of nowhere when you go on to state:

    And how come the Nile Delta is so fertile? Or the Congo basin?

    Again, nutrient rich soil just does not ‘randomly’ and magically appear out of nowhere.,,, read the material provided.

    several major ice sheets covered the mountains and surrounding regions of the Andes in South America, the Sierra Nevada and Sierra Madre in North America, the Alps and the Caucasus in Europe, Kilimanjaro and the Atlas in Africa, the Japanese Alps, the Altai and the Tien Shan in Central Asia, the Zagros in Western Asia, Taiwan, and the mountainous regions of New Guinea.
    https://ses.edu/ice-age-is-ideal-for-humanity/

    as to:

    Both of my parents taught geography, so I literally learned this stuff at their knee.

    If your parents taught you that nutrient rich sedimentary soils can be created from mountains, boulders and rocks by liquid water alone, then you can file that teaching in with what they taught you about Santa Clause.

    Moreover, as an atheist, Water is certainly not your friend

    Water, Ultimate Giver of Life, Points to Intelligent Design – (Michael Denton 2017) video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2i0g1sL-X4

    Multiple ‘anomalous’ life enabling properties of water
    http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/anmlies.html

    Water’s remarkable capabilities – December 2010 – Peer Reviewed
    Excerpt: All these traits are contained in a simple molecule of only three atoms. One of the most difficult tasks for an engineer is to design for multiple criteria at once. … Satisfying all these criteria in one simple design is an engineering marvel. Also, the design process goes very deep since many characteristics would necessarily be changed if one were to alter fundamental physical properties such as the strong nuclear force or the size of the electron.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....42211.html

    Water’s quantum weirdness makes life possible – October 2011
    Excerpt: WATER’S life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge. It turns out that life as we know it relies on a fortuitous, but incredibly delicate, balance of quantum forces.,,, They found that the hydrogen-oxygen bonds were slightly longer than the deuterium-oxygen ones, which is what you would expect if quantum uncertainty was affecting water’s structure. “No one has ever really measured that before,” says Benmore.
    We are used to the idea that the cosmos’s physical constants are fine-tuned for life. Now it seems water’s quantum forces can be added to this “just right” list.
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....sible.html

    Water Is ‘Designer Fluid’ That Helps Proteins Change Shape – 2008
    Excerpt: “When bound to proteins, water molecules participate in a carefully choreographed ballet that permits the proteins to fold into their functional, native states. This delicate dance is essential to life.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....113314.htm

  34. 34

    You are losing the argument, Bob…again. But keep trying.

  35. 35
    bornagain77 says:

    water cycle
    https://water.usgs.gov/edu/graphics/watercycle-usgs-poster.jpg

    Mountains Drive Evolution – 2015
    Evolution has been driven by huge swings in oceanic nutrient levels, a paper in Gondwana Research argues, and these in turn are driven by cycles of mountain building. The authors matched three of the Earth’s mass extinctions to periods of nutrient deficiency, while the periods in which the oceans were richest also saw the greatest flowering of new lifeforms, on land as well as in water.

    “Nutrient trace elements such as copper, zinc, phosphorus, cobalt and selenium are vital for life and are critical building blocks for evolutionary change,” said the University of Tasmania’s Professor Ross Large. When the seas are rich with nutrients, plankton blooms; Large suspects that the extra food supply leads to flowering up the food chain.

    “Nutrients in the oceans ultimately come from weathering and erosion of rocks on the continents. Weathering breaks down the minerals in the rocks and releases the nutrient trace elements, which are the key to life and evolutionary change,” Large explained. “Thus when weathering and erosion rates increase for extended periods, more nutrients are supplied to the oceans.”

    Erosion rates peak during, and shortly after, mountain-building events. Mountain ranges large enough to change the oceans result from tectonic collisions.

    The Cambrian explosion of multicellular life has been linked to a period of increased erosion previously, but associations with subsequent events have been speculative.

    One obstacle to establishing connections, the paper notes, is that, “The nutrient trace element composition of the paleo-ocean cannot be measured directly.” However, a team led by Large collected 4000 pyrites from black shales worldwide. The pyrites hold a record of molybdenum, selenium, cadmium and thallium concentrations when they were laid down.

    While not all of these elements are important for life, they correlate with harder-to-measure phosphorus concentration, which certainly is. Based on this data, Large and his coauthors interpreted cycles of nutrient availability over the last 700 million years, peaking first 550–560 million years ago, and then several times thereafter.
    The shales can be dated using rhenium-osmium isotope analysis and the layer in which they were found, with more recent deposits dated by fossils at the same level.

    “There were times when nutrient levels dropped lower than anyone expected,” Large told IFLS. These coincided with the end-Ordovician, late Devonian and Triassic-Jurassic extinction events. “We don’t match the other two, but that is ok because we already have good explanations for those, with the asteroid responsible for killing the dinosaurs and the end-Permian event convincingly linked to massive volcanic eruptions in Siberia.”

    Large told IFLS that today “we are at the top of a cycle, the best conditions you can imagine. That is why humans evolved. We are in a phase of collision and rifting, and still feeling the effects of India colliding with Asia to create the Himalayas.”
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1342937X15001537

    And there you have it, optimal nutrients created humans! 🙂

    But then again, a person such as Michael Denton, who holds a anthropocentric view, would beg to differ, And would say that it is further evidence that the cosmos, and earth in particular, are and were designed specifically with humans in Mind..

    The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis – Michael J. Denton – February 25, 2013
    Summary (page 11)
    Many of the properties of the key members of Henderson’s vital ensemble —water, oxygen, CO2, HCO3 —are in several instances fit specifically for warm-blooded, air-breathing organisms such as ourselves. These include the thermal properties of water, its low viscosity, the gaseous nature of oxygen and CO2 at ambient temperatures, the inertness of oxygen at ambient temperatures, and the bicarbonate buffer, with its anomalous pKa value and the elegant means of acid-base regulation it provides for air-breathing organisms. Some of their properties are irrelevant to other classes of organisms or even maladaptive.
    It is very hard to believe there could be a similar suite of fitness for advanced carbon-based life forms. If carbon-based life is all there is, as seems likely, then the design of any active complex terrestrial being would have to closely resemble our own. Indeed the suite of properties of water, oxygen, and CO2 together impose such severe constraints on the design and functioning of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems that their design, even down to the details of capillary and alveolar structure can be inferred from first principles. For complex beings of high metabolic rate, the designs actualized in complex Terran forms are all that can be. There are no alternative physiological designs in the domain of carbon-based life that can achieve the high metabolic activity manifest in man and other higher organisms.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.1

  36. 36
    LarTanner says:

    @34-

    You are losing the argument, Bob

    (1) If that’s what you think, then you don’t see what’s actually happening
    (2) In any case, it’s curious that you frame the exchange in terms of winning/losing

  37. 37
    ET says:

    Bob is relegated to being an imp, that is how Bob is losing

  38. 38
    bornagain77 says:

    You tell him LarTanner! Atheists never ‘win or lose’ a scientific argument. They just ignore any and all countervailing scientific evidence. Which, given the pseudoscientific nature of Darwinism, ignoring any and all falsifying evidence is pretty much the core doctrine to their theory. 🙂

    Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience (Popper and Lakatos) – March 2018
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/coursera-vid-by-darwinism-is-wrong-prof-banned-from-youtube/#comment-655046

    Since falsifiability/testability (Popper) is considered the gold standard by which to judge whether a theory is scientific or not, I want to delve a little more into falsifiability/testability.

    The main reason that Darwinism fails the falsification/testability criteria for science is because there is no known ‘law of evolution’ within the universe for mathematicians to ever build a rigorously testable mathematical model upon.

    Laws of science
    1 Conservation laws
    1.1 Conservation and symmetry
    1.2 Continuity and transfer
    2 Laws of classical mechanics
    2.1 Principle of least action
    3 Laws of gravitation and relativity
    3.1 Modern laws
    3.2 Classical laws
    4 Thermodynamics
    5 Electromagnetism
    6 Photonics
    7 Laws of quantum mechanics
    8 Radiation laws
    9 Laws of chemistry
    10 Geophysical laws
    per wikipedia

    As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”

    The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14)
    Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.
    ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics.

    In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on.
    ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    per theedge

    Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
    https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf

    In fact, not only is there no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for Darwinists to build a realistic mathematical model upon, the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts the primary Darwinian claim that greater and greater levels of functional complexity can easily be had and/or ‘naturally selected’ for over long periods of time. Indeed, entropy’s main claim is that, over long periods of time, everything in the universe will decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed thermodynamic equilibrium is finally reached.

    And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such a disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science.

    Moreover, both of Charles Darwin’s ‘vague’, i.e. ‘un-mathematical’, criteria that he set forth for falsification of his theory have been met by Behe, Axe, and by Meyer. And yet, unsurprisingly, Darwinists STILL refused to accept those empirical falsifications of their theory.

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ohia-only-human-intelligence-allowed/#comment-655865

    But to go further in falsifying Darwinism, since Darwinism is based on reductive materialism then Darwinism makes some very specific predictions. And those specific predictions, that are based on the reductive materialistic framework that undergirds Darwinian thought, have now been experimentally falsified.

    First off, Darwinists hold that the particular form that any organism may take is reducible to the material particulars of that organism. In particular, Darwinists now hold that mutations to DNA are the primary means by which ‘transformation of forms’, i.e. macro-evolution, occurs. This ‘prediction’ inherent to the reductive materialism of Darwinism has now been shown to be false by several lines of evidence.

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    Moreover, the failure of reductive materialism to be able to explain the basic form of any particular organism occurs at a very low level. Much lower than DNA itself.
    In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Godel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    To state what should be glaringly obvious, since the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian evolution can never explain how any particular organism might achieve its basic form, then neo-Darwinian speculations for how one type of organism might transform into another type of organism are based on pure fantasy and have no discernible experimental basis in reality. In fact, such speculations, as the preceding article highlights, are now proved to be false and Darwinism is therefore now falsified.

    Another specific prediction of the reductive materialistic framework that undergirds Darwinian thought is that the information in life is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. (Darwinists use to claim that the information in life was merely a ‘metaphor’, and that life was just basically ‘complicated chemistry’ but now, since information is found to be so integral to life, Darwinists now mainly claim that information is ’emergent’ from a material basis.)

    Yet immaterial information is now shown to be its own distinct physical entity that is separate from matter and energy.

    Information is physical (but not how Rolf Landauer meant) – video
    https://youtu.be/H35I83y5Uro

    A distinct immaterial entity that has, of all things, a ‘thermodynamic content’

    Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010
    Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski.
    http://www.scientificamerican......rts-inform

    Information engine operates with nearly perfect efficiency – Lisa Zyga – January 19, 2018
    Excerpt: Physicists have experimentally demonstrated an information engine—a device that converts information into work—with an efficiency that exceeds the conventional second law of thermodynamics. Instead, the engine’s efficiency is bounded by a recently proposed generalized second law of thermodynamics, and it is the first information engine to approach this new bound.,,,
    per physorg

    The coup de grace for demonstrating that immaterial information is its own distinct physical entity, separate from matter and energy, is Quantum Teleportation:

    Quantum Teleportation Enters the Real World – September 19, 2016
    Excerpt: Two separate teams of scientists have taken quantum teleportation from the lab into the real world.
    Researchers working in Calgary, Canada and Hefei, China, used existing fiber optics networks to transmit small units of information across cities via quantum entanglement — Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance.”,,,
    This isn’t teleportation in the “Star Trek” sense — the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,,
    ,,, it is only the information that gets teleported from one place to another.
    per discovermagazine

    In fact, quantum information, of which classical information is a subset, is now found in molecular biology in every DNA, protein, etc,, molecule of life.

    Darwinian Materialism vs Quantum Biology – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHdD2Am1g5Y

    Quantum information simply is not reducible to materialistic explanations. Period! As the following article states, “entangled objects (i.e. material particles) do not cause each other to behave the way they do.

    Quantum correlations do not imply instant causation – August 12, 2016
    Excerpt: A research team led by a Heriot-Watt scientist has shown that the universe is even weirder than had previously been thought.
    In 2015 the universe was officially proven to be weird. After many decades of research, a series of experiments showed that distant, entangled objects can seemingly interact with each other through what Albert Einstein famously dismissed as “Spooky action at a distance”.
    A new experiment by an international team led by Heriot-Watt’s Dr Alessandro Fedrizzi has now found that the universe is even weirder than that: entangled objects do not cause each other to behave the way they do.
    per physorg

    Thus Darwinism is now experimentally falsified in its claim that information is ’emergent’ from a material basis.

  39. 39
    bornagain77 says:

    Another, somewhat esoteric, falsification of the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution comes from the nature of mathematics itself.

    Although it is almost universally acknowledged that mathematics exists in some transcendent “Platonic” realm, and although every purported theory of science requires verification from mathematics, and experimentation, in order to be considered scientific in the first place, the reductive materialism that Darwinian evolution is based upon denies the existence of anything beyond the material realm.

    What is the difference between naturalism and materialism?
    Excerpt: Naturalism is the view that the world can be explained entirely by physical, natural phenomena/laws. Naturalists either assert that there is no supernatural (or metaphysical) existence, or that if there is, it has no impact on our physical world.,,,
    Materialism is the related view that all existence is matter, that only matter is real, and so that the world is just physical. It simply describes a view on the nature of the universe, while the different branches of Naturalism focus on applications of effectively the same view.
    Thus, the difference between the two is the purpose of the definition – materialism makes an argument about the ontology of the universe, while naturalism takes a premise (effectively that of materialism) to make an argument on how science/philosophy should function.
    https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2406/what-is-the-difference-between-naturalism-and-materialism

    Therefore, besides Darwinian evolution already being shown to be mathematically impossible (Sanford, Dembski, Marks, Axe, Behe, Durston etc.. etc..), Darwinian evolution is falsified as being a scientific theory since it denies the very reality of the one thing it most needs, i.e. mathematics, in order to be considered scientific in the first place.

    Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gyx70BHvA

    Another somewhat esoteric falsification of Darwinian evolution comes from population genetics itself.

    Donald Hoffman has shown, through numerous computer simulations of Darwinian evolution, that if Darwinian evolution were in fact true then ALL of our observations of reality would be illusory.

    The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality – April 2016
    The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.
    Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.”
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

    Yet, reliable observation is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method.

    Steps of the Scientific Method
    Observation/Research
    Hypothesis
    Prediction
    Experimentation
    Conclusion

    Thus, since Darwinian evolution denies ‘reliable observation’, which is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself, then Darwinian evolution can never be based upon the scientific method and is therefore falsified once again in its claim that it is a scientific theory.

    Moreover, completely contrary to what Hoffman found for Darwinian theory, it turns out that accurate perception, i.e. conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics predicted. In the following experiment, it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.

    New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015
    Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
    “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said.
    Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
    per mind unleashed

    Apparently science itself could care less if atheists are forced to believe, because of the mathematics of population genetics, that their observations of reality are illusory!

    Therefore, Darwinian evolution is falsified once again since observation of reality is experimentally found to be far more reliable of reality than the mathematics of population genetics predicted.

    As Richard Feynman stated:

    The Scientific Method – Richard Feynman – video
    Quote: ‘If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

    Besides conscious observation becoming illusory and unreliable if Darwinian evolution were true, many other things also become illusory too. Things that normal people resolutely hold to be concrete and real, such as ‘personhood’ and morality.

    Basically the atheist claims he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), 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. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear, and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God.
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ubiquitin-system-functional-complexity-and-semiosis-joined-together/#comment-655355

    Thus, the final somewhat esoteric falsification of Darwinian evolution is the fact that Darwinists have lost any coherent basis for defining reality and are, in fact, adrift in a world of illusions and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab onto.

    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;

  40. 40
    LarTanner says:

    BA77,

    That’s a wonderful melange of extracted quotes, all pretty much unrelated, from different fields. Wonderful conspirorizing. It all must sound rapturous from the pulpit.

    Can you stick to one field and present data? This might be a welcome change.

  41. 41
    jstanley01 says:

    As far as emulating California, let’s not.

    “Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?”

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion.....story.html

  42. 42
    bornagain77 says:

    LarTanner, instead of falsely accusing me of “Wonderful conspirorizing” that ‘must sound rapturous from the pulpit’ perhaps you might want to actually put forth a testable ‘mathematical’ theory of Darwinian evolution that can be potentially falsified by experimentation. You know like, for instance, Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity and err, Intelligent Design have rigorously testable, and potentially falsifiable, theories??

    It is one thing to falsely attack a man with ad hominem, it is quite another to actually defend the vacuous theory of Darwinian evolution that is, by all rights, more properly classified as an unfalsifiable pseudoscience rather than a real science.

    Darwinian Evolution: A Pseudoscience based on Unrestrained Imagination and Bad Liberal Theology – video
    https://youtu.be/KeDi6gUMQJQ

    “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.”
    – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17
    Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

    But then again, when stuck in the position of trying to defend the scientifically indefensible, I guess attacking the man instead of the science is all you really got left isn’t it??? 🙂

    You then stated:

    Can you stick to one field and present data? This might be a welcome change.

    I have already presented data, primarily from Hugh Ross, that falsified Bob’s contention that liquid water alone was sufficient to provide nutrients to the plains. He refused to either read the links and/or watch the video, or to acknowledge the falsification of his claim.

    I then posted a link, from Darwinian researchers no less, that more clearly falsified Bob’s claim for a longer periods of time. A study that also found that “we are at the top of a cycle, the best conditions (for nutrient dispersal) you can imagine. That is why humans evolved. We are in a phase of collision and rifting, and still feeling the effects of India colliding with Asia to create the Himalayas.”:

    water cycle
    https://water.usgs.gov/edu/graphics/watercycle-usgs-poster.jpg

    Mountains Drive Evolution – 2015
    Evolution has been driven by huge swings in oceanic nutrient levels, a paper in Gondwana Research argues, and these in turn are driven by cycles of mountain building. The authors matched three of the Earth’s mass extinctions to periods of nutrient deficiency, while the periods in which the oceans were richest also saw the greatest flowering of new lifeforms, on land as well as in water.

    “Nutrient trace elements such as copper, zinc, phosphorus, cobalt and selenium are vital for life and are critical building blocks for evolutionary change,” said the University of Tasmania’s Professor Ross Large. When the seas are rich with nutrients, plankton blooms; Large suspects that the extra food supply leads to flowering up the food chain.

    “Nutrients in the oceans ultimately come from weathering and erosion of rocks on the continents. Weathering breaks down the minerals in the rocks and releases the nutrient trace elements, which are the key to life and evolutionary change,” Large explained. “Thus when weathering and erosion rates increase for extended periods, more nutrients are supplied to the oceans.”

    Erosion rates peak during, and shortly after, mountain-building events. Mountain ranges large enough to change the oceans result from tectonic collisions.

    The Cambrian explosion of multicellular life has been linked to a period of increased erosion previously, but associations with subsequent events have been speculative.

    One obstacle to establishing connections, the paper notes, is that, “The nutrient trace element composition of the paleo-ocean cannot be measured directly.” However, a team led by Large collected 4000 pyrites from black shales worldwide. The pyrites hold a record of molybdenum, selenium, cadmium and thallium concentrations when they were laid down.

    While not all of these elements are important for life, they correlate with harder-to-measure phosphorus concentration, which certainly is. Based on this data, Large and his coauthors interpreted cycles of nutrient availability over the last 700 million years, peaking first 550–560 million years ago, and then several times thereafter.
    The shales can be dated using rhenium-osmium isotope analysis and the layer in which they were found, with more recent deposits dated by fossils at the same level.

    “There were times when nutrient levels dropped lower than anyone expected,” Large told IFLS. These coincided with the end-Ordovician, late Devonian and Triassic-Jurassic extinction events. “We don’t match the other two, but that is ok because we already have good explanations for those, with the asteroid responsible for killing the dinosaurs and the end-Permian event convincingly linked to massive volcanic eruptions in Siberia.”

    Large told IFLS that today “we are at the top of a cycle, the best conditions you can imagine. That is why humans evolved. We are in a phase of collision and rifting, and still feeling the effects of India colliding with Asia to create the Himalayas.”
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1342937X15001537

    Surely you guys don’t think fellow Darwinists are biased do you?

    Moreover, not only was Bob’s claim falsified, but a very anthropocentric friendly condition of ‘we are at the top of a cycle,, the best conditions you can imagine’ for nutrient dispersal was also found.

    A finding that fits VERY well into Dr. Ross’s overriding Thesis.

    Life and Earth History Reveal God’s Miraculous Preparation for Humans – Hugh Ross, PhD – video (2014)
    https://youtu.be/n2Y496NYnm8?t=2097

    You guys may, once again, refuse to accept falsification (what else is new with Darwinists?), but I am more than satisfied that the unbiased reader will clearly see who is being forthright with the evidence and who is, basically, blowing smoke.

  43. 43
    Jammer says:

    Environmentalist nuts have proven almost as dangerous as atheist nuts. Of course, there’s a lot of overlap with the two.

  44. 44
    Allan Keith says:

    I must say, this has been freaking hilarious. Watching bs77 trying to claim that glaciers are necessary for eroding rock into soil. In spite of the thousands of papers suggesting otherwise.

    True, glaciers have been and continue to be important. But to suggest that water can’t do this in the absence of glaciers is just monumentally stupid. I live in Canada. Igneous rock. Acted on by water, flowing, freezing, thawing and flowing again can do wonders. Add to this the action of lichens and mosses, plant roots, and animal shit, and you end up with very fertile soil. And not a glacier within a thousand miles.

  45. 45
    bornagain77 says:

    Allan Keith,

    In spite of the thousands of papers suggesting otherwise.

    So you also claim that liquid water alone, minus freezing and expansion and Glaciation, is sufficient in and of itself to provide the necessary nutrient rich soil for life in a timely geologic fashion. (I never claimed that liquid water cannot provide some negligible amount of erosion to rocks and boulders).

    Moreover, you claimed to have ‘thousands of papers’ that can prove this point that freezing and expansion and glaciation, are for all intents and purposes, from what Bob (and now you) claim, is negligible.

    Really??? Thousands of peer reviewed papers that prove freezing and expansion and glaciation, are for all intents and purposes negligible???

    “Thousands of papers”????

    REALLY???? Are you serious and are you a betting man???

    Okie Dokie, I’ll bite, please show me your “Thousands of (peer reviewed) papers” that prove freezing and expansion and glaciation, are, for all intents and purposes, negligible as to providing necessary nutrients in a timely manner (‘timely’ manner geologically speaking of course.)

    I’ve already listed my peer reviewed paper that shows mountain building, erosion, nutrient cycle, and life, are tightly correlated.

    Could you answer a personal question before you go looking for those ‘thousands of peer reviewed papers’ that disprove my point’? Are you on drugs, perhaps hallucinogenics??

    Here is another article from Hugh Ross that people can read while they wait on you to produce your ‘thousands of papers’ that prove my point wrong:

    Another Reason to Thank God for the Ice Age Cycle
    BY HUGH ROSS – JULY 18, 2016
    Excerpt: In my new book, Improbable Planet, I list and describe 11 different reasons why a human civilization sustaining billions of humans would be impossible if it were not for our living at the end of a highly fine-tuned ice age cycle. Now, a scientific research team has discovered a twelfth reason.1 An especially strong ice age cycle, like the one we are in now, generates many large gravel-bed river floodplains, which prove to be ecological bonanzas.,,,
    http://www.reasons.org/explore.....-age-cycle

  46. 46
    Allan Keith says:

    Bs77,

    So you also claim that liquid water alone, minus freezing and expansion…

    Wait. Hold the buses. Who said anything about ignoring freezing and thawing cycles? Freezing and thawing are great ways to break up rock. Surely you are not equating this simple physical phenomenon with glaciation?

  47. 47
    bornagain77 says:

    as to this Cambrian claim from my previous paper,

    Mountains Drive Evolution – 2015
    Excerpt: Nutrients in the oceans ultimately come from weathering and erosion of rocks on the continents. Weathering breaks down the minerals in the rocks and releases the nutrient trace elements, which are the key to life and evolutionary change,” Large explained. “Thus when weathering and erosion rates increase for extended periods, more nutrients are supplied to the oceans.”
    Erosion rates peak during, and shortly after, mountain-building events. Mountain ranges large enough to change the oceans result from tectonic collisions.
    The Cambrian explosion of multicellular life has been linked to a period of increased erosion previously, but associations with subsequent events have been speculative.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1342937X15001537

    Is this associated ice age:

    The second ice age, and possibly most severe, is estimated to have occurred from 720 to 635 Ma (million years) ago,[2] in the Neoproterozoic Era, and it has been suggested that it produced a second[4] “Snowball Earth”, in which the Earth iced over completely. It has been suggested also that the end of this second cold period[4] was responsible for the subsequent Cambrian Explosion, a time of rapid diversification of multicelled life during the Cambrian Period.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation#Descriptions

  48. 48
    bornagain77 says:

    AK, if you are going to defend a point with ‘thousands of papers’, it is good to know exactly what you are trying to defend,,, see post 31

    31
    Bob O’HApril 12, 2018 at 8:30 am

    Me: You claim liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine.

    Bob: It’s not just me who claims that. People who study rivers do too. It’s how the Grand Canyon was formed, for example. Most of the valleys in the UK were also formed by rivers, not glaciers.

    How are you coming on those “thousands of papers?”

  49. 49
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 33 –

    So water rushing over nutrient rich sedimentary rocks in the Grand Canyon and UK and then creating valleys out of sedimentary rocks tells us how those nutrient rich sedimentary rocks were formed in the first place? Really???

    No, that’s not what I was arguing, but if you want to take that line, then go ahead. Sedimentary rocks pre-date the last ice age.

    as to:

    So what glaciers were there in Australia?

    The Last Ice Age in Australia

    http://sciencewise.anu.edu.au/articles/ice_age

    That piece you link to kindly explains

    Studies of relics of the last Ice Age, particularly in the Snowy Mountains and Tasmania have led to a complete revision of the glacial history of these regions, which were the only areas in Australia where glaciers existed.

    So at best you get part of the Murray river watershed, but nothing from the Darling.

    Apparently you still think that nutrient rich farmland can appear out of nowhere when you go on to state:

    And how come the Nile Delta is so fertile? Or the Congo basin?

    Again, nutrient rich soil just does not ‘randomly’ and magically appear out of nowhere.,,, read the material provided.

    several major ice sheets covered the mountains and surrounding regions of the Andes in South America, the Sierra Nevada and Sierra Madre in North America, the Alps and the Caucasus in Europe, Kilimanjaro and the Atlas in Africa, the Japanese Alps, the Altai and the Tien Shan in Central Asia, the Zagros in Western Asia, Taiwan, and the mountainous regions of New Guinea.
    https://ses.edu/ice-age-is-ideal-for-humanity/

    So the only glaciers in Africa were in the Atlas mountains and on Kilimanjaro. Neither of which are part of the catchment areas of the Congo or Nile, so can’t explain the geography of those two rivers.

    So, um, try again?

  50. 50
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 47 – Hm. So, the Cambrian explosiuon was the result of increased weathering? This happened after the “snowball earth” ice age. In other words weathering was higher when there were fewer glaciers.

  51. 51
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob, as you claimed in post 28 and 31, you are basically claiming that liquid water, all by its lonesome, can explain how the nutrients that are essential for life came to be in the soils. You are wrong. The nutrients necessary for life are coming from the weathering of newly uplifted mountains. While the ‘universal solvent’ of liquid water, as well as wind blown dust, can explain the worldwide dispersal of the nutrients that are essential for life in a timely manner, liquid water and wind, by themselves, cannot explain how the mountains are weathered in a timely manner, geologically speaking, in the first place.

    water cycle
    https://water.usgs.gov/edu/graphics/watercycle-usgs-poster.jpg

    You need freezing and expansion and glaciation.,,, Frankly, It is beyond me why anyone would try to argue otherwise. (But then again, your nick name is ‘bob and weave’ 🙂 )

    Without freezing and expansion and glaciation the newly uplifted mountains will obviously weather much less slowly than they do with freezing and expansion and glaciation.

    The nutrients necessary for life will, obviously, stay locked up in the mountains much longer than they normally would otherwise. And I would argue that such a retardation of the timing in the weathering of newly uplifted mountains would have catastrophic effects on the ability of earth to host life.

    The papers I have thus far cited back up this basic point up, Hugh Ross has many more papers listed in chapter 15 of his book “Improbable Planet” that further back up this basic point.

    Whereas you have, thus far, listed no paper to back up your position. But have only stated your personal opinion ‘learned at your parents knee’ as if that is authoritative.

    Which is OK, I guess, in so far as that goes since they taught geology, but hardly authoritative as to establishing your rather bizarre claim that liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine without the need for freezing and expansion and glaciation.

    To establish that claim you need much more than just your personal opinion (no matter how highly you may think of it yourself). You need peer-reviewed scientific evidence!

    Not to worry though Bob, Allan is to the rescue and has promised to produce ‘thousands of papers’ that will help you prove your rather bizarre point.,,, 🙂

    Personally, I would not hold my breath waiting for those ‘thousands of papers’.

  52. 52
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – if glaciation is so necessary for nutrients, can you have another go at explaining why the Congo and Nile basins are so fertile, if they haven’t had any glaciers in their catchments?

    As for papers, this stuff is so basic I think it’s in the undergraduate textbooks.

  53. 53
    bornagain77 says:

    Since you do not see fit to produce any papers backing up your bizarre claim, i.e. that the ‘ice cycle’ in unnecessary for nutrient release from newly uplifted mountains, it is pointless to continue is it not?

    Which is fine by me, as I am more than satisfied that I have made my point, whereas you, basically, are left believing that life enabling nutrients appear out of nowhere,,, i.e. since you deny that the timely weathering of newly uplifted mountains by the ‘ice cycle’ is necessary as to explaining how the life enabling nutrients in the biosphere arrived..

    One of us believes in magic Bob, and it ain’t me.

  54. 54
    Bob O'H says:

    OK, so you’re not going to defend your theory, then. I guess the criticism that there are fertile river basins that are not fed by glaciers, even though your theory is that glaciers are necessary for fertile soils, might have some validity if you can’t easily refute it.

  55. 55
    bornagain77 says:

    Tropical soils are notoriously thin and poor in nutrients. In some parts of the Amazon River Basin, white, sandy soils are found, which have evolved through erosion over hundreds of millions of years. And yet, although these soils have lost their mineral content and fertility, rich rainforests grow on them.
    In rainforests, some of the highest trees on the planet shoot to the sky. Dead plants and animals quickly decompose and their organic matter is utilized by other organisms.
    http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_d.....inforests/

    Glacial Geology
    Regardless of whether the landscape was produced by T2 or T3 events, all of the late Wisconsin deposits, and especially the tills, produce extremely fertile soils,,,
    https://igws.indiana.edu/MarionCounty/GlacialGeology.cfm
    picture:
    https://igws.indiana.edu/images/marioncounty/Fig1BGlacialGeoTimeline.jpg

    Again, life enabling nutrients are coming from newly uplifted mountains. While the ‘universal solvent’ of liquid water, as well as wind blown dust, can explain the worldwide dispersal of the nutrients that are essential for life in a timely manner, liquid water and wind, by themselves, cannot explain how the mountains are weathered in a timely manner, geologically speaking, in the first place. You need the ‘ice cycle’. To argue is otherwise is just plain wrong. (and bizarre.)

    water cycle
    https://water.usgs.gov/edu/graphics/watercycle-usgs-poster.jpg

  56. 56
    bornagain77 says:

    Melting snow and heavy summer rain within the Ethiopian Mountains sent the torrent of water causing the banks on the River Nile in Egypt to overflow in this flat desert land. And this is why the Nile flooded.
    https://africa-facts.org/nile-river-facts/

  57. 57
    Bob O'H says:

    The Nile is notable for being incredibly fertile, because of the sediment that’s washed down the river (all without the help of any glaciers: it’s because of monsoon rains) so you might want to try a different argument.

  58. 58
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob, to be clear, your claim is that liquid water (post 28 and 31), all by its lonesome, can supply the necessary nutrients for ‘nutrient rich’ soil. Whereas my claim is that the entire ‘ice cycle’, i.e. freezing, expansion and glaciation, is necessary to produce the necessary nutrients from mountains.

    You further claimed that tropically situated ‘river basins’ prove your point that the ice cycle (and glaciation in particular) are not necessary for nutrient rich soils.

    Yet, as pointed out, “Tropical soils are notoriously thin and poor in nutrients. In some parts of the Amazon River Basin, white, sandy soils are found, which have evolved through erosion over hundreds of millions of years. And yet, although these soils have lost their mineral content and fertility, rich rainforests grow on them”.

    Moreover, as was also shown, the Nile river basin receives a large part of its nutrients from “Melting snow and heavy summer rain within the Ethiopian Mountains”.

    Again your claim (post 28 and 31) is that liquid water, all by its lonesome, can do the trick, and yet ‘melting snow’ is found to be integral to Nile flooding. This is not what you need to try to prove your point.

    What you need to prove your ‘liquid water alone’ point beyond any doubt, is that you would have to find a tropical river basin with nutrient rich soil that has been supplied completely, throughout its entire history, with liquid water with no help from snow runoff and/or glaciation from mountains.

    Good luck with that wild goose chase.

    Even the Tigris and Euphrates river system of the ‘fertile crescent’ is fed by run off starting in the Taurus Mountains. Taurus mountains have glaciers and snow (ice cycles) year round:

    the rugged mountains of eastern Turkey are high enough and cold enough to sustain year-round ice. About two-thirds of Turkey’s glaciers lie within the Taurus Mountains, a chain of peaks that stretch from the Mediterranean coast toward the borders of Iran and Iraq. The southeastern portion of the range supports Turkey’s largest glaciers.
    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79395

    The Tigris is 1,750 km long, rising in the Taurus Mountains of eastern Turkey about 25 km southeast of the city of Elazig and about 30 km from the headwaters of the Euphrates. The river then flows for 400 km through Turkish territory before becoming the border between Syria and Turkey.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_Mountains

    Taurus Mountains, called as Toros in Turkish, is a mountain range in the Mediterranean region of Turkey, running approximately 560 kms parallel to the coast, and forming the southern border of the Anatolian plateau. Rising at the western-most range of the Great Himalayas, it is Turkey’s second chain of folded mountains after Pontus mountains.
    http://www.allaboutturkey.com/taurus.htm

    Bottom line, the richest nutrient rich soils in the world are found in places where glaciation events have been fairly recent, whereas tropical regions are, to repeat, “Tropical soils are notoriously thin and poor in nutrients.”

    whereas on the other hand recent glaciation events ‘produce extremely fertile soils’:

    Glacial Geology
    Regardless of whether the landscape was produced by T2 or T3 events, all of the late Wisconsin deposits, and especially the tills, produce extremely fertile soils,,,
    https://igws.indiana.edu/MarionCounty/GlacialGeology.cfm
    picture:
    https://igws.indiana.edu/images/marioncounty/Fig1BGlacialGeoTimeline.jpg

    In fact, I live at the base of the ‘glaciation debris fields’ which provide the head waters for the Mississippi river,

    Bottom line, your parents duped you if they told you that the ‘ice cycle’ and/or glaciation was unimportant for essential nutrient dispersal throughout the biosphere.

  59. 59
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – once more you are failing to defend your contention that glaciers are necessary for fertile soils. The best you can come up with is “melting snow”, which ignore a couple of points. In order of importance: (1) snow (melted or otherwise) is not the same as a glacier. (2) melting makes snow liquid, and it is the liquid that flows and erodes.

    I know glaciers can provide fertile soils – I used to live in Denmark, which is basically outwash from Norway and Sweden. But that doesn’t mean that all fertile soils are the results of glaciers.

  60. 60
    bornagain77 says:

    Of somewhat related note, it is interesting to note the catastrophic worldwide ‘superflood’ events that accompanied the end of the last ice age:

    Humanpast.net
    Excerpt: Worldwide, we know that the period of 14,000 to 13,000 years ago, which coincides with the peak of abundant monsoonal rains over India, was marked by violent oceanic flooding – in fact, the first of the three great episodes of global superfloods that dominated the meltdown of the Ice Age. The flooding was fed not merely by rain but by the cataclysmic synchronous collapse of large ice-masses on several different continents and by gigantic inundations of meltwater pouring down river systems into the oceans. (124)
    What happened, at around 13,000 years ago, was that the long period of uninterrupted warming that the world had just passed through (and that had greatly intensified, according to some studies, between 15,000 years ago and 13,000 years ago) was instantly brought to a halt – all at once, everywhere – by a global cold event known to palaeo climatologists as the ‘Younger Dryas’ or ‘Dryas III’. In many ways mysterious and unexplained, this was an almost unbelievably fast climatic reversion – from conditions that are calculated to have been warmer and wetter than today’s 13,000 years ago, to conditions that were colder and drier than those at the Last Glacial Maximum, not much more than a thousand years later. From that moment, around 12,800 years ago, it was as though an enchantment of ice had gripped the earth. In many areas that had been approaching terminal meltdown full glacial conditions were restored with breathtaking rapidity and all the gains that had been made since the LGM were simply stripped away…(124)
    A great, sudden extinction took place on the planet, perhaps as recently as 11,500 years ago (usually attributed to the end of that last ice age), in which hundreds of mammal and plant species disappeared from the face of the earth, driven into deep caverns and charred muck piles the world over. Modern science, with all its powers and prejudices, has been unable to adequately explain this event. (83),,,
    Romuald Schild of the Polish Academy of Sciences cites an abrupt warming that took place in the northern Atlantic at around 12,700 years ago, stopped and equally abruptly went into reverse 10,800 years ago – when there was a sudden 800-year plunge to almost full glacial temperatures – then turned again to another episode of abrupt warming about 10,000 years ago. Robert Schoch reports that the bulk of the first warming- ‘approximately 27 degrees Farenheit, a massive increase’ – occurred after 11,700 years ago: Remarkably, the ice-core data suggests that half of the temperature change, in the neighbourhood of 14 degrees Farenheit, occurred in less than 15 years centering around 9645 BC. That’s a bigger temperature increase, and faster, than the scariest doomsday scenario about global warming in the twenty-first century.
    http://humanpast.net/environme.....ent11k.htm

  61. 61
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob, you claimed liquid water by itself (post 28 and 31) can do the trick, That is why I asked you this specifically in post 30:

    You claim liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine.

    You do realize that it is the freezing and expansion of water that breaks up nutrient bearing rocks into suitable farming land do you not? Liquid water by itself will certainly not do just fine.

    And in 31 you indeed held it to be the case that you were claiming liquid water, by itself, will do the trick.:

    Me: You claim liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine.

    Bob: It’s not just me who claims that. People who study rivers do too.,,,

    Yet now, when you are shown that liquid water by itself can not explain how nutrient rich soils are created, you want to recover part of the ‘ice cycle’, i.e. freezing and expansion, into your thesis.

    You gave that part up in post 31.

    And I certainly never would have spent all this time debunking your claim if you had originally claimed the ‘freezing and expansion’ part of the ‘ice cycle’ as part your ‘liquid water alone’ thesis. Indeed, freezing and expansion is just as, if not more, important than the grinding and pulverizing provided by glaciers. And both of those events together i.e. freezing, expansion and glaciation, I would hold, provide the best nutrient rich soils.

    It is disingenuous of you to now want to backtrack on what you originally claimed in 28 and 31.

    But then again, in you trying to do so you, once again, show everyone exactly why ‘bob and weave’ is such an appropriately earned nickname.

    Moreover, you still have not attempted to answer the question asked to you at the end of post 30.

    At what point is it fair (for you the atheist) to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces?

    Or is that simply a question that you will never ask yourself? i.e. Is it simply a matter that there is no amount of scientific evidence that will ever make you change your mind?

    And if you will never allow any scientific evidence to ever change your mind, then what is the point of me, or anybody else on UD, trying to pretend that you are anything other than insincere?

  62. 62
    ET says:

    But that doesn’t mean that all fertile soils are the results of glaciers.

    Snowball earth.

  63. 63
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – you’re still not defending your claim – that the ice ages were necessary for fertile soils, because of glaciers. Yes, ice can and does break down rock, but so does water (both directly and by abrasion when it carries rock and sand). You haven’t actually shown that water isn’t enough, just claimed that “[t]ropical soils are notoriously thin and poor in nutrients” whilst only linking to something about the Amazon. That’s not the only part of the world with tropical soils, and you repeatedly ignore the Nile, which historically has been fertile because of all the sediment that’s washed down it, without the help of any glaciers at all.

  64. 64
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever Bob (and weave). I’ll let post 61 stand on its own merits.

    Might I suggest that you ask Allen for some of his ‘thousands of papers’ so as to back up some of your claims?

    I’m not nearly as impressed with your personal opinion as you seem to be.

  65. 65
    ET says:

    Bob- what if glaciers carved out the
    Nile river basin and that allowed the water to flow?

  66. 66
    bornagain77 says:

    You said something about Australia being free from the effect of glaciers,,,

    “Or the Murray-Darling in Australia. Liquid water erodes, and this provides nutrients that are washed downstream.”

    Yet, glaciation has occurred in Australia at Snowy Mountains

    The Last Ice Age in Australia
    Studies of relics of the last Ice Age, particularly in the Snowy Mountains and Tasmania have led to a complete revision of the glacial history of these regions, which were the only areas in Australia where glaciers existed. Hypothetical ideas about glacier extent and its timing that stood for nearly a century have been replaced with a robust chronology placing Australia into a global context.

    It transpires that there was not just one but at least four major advances of glacier ice during the last 70,000 years. The coldest part of the last ice age was 20,000-22,000 years ago and only lasted a few thousand years. The ensuing global warming is the greatest in recent geological history. Using the altitude of the ice age landforms we have calculated that mean temperatures around Canberra are about 9oC warmer today.
    http://sciencewise.anu.edu.au/articles/ice_age

    And the Snowy Mountains, unsurprisingly, form the headwaters of the Murray-Darling in Australia

    Map of the Murray–Darling basin
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray%E2%80%93Darling_basin#/media/File:Murray-catchment-map_MJC02.png

    The Snowy Mountains also feed the Murrumbidgee and Murray rivers from the Tooma River, Whites River and Yarrangobilly River. The range is perhaps best known for the Snowy Mountains Scheme, a project to dam the Snowy River, providing both water for irrigation and hydroelectricity.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_Mountains#Snowy_Mountains_Scheme

    And yet the rest of the land in Australia that do not have access to the nutrients that were released by the initial glaciation and subsequent ‘freezing and expansion’ of snow and ice on Snowy Mountains have a ‘uniquely high proportion of nutrient-poor soils’

    Ecology of Australia: the effects of nutrient-poor soils and intense fires.
    Australia, the flattest, driest, and geologically oldest vegetated continent, has a uniquely high proportion of nutrient-poor soils.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17624961

    All is not lost for you Bob, I found that Volcanic soils do offer you somewhat of a reprieve from the ‘ice cycle’ monopoly on nutrients:

    Volcanoes often produce fertile soil, so lush vegetation is common on volcanic slopes, and fertile soils attract people who want to farm the land and raise livestock.
    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=6635

    Myself, I prefer ‘ice cycles’ to volcanic eruptions 🙂

  67. 67
    Bob O'H says:

    ET @ 65 – then is would be a very different shape. Glaciers leave a distinctly different signature in the rocks: U-shaped valleys, morraines etc.

    bs77 @ 66 – read my 49. I gave you part of the Murray-Darling basin, but of course only part, because only part of it is fed from the Snowy Mountains.

  68. 68
    bornagain77 says:

    well Bob, I’m pretty happy with the state of evidence as it now sits for Australia, especially the ‘uniquely high proportion of nutrient-poor soils’ part.

    I simply don’t see you ever providing any robust evidence for your position without having to appeal to ‘ice cycles’ of some type, freezing and expansion, which you already conceded to my position at post 31.

    In fact, as far as the evidence now sits, I donated you your best evidential card thus far, i..e volcanic eruptions.

    And even then the nutrients did not appear out of nowhere but were delivered from the earth’s mantle. Which is a point of evidence which actually backs my overall thesis that nutrients have to be replenished from the erosion of new mountain ranges.

    And again, I encourage readers to read Dr Ross’s book “Improbable Planet” (Chpt. 15) for a more thorough treatment of the ‘fine-tuned’ ice age issue.

    Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home – September 6, 2016
    https://www.amazon.com/Improbable-Planet-Earth-Became-Humanitys/dp/0801016894

    Life and Earth History Reveal God’s Miraculous Preparation for Humans – Hugh Ross, PhD – video (2014)
    https://youtu.be/n2Y496NYnm8?t=2097

    Dr. Ross, in his usual meticulous manner, reveals a far tighter correspondence that I have been unable to successfully communicate thus far.

  69. 69
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – so you’ve retreated from your claim that glaciers are necessary for fertile soils, then? You’re down to “ice cycles”.

  70. 70
    bornagain77 says:

    Well Bob, The name “Snowy Mountains” itself does not help your ‘liquid water alone’ thesis.

    and to repeat 61,,,

    you claimed liquid water by itself (post 28 and 31) can do the trick, That is why I asked you this specifically in post 30:

    You claim liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine.

    You do realize that it is the freezing and expansion of water that breaks up nutrient bearing rocks into suitable farming land do you not? Liquid water by itself will certainly not do just fine.

    And in 31 you indeed held it to be the case that you were claiming liquid water, by itself, will do the trick.:

    Me: You claim liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine.

    Bob: It’s not just me who claims that. People who study rivers do too.,,,

    Yet now, when you are shown that liquid water by itself can not explain how nutrient rich soils are created, you want to recover part of the ‘ice cycle’, i.e. freezing and expansion, into your thesis.

    You gave that part up in post 31.

    And I certainly never would have spent all this time debunking your claim if you had originally claimed the ‘freezing and expansion’ part of the ‘ice cycle’ as part your ‘liquid water alone’ thesis. Indeed, freezing and expansion is just as, if not more, important than the grinding and pulverizing provided by glaciers. And both of those events together i.e. freezing, expansion and glaciation, I would hold, provide the best nutrient rich soils.

    It is disingenuous of you to now want to backtrack on what you originally claimed in 28 and 31.

    But then again, in you trying to do so you, once again, show everyone exactly why ‘bob and weave’ is such an appropriately earned nickname.

  71. 71
    bornagain77 says:

    Glacial Blessings Flow
    Earth’s Icy Past Has Yielded Bountiful Food & Beauty
    by Hugh Ross
    http://www.salvomag.com/new/ar.....s-flow.php

    *Subscription required

  72. 72
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob, slightly off topic,,, if you remember your history right, Newton, Leibniz (and Laplace) had a disagreement about God’s role in creation. Newton was supposedly chastised by Leibniz (and Laplace) for invoking “God of the gaps”:

    Newton, Leibniz, and the Role of God in Planetary Orbits – December 2014
    Excerpt: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being”
    — Sir Isaac Newton. “Principia Mathematica” (1687)
    Perhaps the most spectacular early success of Isaac Newton’s theory of gravitation was its natural explanation for Johannes Kepler’s observation that the planets orbit the sun in elliptical orbits. But upon further reflection, some nagging problems emerge. The perfect elliptical orbits are only valid for an isolated planet orbiting around the sun. Gravity works on all objects, and so the other planets perturb the motion of the Earth, potentially leading to its ejection from the solar system. This problem vexed Sir Isaac, who postulated that God occasionally “reformed” the planets, perhaps by sending through a comet with just the right trajectory.
    In a famous exchange of letters, cut short only by his death in 1716, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, took Sir Isaac to task for his view. He objected that:
    “if God had to remedy the defects of His creation, this was surely to demean his craftsmanship.”1
    And moreover that:
    “..when God works miracles, he does it not to meet the needs of nature but the needs of grace. Anyone who thinks differently must have a very mean notion of the wisdom and power of God.”2
    In other words, the regular sustaining activity of God, as evidenced by natural laws, should be sufficient to explain the regular behavior of the solar system, without the need for additional ad-hoc interventions. Making it right the first time is more glorious than having to fix it later. Moreover, when God deviates from his regular sustaining activity to perform miracles, he does so for soteriological reasons, not to repair nature.,,,
    1. 1. John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion, CUP, Cambridge (1991), p147.
    2. From letter 1 point 4 (Nov 1715). The full correspondence can be found online.
    https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/addressing-christian-concerns-about-the-implications-of-biologos-science-part-1

    Yet that whole story turns out to be ‘Whig history’:

    Here is an interesting article about the Newton-Leibniz-Laplace controversy that shows the ‘God of the gaps’ controversy is not nearly as cut and dried as some atheists have tried to make it out to be:

    Neil deGrasse Tyson on Newton (Part 1) – Luke Barnes
    a) Newton did develop perturbation theory for the orbits (and actually applied it to the moon), so it is false that God belief prevented him from attempting to solve the problem.
    b) the math was not “crumbs” for Newton, since Laplace had worked on foundations laid by some of the most brilliant mathematicians of the century (Euler, Lagrange, Clairaut), some of whom also failed to solve the very same problem Newton was working on, and one of these, Euler is regarded as the greatest mathematician of all time!
    c) Laplace did not really solve the problem in the end, but only for first degree approximations, but Haret showed that orbits are not absolutely stable using third degree approximations.
    d) Finally, and most ironically perhaps, it is not clear that Laplace was motivated by atheism to solve this problem, Laplace cites with approval Leibniz’s criticism of Newton’s invocation of divine intervention to restore order to the Solar System: “This is to have very narrow ideas about the wisdom and the power of God.”, to them, it would count as evidence against intelligent design if God had to intervene to prevent the solar system from collapsing. So intelligent design could just as easily be a motivation to prove the stability of the solar system.
    (article amended since first accessed)
    https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-newton-part-1/
    Laplace quoting Leibniz favorably
    https://books.google.com/books?id=oLtHAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73

    As to “Making it right the first time”, I hold that Newton, Leibniz and Laplace would be very pleased by what modern science has now revealed about the wisdom and power of God as to “Making it right the first time”:

    from post 3

    “You might also think that these disparate bodies are scattered across the solar system without rhyme or reason. But move any piece of the solar system today, or try to add anything more, and the whole construction would be thrown fatally out of kilter. So how exactly did this delicate architecture come to be?”
    R. Webb – Unknown solar system 1: How was the solar system built? – New Scientist – 2009

    Milankovitch Cycle Design – Hugh Ross – August 2011
    Excerpt: In all three cases, Waltham proved that the actual Earth/Moon/solar system manifests unusually low Milankovitch levels and frequencies compared to similar alternative systems. ,,, Waltham concluded, “It therefore appears that there has been anthropic selection for slow Milankovitch cycles.” That is, it appears Earth was purposely designed with slow, low-level Milankovitch cycles so as to allow humans to exist and thrive.
    per reasons.org

    Evidence from self-consistent solar system n-body simulations is presented to argue that the Earth- Moon system (EM) plays an important dynamical role in the inner solar system, stabilizing the orbits of Venus and Mercury by suppressing a strong secular resonance of period 8.1 Myr near Venus’s heliocentric distance. The EM thus appears to play a kind of “gravitational keystone” role in the terrestrial precinct, for without it, the orbits of Venus and Mercury become immediately destabilized. … First, we find that EM is performing an essential dynamical role by suppressing or “damping out” a secular resonance driven by the giant planets near the Venusian heliocentric distance. The source of the resonance is a libration of the Jovian longitude of perihelion with the Venusian perihelion longitude.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1538.....4_2055.pdf

    Of Gaps, Fine-Tuning and Newton’s Solar System – Cornelius Hunter – July 2011
    Excerpt: The new results indicate that the solar system could become unstable if diminutive Mercury, the inner most planet, enters into a dance with Jupiter, the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest of all. The resulting upheaval could leave several planets in rubble, including our own. Using Newton’s model of gravity, the chances of such a catastrophe were estimated to be greater than 50/50 over the next 5 billion years. But interestingly, accounting for Albert Einstein’s minor adjustments (according to his theory of relativity), reduces the chances to just 1%.
    per darwinsgod

    Is the Solar System Stable? By Scott Tremaine – 2011
    Excerpt: So what are the results? Most of the calculations agree that eight billion years from now, just before the Sun swallows the inner planets and incinerates the outer ones, all of the planets will still be in orbits very similar to their present ones. In this limited sense, the solar system is stable. However, a closer look at the orbit histories reveals that the story is more nuanced. After a few tens of millions of years, calculations using slightly different parameters (e.g., different planetary masses or initial positions within the small ranges allowed by current observations) or different numerical algorithms begin to diverge at an alarming rate. More precisely, the growth of small differences changes from linear to exponential:,,,
    As an example, shifting your pencil from one side of your desk to the other today could change the gravitational forces on Jupiter enough to shift its position from one side of the Sun to the other a billion years from now. The unpredictability of the solar system over very long times is of course ironic since this was the prototypical system that inspired Laplacian determinism.
    Fortunately, most of this unpredictability is in the orbital phases of the planets, not the shapes and sizes of their orbits, so the chaotic nature of the solar system does not normally lead to collisions between planets. However, the presence of chaos implies that we can only study the long-term fate of the solar system in a statistical sense, by launching in our computers an armada of solar systems with slightly different parameters at the present time—typically, each planet is shifted by a random amount of about a millimeter—and following their evolution. When this is done, it turns out that in about 1 percent of these systems, Mercury’s orbit becomes sufficiently eccentric so that it collides with Venus before the death of the Sun. Thus, the answer to the question of the stability of the solar system—more precisely, will all the planets survive until the death of the Sun—is neither “yes” nor “no” but “yes, with 99 percent probability.”
    https://www.ias.edu/about/publications/ias-letter/articles/2011-summer/solar-system-tremaine

    Research now establishes that every planet in our solar system must possess exactly the masses and orbits that they do for advanced life to be possible on Earth. No other known planetary system comes anywhere close to having the features to make advanced life possible. We live not only on a miraculously “rare” Earth but also a miraculously “rare” planetary system. For details and documentation, see my latest blog post. – Hugh Ross – June 2017
    per reasons.org

    That Bob, is what you call “Making it right the first time”

  73. 73

    BA77 everywhere: Well done. Thank you for your tireless efforts against the a/mat trolls. I share many of your comments with friends and family. You are being read more than you probably realize. Your efforts are making a difference!

  74. 74
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – Perhaps you’ve forgotten, but I was asking you about your claim that ice ages were necessary for human civilisation, because of the effects of glaciers. But you still haven’t explained why the Nile, for example, is so fertile even though glaciers don’t affect it. The nearest it gets to glaciation is melted snow.

    So what gives? Are glaciers necessary for civilisation because they are the only way soils can be fertile? In which case, how do you explain the fertility of the Nile basin?

    Why aren’t you willing to provide an explanation? Why don’t you want to back up your thesis?

  75. 75
    Allan Keith says:

    Bob O’H,

    So what gives? Are glaciers necessary for civilisation because they are the only way soils can be fertile? In which case, how do you explain the fertility of the Nile basin?

    And how does he explain the fertile soil on Hawaii or many of the Caribbean islands?

  76. 76
    bornagain77 says:

    Allan Keith, I already conceded volcanic soils to Bob at the bottom of post 66. In fact, I was the one who pointed that ‘reprieve’ for Bob’s thesis out to Bob (and weave).

    As to how the Nile basic receives nutrients from (fairly recent) past glaciation events (and from present snow run off from freezing. expansion, melting of snow and ice):

    List of glaciers in Africa
    Excerpt: Africa, specifically East Africa, has contained glacial regions, possibly as far back as the last glacial maximum 10,000 to 15,000 years ago.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Africa

    East Africa – map
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/LocationEasternAfrica.png/245px-LocationEasternAfrica.png

    Nile River map
    http://www.yalibnan.com/wp-con.....er-map.gif

    Nile River Facts
    the Blue Nile, rising in Ethiopia, contributes about 85% to the flow of the Nile River that passes through Egypt to the Mediterranean. … Melting snow and heavy summer rain within the Ethiopian Mountains sent the torrent of water causing the banks on the River Nile in Egypt to overflow in this flat desert land.,,, When the floods went down it left thick, wealthy mud (black silt) which is excellent soil to plant seeds in after being ploughed.
    https://africa-facts.org/nile-river-facts/

  77. 77
    bornagain77 says:

    And, unsurprisingly, other places in African that do not have access to the nutrients provided by past (fairly recent) glaciation events and present snow runoff are found to suffer from nutrient deficiencies

    Soil nutrient maps of Sub-Saharan Africa: – 207
    Excerpt: Current cropping yields in Sub-Saharan Africa are low, often falling well short of water-limited yield potentials (Jayne et al. 2010). This underperformance is due to number of factors: soil nutrient deficiencies, soil physical constraints, pests and diseases and sub-optimal management. Whilst it is well established that nutrient deficiencies are constraining yields in SSA
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10705-017-9870-x

  78. 78
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 76 – we’ve been through this before. See my post @ 49 about glaciers in Africa. A quick precis: None of them were acting on the Nile watershed. And snow is not the same as a glacier.

  79. 79
    Allan Keith says:

    BA77,

    As to how the Nile basic receives nutrients from (fairly recent) past glaciation events (and from present snow run off from freezing. expansion, melting of snow and ice):

    The normal freeze-thaw cycles of temperate zones is a far cry from glaciation. Plant roots, lichens and burrowing animals are also a huge cause of rock breakdown and soil formation which proceeds without the need of glaciers.

  80. 80
    bornagain77 says:

    So evidence of glaciation in East Africa is NOT evidence of glaciation in East Africa? Okie Dokie, got cha. Takes a while to catch on to this Atheistic and/or Darwinian reasoning. 🙂 ,,, Up is down, black is white, and evidence is not evidence.,,, Is that about right???

    List of glaciers in Africa
    Excerpt: Africa, specifically East Africa, has contained glacial regions, possibly as far back as the last glacial maximum 10,000 to 15,000 years ago.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Africa

    Moreover, as we can see from this following graph,,,

    https://whydoyoubelieveblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/screen-shot-2015-12-31-at-4-30-55-pm.png?resize=756%2C286

    ,,, which was taken from this site,,,

    Ice Age is Ideal for Humanity
    https://ses.edu/ice-age-is-ideal-for-humanity/

    And as we can also see from this following graph,,,

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png/300px-Ice_Age_Temperature.png

    ,,, which was taken from this site,,,

    Ice age – Glacials and interglacials
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Glacials_and_interglacials

    ,,, from those two graphs we can see that there have been repeated glaciation events over the past 450,000 years with the temperature then (uncharacteristically) stabilizing for the past 9000 years or so.

    Thus, as Dr. Ross points out at about the 35 minute mark in this following video,,,

    Life and Earth History Reveal God’s Miraculous Preparation for Humans – Hugh Ross, PhD – video (2014)
    https://youtu.be/n2Y496NYnm8?t=2097

    Such repeated glaciation events over 450,000 years with the temperature then (uncharacteristically) stabilizing for the past 9000 years or so certainly makes it seem that God was preparing a suitable, nutrient rich, habitat for a large population of humans.
    Moreover, I would hold that God, in His infinite wisdom, foresaw all this preparation for humans in advance when he “Made it right the first time” in regards to Him creating the Solar system (post 72).

    Take from it what you will but seeing that Atheists have no clue why the climate of the Earth (post 5) should have been ‘surprisingly stable’ for life for all these billions of years in the first place, or any reason why the climate should be ‘uncharacteristically stable’ for humans right now or for any extended period of time hereafter, (Global Warming fiasco).
    Then clearly, only on Theism is the assumption of a stable climate warranted:

    Genesis 8:22
    While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”

  81. 81
    Bob O'H says:

    So evidence of glaciation in East Africa is NOT evidence of glaciation in East Africa?

    I’ve never said that there wasn’t glaciation in East Africa. What I’ve been saying is that it didn’t impact the watershed of the Nile. None of the rest of your comment addresses this issue, so seems a bit of a waste of time.

  82. 82
    bornagain77 says:

    ‘What I’ve been saying is that it didn’t impact the watershed of the Nile.’

    and yet:

    East Africa – map
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/LocationEasternAfrica.png/245px-LocationEasternAfrica.png

    Nile River map
    http://www.yalibnan.com/wp-con.....er-map.gif

    Nile River Facts
    the Blue Nile, rising in Ethiopia, contributes about 85% to the flow of the Nile River that passes through Egypt to the Mediterranean. … Melting snow and heavy summer rain within the Ethiopian Mountains sent the torrent of water causing the banks on the River Nile in Egypt to overflow in this flat desert land.,,, When the floods went down it left thick, wealthy mud (black silt) which is excellent soil to plant seeds in after being ploughed.
    https://africa-facts.org/nile-river-facts/

    What we’ve got here is a,,,

    http://i0.wp.com/makeapowerful.....=608%2C281

  83. 83
    ET says:

    The Nile doesn’t cover the entire planet. The point is where there aren’t any rivers glaciation did the job. Even the Nile has a very limited reach.

    It’s all part of the intelligent design of the planet

  84. 84
    bornagain77 says:

    Hmmm ET, in case you haven’t noticed, he is not right in his claim that glaciation ‘didn’t impact the watershed of the Nile’

    List of glaciers in Africa
    Excerpt: Africa, specifically East Africa, has contained glacial regions, possibly as far back as the last glacial maximum 10,000 to 15,000 years ago.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Africa

    During the Last ice age, the Bale Mountains were one of the most extensively glaciated areas in present-day Ethiopia, with a total area of ice in Bale of approximately 180 km2. There was a 30 km2 ice cap around the peak of Tulu Dimtu (the second highest mountain in Ethiopia) on the Sanetti Plateau and individual glaciers of considerable thickness reached down to 3,200 meters. As a consequence, the landscape as we see it today is the lava outpourings much modified by over 20 million years of erosion by water, wind and ice.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bale_Mountains_National_Park#Geology_and_glaciation
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Ethiopia_relief_location_map.jpg

    East Africa – map
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/LocationEasternAfrica.png/245px-LocationEasternAfrica.png

    Nile River map
    http://www.yalibnan.com/wp-con.....er-map.gif

    Nile River Facts
    the Blue Nile, rising in Ethiopia, contributes about 85% to the flow of the Nile River that passes through Egypt to the Mediterranean. … Melting snow and heavy summer rain within the Ethiopian Mountains sent the torrent of water causing the banks on the River Nile in Egypt to overflow in this flat desert land.,,, When the floods went down it left thick, wealthy mud (black silt) which is excellent soil to plant seeds in after being ploughed.
    https://africa-facts.org/nile-river-facts/

    Repeated glaciation events last 450.000 years – graph
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png/300px-Ice_Age_Temperature.png

  85. 85
    Bob O'H says:

    Hmmm ET, in case you haven’t noticed, he is not right in his claim that glaciation ‘didn’t impact the watershed of the Nile’

    ET, in case you haven’t noticed. none of those links actually show that the Nile is affected: he needs to show that the areas that were glaciated are in the Nile’s watershed. Being somewhat close isn’t enough. It’s like saying that I was responsible for Lady Diana’s death because I was on the continent at the time (I was drinking in Giessen that evening).

    And this even flatly contradicts ba77’s claim that glaciers are necessary:

    Melting snow and heavy summer rain within the Ethiopian Mountains sent the torrent of water causing the banks on the River Nile in Egypt to overflow in this flat desert land.,,, When the floods went down it left thick, wealthy mud (black silt) which is excellent soil to plant seeds in after being ploughed.

  86. 86
    bornagain77 says:

    Too funny,,, I show that the Ethiopian Mountains were heavily impacted by glaciation,,,,

    Geology and glaciation
    The main Bale highlands consist of the vast lava Sanetti Plateau, with at least six volcanic cones, each more than 4,200 meters high and considerably flattened by repeated glaciations.,,,
    During the Last ice age, the Bale Mountains were one of the most extensively glaciated areas in present-day Ethiopia, with a total area of ice in Bale of approximately 180 km2. There was a 30 km2 ice cap around the peak of Tulu Dimtu (the second highest mountain in Ethiopia) on the Sanetti Plateau and individual glaciers of considerable thickness reached down to 3,200 meters. As a consequence, the landscape as we see it today is the lava outpourings much modified by over 20 million years of erosion by water, wind and ice.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bale_Mountains_National_Park#Geology_and_glaciation

    ,,, and also show that Melting snow and heavy summer rain runoff from the Ethiopian Mountains are the reason why the Nile flood plain is so fertile,,,

    Nile River Facts
    the Blue Nile, rising in Ethiopia, contributes about 85% to the flow of the Nile River that passes through Egypt to the Mediterranean. … Melting snow and heavy summer rain within the Ethiopian Mountains sent the torrent of water causing the banks on the River Nile in Egypt to overflow in this flat desert land.,,, When the floods went down it left thick, wealthy mud (black silt) which is excellent soil to plant seeds in after being ploughed.
    https://africa-facts.org/nile-river-facts/

    And yet, in the mind of a Darwinian atheist, all that evidence counts for naught.

    ,,, I have a name for a new disease.

    D.C.D.D.

    ,,, also known as Darwinian Cognitive Dissonance Disorder. The disease is characterized mainly by temporary acute blindness of any evidence that is presented that might suggest Design, and the disease is further exasperated by the complete loss of rationality if any discussion of the evidence for Design takes place.

    With rare exceptions of remission, the disease appears to be incurable. 🙂

  87. 87
    Bob O'H says:

    bs77 – but the parts that were affected by glaciation don’t affect the Nile – those waters flow east, not north.

    And once more, SNOW IS NOT THE SAME THING AS GLACIERS. So stop bringing that up as if it somehow help you. It does precisely the opposite – it explains the seasonal flooding that made the Nile valley so fertile without having to resort to ice ages.

    I guess the DSM 6 won’t be put together for about a decade, so you’ve got a bit of time to persuade psychiatrists to adopt a new condition of “not accepting what ba77 thinks”.

  88. 88
    bornagain77 says:

    “but the parts that were affected by glaciation don’t affect the Nile – those waters flow east, not north.”

    As usual, you cite no evidence for that claim:

    Nile River Facts
    the Blue Nile, rising in Ethiopia, contributes about 85% to the flow of the Nile River that passes through Egypt to the Mediterranean. … Melting snow and heavy summer rain within the Ethiopian Mountains sent the torrent of water causing the banks on the River Nile in Egypt to overflow in this flat desert land.,,, When the floods went down it left thick, wealthy mud (black silt) which is excellent soil to plant seeds in after being ploughed.
    https://africa-facts.org/nile-river-facts/

    Map – Blue Nile
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Nile

    Relief map showing rivers flowing into the “Blue Nile” from the Ethiopian highlands
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Highlands#/media/File:Ethiopia_relief_location_map.jpg

    HYDROLOGY
    The Simien Mountains are important not just for biodiversity, but also as a water catchment area. Several rivers rise in SMNP and form tributaries to the Tekeze River, which provides a source of water for millions of users downstream in Ethiopia as well as Sudan and Egypt. Most rivers in this area flow only after the rainy season, therefore the rivers that rise in Simien and flow year-round are a particularly important water source.
    http://www.simienmountains.org/the-park/hydrology

    Pleistocene Glaciation in Ethiopia: New Evidence
    Evigernce for a more extensive Pleistocene glaciation has been found on these peaks, but also on some lower peaks now ice-freee: the Aberdare Range, Kenya; Mount Elgon, Uganda (Nilsson, 1940); and the Simien Mountains of Ethiopia (Fig. 1A).,,,
    Most research on the subject of alpine glaciation in Ethiopia has centered on the Simien Mountains Ethiopia’s highest massif (Nilsson, 1940; Scott, 1958; Mohr, 1963). However, there is evigernce of glaciation in another mountain area of Ethiopia. Nilsson (1940, p. 56 and 57) noted moraines on Mount Badda (lat. 7º 56’N., long. 39º 24’W.),
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/pleistocene-glaciation-in-ethiopia-new-evidence/FD226973C69D60FBD06682B5E6105E72/core-reader

    The Pleistocene Epoch is typically defined as the time period that began about 2.6 million years ago and lasted until about 11,700 years ago. The most recent Ice Age occurred then, as glaciers covered huge parts of the planet Earth

    Thus, Bob (and weave) is shown to be completely disingenuous to the evidence in hand once again.

    I seriously think that atheists, when they forsake God, begin to drift further and further into mental illness.

    This is not just idle talk either. I have good reason to suspect this to be the case:

    “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
    https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false

  89. 89
    ET says:

    Bob:

    ET, in case you haven’t noticed. none of those links actually show that the Nile is affected: he needs to show that the areas that were glaciated are in the Nile’s watershed.

    Snowball Earth. The entire planet was glaciated and affected.

  90. 90
    bornagain77 says:

    Again ET, as is usual for atheists, he is making a false claim with no support.

  91. 91
    Bob O'H says:

    bs77 @ 88 – You’re not providing any evidence, other than (1) there were glaciers in present-day Ethiopia (irrelevant, unless they are in the Niles’s watershed), and (2) the fertility from the Nile comes from snow & rainfall (very relevant, and also undermines your argument).

    You have been advancing the theory that glaciers are necessary for soil fertility, but you have repeatedly not provided the evidence. I’ve told you repeatedly what you need to show, but you’ve failed to do it, and indeed the evidence you have shown undermines your argument.

    Is there any chance that you could actually ask for the evidence I’m asking for? I have asked for something specific, but you don’t seem to be able to show it. Go on, try doing some research to directly provide the evidence. If you can’t find it, then perhaps consider Ross’ thesis to be falsified. Either way, it’ll be more rewarding than resorting to insult.

  92. 92
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob, I am quite satisfied that the unbiased reader will see you for the bald-faced liar that you are.

    Glaciation (to my surprise) was integral to eroding the volcanic outcrops of the Ethiopian mountains.

    Moreover, I was originally satisfied to concede to you that glaciation may have played a somewhat negligible role in creating nutrient rich soils in tropical regions, and was not going to push the issue any further, but in post 28 and 30 and 31 you went further than that and said liquid water by itself, minus the freezing and expansion of ice, can do the trick of providing nutrient rich soils. That was a bridge too far. When shown to be wrong on that score, you then tried to disingenuously recover freezing and expansion of water, i.e. ice and snow, into your thesis. Sorry, you can’t do that about face of what you had already conceded to my position.

    Moreover, in digging deeper into the evidence, I found, to repeat, Glaciation (to my surprise) was integral to eroding the volcanic outcrops of the Ethiopian mountains, and providing the Nile with nutrient rich ‘black silt’ (post 86 and 88).

    The conversation of 28, 30, 31, and papers of 86, 88, are there for all to see, and again, I am quite satisfied that the unbiased reader will see you for the bald-faced liar that you are.

    Dr. Ross’s thesis has only gotten far stronger, not weaker, as more evidence has come to light.

    Of footnote, It is not an insult to question your sanity when I have very good reason for doing so.

    You may not like it, and may not want to seek out help for your mental illness, but on top of much peer review showing that atheists suffer mentally when they forsake God, my personal association with you also backs up my hunch on your mental condition.

    You have done little to alleviate my concerns about your mental health.

  93. 93
    Allan Keith says:

    Bs77, sad that you have to resort to calling someone a liar and question their sanity, and suggest mental illness, to bolster your viewpoint.

    Bob O’H has quite rightly stated that water alone is quite capable of moving fertile soil (Nile delta, Mississippi) and that it alone can erode rock and release trapped nutrients (Grand Canyon and many not so grand canyons: and volcanic islands). It was you that brought snow and ice into the discussion, not Bob O’H. And you equated it to how glaciers act with respect to the production of fertile soils, which is categorically wrong. All glaciers do is pulverize rock.

    Water and lichens and mosses and the freeze-thaw cycle and bacteria and caribou crap are all capable of producing fertile soil directly on bedrock without any glaciation. Hot springs (and cold ones) can release nutrients from rock and make them available for plant growth. The plant roots create crevaces in solid rock providing openings for water infiltration. Repeated freezing and thawing of these water infiltration is very good at breaking down rock and making more nutrients available. All of this without a glacier.

  94. 94
    bornagain77 says:

    well Allan Keith, I’m not ‘resorting’ to anything. I am calling the facts as I see them. Bob made a specific claim that was shown to be false and in direct contradiction to the evidence that was presented. I don’t know where you are from but that is called being a bald-faced liar where I am from.

    And given Bob’s, and now your’s I might add, history of being completely disingenuous to the evidence presented for Design, and given much peer-review that clearly indicates atheists suffer mentally (and physically) when they forsake God (as already referenced), then I am well justified in questioning the sanity of all atheists (not just Bob’s and your’s) sanity when they pull such shenanigans.

    Moreover, the insanity inherent to the atheistic worldview goes much much deeper that just these superficial disingenuous discussions of atheists here on UD:

    Basically the atheist claims he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), 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. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear, and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God.
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.

    Darwinists have lost any coherent basis for reality and are, in fact, adrift in a world of illusions and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab onto.

    It is hard to fathom a worldview more antagonist to modern science and sanity itself that the Atheist’s Darwinian has turned out to be worldview

    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;

    ,,, it is no wonder that atheists suffer mentally and physically from such an insane worldview!,,,

    +++++++++++++++

    Once again, Freeze thaw cycle was conceded to me (post 28, 30 and 31), You and Bob can’t have it for your ‘liquid water alone’ thesis. In fact, the concession at 28, 30 and 31 by Bob is exactly the reason why I even challenged Bob on tropical regions in the first place. (Moreover, The evidence against Bob’s position has only gotten much worse from what I originally thought it would be)

    As to your claim that lichens, mosses and bacteria can produce nutrient rich soil,,, well lichens, mosses and bacteria, have fairly limited ability to break up rocks into useful soils compared to the freeze-thaw cycle and glaciation. Moreover, they transform already existent nutrients into useful minerals,, but are dependent on nutrients in order to live in the first place. In fact the transformation of preexistant material into useful minerals can be quite spectacular in some cases. (Hazen)

    Caribou crap is ‘recycled nutrients’ for crying out loud. (But seeing as your post is complete BS, I can see why you would bring Caribou crap up in the first place)

    The fertility of Volcanic islands is an issue that I first brought up and conceded already to Bob,,, (Moreover, it is found that the historic Ethiopian glaciers radically transformed the Volcanic outcrops of the Ethiopian highlands which then supply nutrients to the Nile).

    All in all, your attempted rebuttal, as is usual for atheists, is all bluff and bluster.

    I seriously don’t see how you guys can personally tolerate being so pathetic!

  95. 95

    BA77 @ 94: “… the insanity inherent to the atheistic worldview goes much much deeper than just these superficial disingenuous discussions of atheists here on UD.”

    True indeed. These trolling a/mats are deluded to the point of lunacy.

  96. 96
    bornagain77 says:

    To further back up Dr. Ross’s primary claim that glaciation was necessary to provide the nutrient rich soils that can sustain a large population of humans.

    Soil wealth | Why North America Feeds the World
    Central North America, eastern Europe, northern China and the Argentine Pampas are the backbone of the world’s agricultural production. In all of these areas, loess from a few feet to hundreds of feet thick blankets continental bedrock. With a high proportion of finely ground, fresh mineral grains, soils developed on loess are renowned for their fertility. Loess is so fertile that it can be farmed productively even after the topsoil is eroded off. The same can’t be said for soils in most of the world, where rock lies just one to several feet below ground. North America’s tremendous agricultural productivity reflects a disproportionate share of the world’s loess.
    But American agriculture’s foundation did not originate in place. Loess blew in on the wind. If you fly over northern Canada on a clear day you can see vast areas of naked rock, the geological scar of where it all came from. Over the past several million years, glaciers repeatedly overran most of modern Canada. As they grew and pushed south, the great ice sheets scraped off weak layers of soil and fractured, weathered rock, stripping the land down to fresh, hard rock. Bulldozed up by the ice, Canadian soils were carted to the melting front of the ice sheet and deposited as broad outwash plains built by rivers of meltwater. Strong winds then spread this fertile blanket of fine, glacier-ground silt across the American Midwest.,,,
    thick loess soils can maintain agricultural productivity for longer than can thin soils developed in place from rock weathering.
    In all likelihood, North America will be feeding the world for the foreseeable future because of its natural endowment of loess.,,,
    With a limited – and shrinking – global amount of highly productive cropland, the future of humanity hinges on whether we take care of the world’s best soils.,,,
    http://www.cornandsoybeandiges.....eeds-world

    How Loess Enriches the Soil
    It was made clear that hills mantled with loess can be biologically special in Eugene Odum’s classic college textbook called Fundamentals of Ecology. Here Odum says that “Soils which have developed on material transported by glaciers, water, and wind are often extremely fertile (witness the deep loess soils of Iowa and the rich soils of the deltas of large rivers).”
    Why?
    One answer relates to the manner by which glaciers advance over the landscape, grinding the many kinds of rocks below them into small, silt-size particles. When the glacier melts, these particles are sent downstream in the melt water. Since the particles are derived from rocks of various mineral compositions, the mud deposited downstream is composed of a spectrum of elements. This same spectrum of varied elements is distributed over the land as loess when the mud dries and wind carries away the dried mud’s loose particles.
    Thus, a handful of loess is almost like a multivitamin containing “all the essential elements.” If the original soil below the loess happens to be a little deficient in magnesium, say, well, there’s surely a bit of magnesium in the loess, since the loess-producing glacier during part of its journey in the north surely rolled over a dolomite outcrop, and dolomite contains magnesium.
    There are less direct ways by which loess enriches soil, too.,,,
    http://www.backyardnature.net/loess/enrich.htm

    And here are Dr. Ross’s claims again:

    Ice Age is Ideal for Humanity
    Table 1: Ice Age Cycle Benefits for Humanity
    Melting ice fields brought nutrient-rich alluvial silt to the plains.
    Wind-blown dust delivered other nutrients to the plains.
    Melting glaciers water the plains.
    Ice field and glacier retreat formed millions of lakes.
    Formations of lakes and connecting rivers transformed barren deserts into productive land regions.
    Geological relief yielded abundant hydropower resources.
    Retreating ice sheets formed land bridges warm enough to facilitate human migration.
    Glacial retreat formed many safe harbors.
    Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers formed rich ore deposits.
    Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers made possible enhanced abundance of plants and animals during the warm interglacial episodes.
    Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers created spectacular scenery.
    https://ses.edu/ice-age-is-ideal-for-humanity/
    Fig. 2: Present Arrangement of Continents in the Northern Hemisphere.
    https://whydoyoubelieveblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/screen-shot-2015-12-31-at-4-23-49-pm.png?resize=300%2C278

  97. 97
    bornagain77 says:

    Truth Will Set You Free,

    Yes, you are right. The situation is truly unfortunate and sad. And all for what?

    Even in this life, the benefits of believing far outweigh non-belief:

    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
    https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false

    So just pragmatically, even in this life there simply is no coherent reason to so staunchly and stubbornly (and I might add dishonestly) cling to disbelief in the face of all contrary evidence.

    Throw in the afterlife and the consequences become far, far, worse.

    As Pascal made clear in his infamous wager,,,

    Pascal’s wager
    https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-dc00d7956881ce3e8ad5f5af54464d3c-c

    ,,, the pragmatic eternal benefits for betting on God far outweigh the eternal risks for betting against God.

    And remember, Pascal made that infamous argument from pragmatism long before modern science revealed the reality of a higher heavenly dimension and of a hellish dimension,,,

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKggH8jO0pk

    ,,, and also made the argument long before modern science discovered quantum biology which now gives us a firm ‘scientific’ basis for believing in an eternal soul that is capable of living past the death of the material body.

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – video
    https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am1g5Y

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    Indeed, Christianity itself, specifically the resurrection of Jesus Christ from death, finds a place at the head of the dinner table of modern science in that Jesus Christ’s resurrection from death provides an empirically backed reconciliation of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘theory of everything’.

    Copernican Principle, Agent Causality, and Jesus Christ as the “Theory of Everything”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NziDraiPiOw

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

    Thus, whist Pascal’s wager could have been argued to be a probability of 50/50 for the atheist and/or agnostic back in Pascal’s day, and therefore a extremely ‘pragmatic’ bet for the atheist and/or agnostic to make even then, today the 50/50 probability is simply shown to be non-existent for the atheist and/or agnostic. As far as our best science today can tell us, Pascal’s wager is a sure thing, and not a 50/50 chance!

    If the atheist and/or agnostic has even one ounce of sanity left in his being, he should ‘pragmatically’ bet his life on God. And/or pray to God that he finds the willingness to bet his life on God.

    Music and Verse:

    Jewel Who will save your soul
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LukEq643Mk

    Matthew 10:28
    Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

  98. 98
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 92 –
    Moreover, I was originally satisfied to concede to you that glaciation may have played a somewhat negligible role in creating nutrient rich soils in tropical regions,
    Thank you for finally acknowledging this. I guess you now see that this falsifies Ross’ thesis (if we’re going to get all Popperian about this). But then you write this:

    Moreover, in digging deeper into the evidence, I found, to repeat, Glaciation (to my surprise) was integral to eroding the volcanic outcrops of the Ethiopian mountains, and providing the Nile with nutrient rich ‘black silt’ (post 86 and 88).

    But provide no evidence that the glaciation affects the Nile. Yes, some of the waters of the Nile come from the Ethiopian mountains. But not all of the water in the Ethiopian mountains flow into the Nile. Just like not all water that falls on the Rockies flows into the Pacific.

  99. 99
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob you state:

    Me: Moreover, I was originally satisfied to concede to you that glaciation may have played a somewhat negligible role in creating nutrient rich soils in tropical regions,

    Bob (and weave): Thank you for finally acknowledging this. I guess you now see that this falsifies Ross’ thesis (if we’re going to get all Popperian about this).

    Actually, Dr Ross’s thesis is that repeated glaciation was necessary to provide the nutrient rich soils of the plains in order for large populations of humans to exist.

    That evidence is supplied in post 96.

    The tropical regions, due to generally poor soil conditions, are unable to support the large populations of humans that we now have today.

    Dr. Ross’s thesis is doing quite fine.

    You then repeat your bald faced lie

    “no evidence that the glaciation affects the Nile”.

    And yet in post 86 and 88 evidence was presented of the Ethiopian Mountains being ‘extensively glaciated’ so much so that the “landscape as we see it today is the lava outpourings much modified by over 20 million years of erosion by water, wind and ice.”. And we also have evidence in 86 and 88 that the Blue Nile contributes about 85% to the flow of the Nile River, and further evidence that “Melting snow and heavy summer rain within the Ethiopian Mountains sent the torrent of water causing the banks on the River Nile in Egypt to overflow in this flat desert land.”

    Thus, to my surprise, glaciation was found to play a key role in the tropical region of the Nile also in so far as providing nutrient rich soils.

    And even then the Nile region could hardly be expected to feed the large human population on Earth today. For that, as Dr. Ross pointed out, the repeated glaciation of the northern latitudes was required in order to provide large swaths of nutrient rich soils for the plains (post 96)’

    To repeat, Dr. Ross’s claim is doing very well, whereas your claim, despite your repeated lying and trying to shift the goal posts, is far worse than what I had originally expected.

  100. 100
    Bob O'H says:

    bs77 – you’re just not getting it, are you? Just because the Ethiopian mountains had glaciers doesn’t mean they feed into the Nile.

    Look at the Rockie mountains, for example. Some of the water that falls on them flows east, to end up in the Gulf of Mexico (e.g. via the Mississippi). Some flows west, into the Pacific. So you can’t simply say that there is water on the Rockies, therefore it flows into the Mississippi.

    We have exactly the same thing with the Nile. Just because there are glaciers in the Ethiopian mountains doesn’t mean that the water from them flows into the Nile. Some water from those mountains flows east, into the Indian ocean.

    Thus, it is not enough to establish that glaciers affected the Ethiopian mountains. You also have to show that they affected the parts of the mountain range that feeds the Nile. You haven’t (yet) made that connection.

  101. 101
    bornagain77 says:

    Yes I have made the connection,,,, post 88.

    I certainly would not have called you a bald faced liar and questioned your sanity unless I had made the connection.

  102. 102
  103. 103
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 101 – no you haven’t. You are getting closer, though.

  104. 104
    bornagain77 says:

    Yes I have,, repeatedly now. I’m not dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s for you. You made the claim. Do your own homework.,,, Hint some of the mountains that feed the Blue Nile are listed in the first link. You can even find the studies for glaciation in different mountains from that link and from the previous link.

    Anyways, my point was made that you were lying waay back when it was revealed that the entire Ethiopian range was ‘extensively glaciated’.

    After that fact, IMHO you were and are just being a jerk in demanding further detail from me for an unsubstantiated claim that you made in the first place.

    It is not on to me to prove YOUR claim. Only to disprove it. And that is done to my satisfaction.

    I could personally care less if you want to hold on to lies.

    It is not like there is much I can do about that anyway.

  105. 105
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – yes, you do need to dot the i’s and cross the t’s. You made the claim that glaciers are necessary for fertile soils – you need to back it up.

    Of course, it’s so much easier to tell people that they are insane/liars/jerks etc.

  106. 106
    bornagain77 says:

    No I don’t need to.

    Moreover, I did not call people insane.

    I, for the good reason that your worldview is in fact barking mad insane, called You and Allan and all other atheists insane for believing it.

    I called YOU specifically a liar for, well, blatantly lying in the face of presented evidence, and then called you a jerk for being overly anally retentive on a point that is already made from at least two different angles now. And moreover, is a point I could care less if you personally accept or not.

    I am more than satisfied that the unbiased reader can clearly see who is being fair with the evidence and who is being severely disingenuous with it (i.e being a jerk in common parlance)

  107. 107
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 106 – wow. Just wow. You are now saying that Allan and I are not people.

    I guess we’re done here.

  108. 108
    bornagain77 says:

    No Bob, atheists themselves (al least those who are honest with their materialism) claim they are not people but are merely neuronal illusions.

    I just took them up on their claim. i.e. Atheists are not ‘persons’ according to the materialistic premises of Darwinian evolution! 🙂

    If you are going to be offended at anything, then be righteously offended at your very own worldview that forces you to believe, if you are honest, such insane nonsense.

    But then again, you have an issue with honesty don’t you!

  109. 109
    asauber says:

    You are now saying that Allan and I are not people.

    You guys are just overgrown fetuses. How dare you imagine you are people.

    Andrew

  110. 110
    Allan Keith says:

    BS77,

    No Bob, atheists themselves (al least those who are honest with their materialism) claim they are not people but are merely neuronal illusions.

    I just took them up on their claim. i.e. Atheists are not ‘persons’ according to the materialistic premises of Darwinian evolution!

    Christians themselves (at least those who are honest with their faith) claim that homosexuals should be castrated. Therefore, all christians must believe that homosexuals should be castrated. What gives you the right to force castration on homosexuals?

    See, it is easy to tell others how they must think. It is much harder, and more mature, to accept that others honestly believe what they say and provide logic, reason and evidence to counter their opinions. It is the latter that I see lacking in your irrational hatred of atheists. All I see is an attempt to caricaturize atheists/materialists and thereby justify disregarding anything they have to say.

    Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. James 1:26

    Your argument here with Bob O’H is a prime example. You are disagreeing with Bob O’H over whether or not fertile soil requires glaciation. How his lack of faith or his materialism plays into this I fail to see. Both sides of the argument are materialist arguments. Either glaciation, a purely physical/material process, is required for the production of fertile soil or it is not.

  111. 111
    asauber says:

    All I see is an attempt to caricaturize atheists/materialists and thereby justify disregarding anything they have to say.

    Allan,

    Invariably, a/mats arrive with bluster and leave having said very little which could be considered meaningful or helpful.

    Andrew

  112. 112
    jdk says:

    ba77 writes,

    No Bob, atheists themselves (al least those who are honest with their materialism) claim they are not people but are merely neuronal illusions.

    I call bull. A few people have made the remark about neuronal illusions. However many others see the situation differently. And this business about “honest with themselves” is all bull: who are you to tell someone that you know better, and more honestly, what they think than they do themselves? You may disagree with them – that’s fine – but the “honest with themselves” bit is arrogant bs.

    </rant>

  113. 113
    jdk says:

    And I now read 110 by Allan: much nicer way to say what I was trying to say.

  114. 114
    bornagain77 says:

    Allan Keith states:

    Christians themselves (at least those who are honest with their faith) claim that homosexuals should be castrated.

    Really??? Please provide the exact verse from Jesus where he said to castrate homosexuals. ,,,, There was a fake meme going around that said that Billy Graham said that but, as usual from atheistic attacks on Christians, it was found to be a lie that was without merit.

    Did Billy Graham Say ‘All Homosexuals Should Be Castrated’?
    After preacher Billy Graham died, a meme appeared attaching him to an offensive quote.
    Excerpt: ,,,, The strongest possible sentiment attributed to Graham was a condemnation holding same-sex attraction was an “ungodly spirit of self-gratification.”,,,
    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/billy-graham-say-homosexuals-castrated/

    Lesson? Don’t believe everything you read on the internet Allan!,, (especially when an atheist says it about Christianity!)

    As to Atheistic Materialists denying the reality of their own personhood, well that follows directly from the premises of materialism itself.

    Either matter is primary and mind is derivative, or else Mind is primary and matter is derivative.

    Simply put, as a materialist you forsake the entire concept of ‘personhood’.

    If you want to claim that you are a real person with real moral duties and responsibilities (i.e. with real free will), then you must adopt Theism as a coherent anchor for your worldview.

    The option of being a real person with real moral duties and responsibilities (i.e. with real free will) is simply unavailable to you on your materialistic premises.

    You then claimed that I ‘irrationally’ hate atheists. You are imagining things once again. Like you imagining that you are a real person.

    There are no atheists to hate! They don’t exist! 🙂

    Moreover, since atheists deny free will they forsake rationality altogether.

    Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
    Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
    By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html

    Then ever thing an atheist does must ultimately be based on the ‘irrational’ randomness of colliding atoms.

    Thus what I actually hate is I hate the actions of ‘irrational’ automatons who think they really exist as real persons. I do not hate the irrational automatons themselves.

    A few notes:

    Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video 37:51 minute mark
    Quote: “It turns out that if every part of you, down to sub-atomic parts, are still what they were when they weren’t in you, in other words every ion,,, every single atom that was in the universe,, that has now become part of your living body, is still what is was originally. It hasn’t undergone what metaphysicians call a ‘substantial change’. So you aren’t Richard Dawkins. You are just carbon and neon and sulfur and oxygen and all these individual atoms still.
    You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren’t any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That’s why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, “You know, I’m not really here”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s

    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

    “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
    Max Planck (1858–1947), the main founder of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931

    “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
    Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.

    Due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:

    1. Consciousness either precedes all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

    Five intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Double Slit, Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):
    – Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: 5 Experiments – video
    https://youtu.be/t5qphmi8gYE

    Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:17
    And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

  115. 115
    ET says:

    Materialism plays a role because it can’t even account for the matter and energy of the universe, let alone this planet and fertile soil.

  116. 116
    ET says:

    jdk:

    I call bull.

    So what? You don’t seem to be ware of anything.

    Without Intelligent Design what, besides sheer dumb luck, do you have to explain the existence of neurons? Let’s see who is being honest here, Jack.

  117. 117

    AK @ 110: Homosexuality is indeed considered a sin, a perversion, and a form of sexual immorality in the Bible. But nowhere have I found a passage calling for castration of homosexuals. Can you cite one?

    Also, if a/mats were honest they would admit that in an a/mat world there is nothing objectively wrong with murder, robbery, conquest, slavery, forced prostitution, etc.

  118. 118
    jdk says:

    Allan is probably wrong about the Bible calling for castration of homosexuals, I think.

    However, I think the general point is valid: a whole group of people can’t be held responsible for every position held by every member of that group. More realistically, for instance, some Christians object to all forms of contraception. Are all Christians who don’t object “not being honest with themselves”, or are these just disagreements among people who share some, but not all beliefs?

  119. 119
    jdk says:

    ba write,

    If you want to claim that you are a real person with real moral duties and responsibilities (i.e. with real free will), then you must adopt Theism as a coherent anchor for your worldview.

    Once again, as usual, ba assumes that his definition of something (in this case, “real person”) is the definitive correct definition, and includes in his definition the very conclusions he wishes to assume follow from that definition.

    This is circular reasoning that insulates him completely from from having a rational discussion with someone who holds a different view.

  120. 120
    Allan Keith says:

    TWSYF

    AK @ 110: Homosexuality is indeed considered a sin, a perversion, and a form of sexual immorality in the Bible. But nowhere have I found a passage calling for castration of homosexuals. Can you cite one?

    I never said that it was in the bible. I was just using BS77’s own rationale for claiming that atheists believe that people are neuronal illusions. He bases this on what a few atheists have said and stupidly extrapolates this to all atheists. I assure you that I have heard several christians say that homosexuals should be castrated. By BS77 logic, this means that all christians must believe this. Or do you disagree with BS77?

  121. 121
    Allan Keith says:

    TWSYF,

    Also, if a/mats were honest they would admit that in an a/mat world there is nothing objectively wrong with murder, robbery, conquest, slavery, forced prostitution, etc.

    I don’t believe that they are objectively wrong. But that is a different discussion.
    BA77,

    Please provide the exact verse from Jesus where he said to castrate homosexuals.

    It’s right next to the exact verse where Jesus said that homosexuality was a sin. 🙂

  122. 122
    jdk says:

    Good point, Allan: I mistakenly assumed that you were invoking the Bible, rather than just the beliefs of a subset of Christians. My bad.

  123. 123
    bornagain77 says:

    jdk, I assume nothing. I let the premises of materialism itself dictate what follows.

    The premises of materialism itself dictate that consciousness and/or mind is derivative from matter.

    How might material particles go about generating the self awareness of consciousness nobody has a clue and is referred to as the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness.

    Hard Problem of Consciousness — David Chalmers – 2016
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5DfnIjZPGw

    Darwinian Psychologist David Barash Admits the Seeming Insolubility of Science’s “Hardest Problem”
    Excerpt: ‘But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.’
    David Barash – Materialist/Atheist – evolutionary biologist and professor of psychology at the ­University of Washington
    http://www.salvomag.com/new/ar.....lvo_19.php

    “Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy of consciousness.”
    – Jerry Fodor – Rutgers University philosopher
    [2] Fodor, J. A., Can there be a science of mind? Times Literary Supplement. July 3, 1992, pp5-7.

    “I have argued patiently against the prevailing form of naturalism, a reductive materialism that purports to capture life and mind through its neo-Darwinian extension.” “…, I find this view antecedently unbelievable—a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense”.

    “Every day we recall the past, perceive the present and imagine the future. How do our brains accomplish these feats? It’s safe to say that nobody really knows.”
    Sebastian Seung – Massachusetts Institute of Technology neuroscientist – “Connectome”:

    “Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature.”
    Roger Wolcott Sperry – Nobel neurophysiologist
    As quoted in Genius Talk : Conversations with Nobel Scientists and Other Luminaries (1995) by Denis Brian

    “We have at present not even the vaguest idea how to connect the physio-chemical processes with the state of mind.”
    – Eugene Wigner – Nobel prize-winner – Quantum Symmetries

    “Science’s biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all. About all we know about consciousness is that it has something to do with the head, rather than the foot.”
    Nick Herbert – Contemporary physicist

    “No experiment has ever demonstrated the genesis of consciousness from matter. One might as well believe that rabbits emerge from magicians’ hats. Yet this vaporous possibility, this neuro-mythology, has enchanted generations of gullible scientists, in spite of the fact that there is not a shred of direct evidence to support it.”
    – Larry Dossey – Physician and author

    Atheists, although not having any clue, much less experimental evidence, how consciousness may arise from matter, take it as an act of supreme blind faith that matter must somehow generate consciousness.

    Whereas the Christian Theist does not suffer from such embarrassing disconnect with experimental evidence.

    The Christian Theist can reference, as already mentioned in post 114, numerous lines of evidence from quantum mechanics which strongly indicate that Consciousness must precede material reality.

    Here is one of my favorite experiments supporting the Christian Theist’s position that Mind must precede material reality. The “Wheeler Delayed Choice” experiment that was done with atoms instead of photons.

    Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness – May 27, 2015
    Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured.
    Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler’s delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler’s experiment then asks – at which point does the object decide?
    Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.
    Despite the apparent weirdness, the results confirm the validity of quantum theory, which,, has enabled the development of many technologies such as LEDs, lasers and computer chips.
    The ANU team not only succeeded in building the experiment, which seemed nearly impossible when it was proposed in 1978, but reversed Wheeler’s original concept of light beams being bounced by mirrors, and instead used atoms scattered by laser light.
    “Quantum physics’ predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness,” said Roman Khakimov, PhD student at the Research School of Physics and Engineering.
    http://phys.org/news/2015-05-q.....dness.html

    In regards to the preceding experiment, in the following article Margaret Wertheim notes that consciousness is only a problem for modern day materialists and that consciousness never was a problem for Medieval philosophy. (A predominately Christian philosophy in Medieval Europe which, I might add, gave rise to modern science in the first place)

    How exactly did consciousness become a problem? by Margaret Wertheim – Dec. 1, 2015
    Excerpt: Heaven and Earth were two separate yet intertwined domains of human action. Medieval cosmology was thus inherently dualistic: the physical domain of the body had a parallel in the spiritual domain of the soul; and for medieval thinkers, the latter was the primary domain of the Real.,,,
    But perhaps most surprisingly, just when the ‘stream of consciousness’ was entering our lexicon, physicists began to realise that consciousness might after all be critical to their own descriptions of the world. With the advent of quantum mechanics they found that, in order to make sense of what their theories were saying about the subatomic world, they had to posit that the scientist-observer was actively involved in constructing reality.,,,
    Such a view appalled many physicists,,,
    Just this April, Nature Physics reported on a set of experiments showing a similar effect using helium atoms. Andrew Truscott, the Australian scientist who spearheaded the helium work, noted in Physics Today that ‘99.999 per cent of physicists would say that the measurement… brings the observable into reality’. In other words, human subjectivity is drawing forth the world.,,,
    Not all physicists are willing to go down this path, however, and there is indeed now a growing backlash against subjectivity.,,,
    when I was a physics student the MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation) was widely seen as a fringe concept. Today, it is becoming mainstream, in large part because the pesky problem of consciousness simply hasn’t gone away.,,,
    https://aeon.co/essays/how-and-why-exactly-did-consciousness-become-a-problem

  124. 124
    bornagain77 says:

    As to the fact that materialism itself entails that personhood is an illusion, can you scientifically prove to me that you really are a real person and are not just a zombie going through the motions of being a real person?

    David Chalmers on Consciousness (Descartes, Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo

    Philosophical Zombies – cartoon
    http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11

    “(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.”
    J.W. SCHOOLER & C.A. SCHREIBER – Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection – 2004

    If you can’t experimentally prove to me scientifically that you really are self aware, then exactly how am I to know with 100% assurance that really are a real person and are not just a zombie going through the motions of personhood?

    You see jdk, I know for 100% fact that I really do exist as a real person, but there is no way for you to ever scientifically prove to me that you really exist as a real person and that you are not just a ‘philosophical zombie’ going through the motions of being a real person!

    Such as it is with the atheist’s refusal to ever accept any evidence for the personhood of God.

    As Alvin Plantinga pointed out years ago in “God and Other Minds”, “the evidence for God is just as good as the evidence for other minds; and conversely, if there isn’t any evidence for God, then there is also no evidence that other minds exist,,,”

    Another interesting argument comes from the leading philosopher and Christian, Alvin Plantinga—he asked, what evidence does anyone have for the existence of other people’s minds? He argued cogently that the evidence for God is just as good as the evidence for other minds; and conversely, if there isn’t any evidence for God, then there is also no evidence that other minds exist—see God and Other Minds, Cornell University Press, repr. 1990.
    http://creation.com/atheism-is-more-rational

  125. 125
    Allan Keith says:

    BS77,

    As to the fact that materialism itself entails that personhood is an illusion, can you scientifically prove to me that you really are a real person and are not just a zombie going through the motions of being a real person?

    Can you?

  126. 126
    ET says:

    jdk:

    This is circular reasoning that insulates him completely from from having a rational discussion with someone who holds a different view.

    So bornagain77 is an evolutionist?

    That is what evos do every day

  127. 127
    ET says:

    Allan:

    I assure you that I have heard several christians say that homosexuals should be castrated.

    I can assure everyone that Allan Keith is a pathological liar that will say anything.

  128. 128
    ET says:

    Allan:

    Can you?

    Yes, he can. Just not to you and yours because you don’t know anything

  129. 129
    bornagain77 says:

    as to post 125:

    It is a problem for materialism not Theism. Theism starts out with the presupposition that the immaterial Mind of God is real and that our individual immaterial minds are real as well. Only under materialism is the reality of immaterial mind questioned.

    The ‘philosophical zombie’ problem highlights this distinction between the two philosophies rather well.

    Moreover, to even suggest consciousness could be an illusion (as many leading materialistic philosophers do) requires the immaterial mind to first contemplate the fact that it could be an illusion.

    i.e. For what does the illusion occur?

    As Descartes pointed out, he could doubt everything else existed except for the fact that he was there to do the doubting in the first place.

    i.e. “I think therefore I am”

    Simply put, consciousness is the required presupposition of all other presuppositions.

    “In any philosophy of reality that is not ultimately self-defeating or internally contradictory, mind – unlabeled as anything else, matter or spiritual – must be primary. What is “matter” and what is “conceptual” and what is “spiritual” can only be organized from mind. Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized. Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer, the uncaused cause simply to avoid a self-negating, self-conflicting worldview. It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first. To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place.”
    – William J. Murray

    “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
    Max Planck (1858–1947), the main founder of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931

    And again, unlike materialists, it is not like the Christian Theist does not have abundant evidence for his belief that Mind is primary and matter is derivative

    Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4

  130. 130
    bornagain77 says:

    It is interesting to note that the atheists here on UD fight tooth and nail against the materialistic belief, (stated by many leading atheistic philosophers no less), that they are merely neuronal illusions. But, on the other hand, they have no problem whatsoever swallowing hook, line, and sinker all the many other ‘illusory’ consequences of their materialistic worldview.,

    ,, to repeat,,,

    Basically the atheist claims he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims for Darwinian evolution, 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. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear, and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God.
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ubiquitin-system-functional-complexity-and-semiosis-joined-together/#comment-655355

    Thus, Darwinists have lost any coherent basis for reality and are, in fact, adrift in a world of illusions and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab onto.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic Materialism has 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;

  131. 131
    Allan Keith says:

    BA77, so the answer to my question is no. You could have said it in far fewer words.

  132. 132
    bornagain77 says:

    AK, you do realize that to scientifically prove the genesis of consciousness from matter is to scientifically validate materialism and to scientifically falsify Theism don’t you???

    Or has that little detail escaped your attention in you zeal to find some sort of ‘gotcha’ moment against the precepts of Christianity?

    Pathetic!

  133. 133
    Allan Keith says:

    BA77,

    Pathetic!

    Finally, something we can agree on

  134. 134
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related note to Theism being falsifiable,,,

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

    There you go AK, prove the genesis of consciousness from matter and you will have falsified Theism and proven that materialism is ‘talking about reality’ instead of talking about neuronal illusions!

    And of related note to Materialism and/or Darwinian evolution being basically unfalsifiable (at least in the minds of Darwinists)

    Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience (Popper and Lakatos) – March 2018
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/coursera-vid-by-darwinism-is-wrong-prof-banned-from-youtube/#comment-655046

    Moreover, the falsification criteria that were set forth by Charles Darwin himself have all been met by Michael Behe, by Douglas Axe, by Stephen Meyer, and by Lee Spetner. Yet, despite each of Darwin’s own falsification criteria being met, Darwinists STILL refuse to accept empirical falsification of their theory (which is still yet more proof that we are dealing with a pseudoscience instead of a real science.)
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ohia-only-human-intelligence-allowed/#comment-655865

    Since falsifiability/testability is considered the gold standard by which to judge whether a theory is scientific or not, I want to delve a little more into falsifiability/testability. (and apply it to the basic precepts of the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought)
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ohia-only-human-intelligence-allowed/#comment-655886

  135. 135
    jdk says:

    Wading into discussion with ba …

    Let start with this. ba writes at 130.

    It is interesting to note that the atheists here on UD fight tooth and nail against the materialistic belief, (stated by many leading atheistic philosophers no less), that they are merely neuronal illusions.

    First, I find it interesting that disagreeing with ba is seen by him as “fighting tooth and nail”. I’ll let others think about whatever psychological explanations for that there might be.

    More importantly, as we have tried to point out to ba, although he does not respond, the fact that there are some famous people who have made statements about “neuronal illusions” does not mean that every one with the same general philosophical position as those people has to agree with what those famous people have said, or are obligated to defend them.

    However, ba’s standard response to other views is to merely quote those same people over and over again, which is not an argument.
    =========

    ba writes at 124,

    As to the fact that materialism itself entails that personhood is an illusion, can you scientifically prove to me that you really are a real person and are not just a zombie going through the motions of being a real person? ….

    You see jdk, I know for 100% fact that I really do exist as a real person, but there is no way for you to ever scientifically prove to me that you really exist as a real person and that you are not just a ‘philosophical zombie’ going through the motions of being a real person!

    We discussed this recently in a post by Barry. I think there was agreement that no one can be sure that everyone else isn’t a zombie, but that is no more a useful position than Last Thursdayism or solipsism (both of which are incapable of being refuted), and that it is much more reasonable to assume that other people are like us and have internal conscious experiences just as we do.

    So, ba, I know for a 100% fact that my own conscious experience is real, but you can’t possible prove, scientifically or otherwise, that you are not a “philosophical zombie” going through the outward motions of saying you believe in God. You have absolutely no privileged position in regards to this silly issue.
    ========

    In 124 he also writes,

    As Alvin Plantinga pointed out years ago in “God and Other Minds”, “the evidence for God is just as good as the evidence for other minds; and conversely, if there isn’t any evidence for God, then there is also no evidence that other minds exist,,,”

    I find that a completely uncompelling argument. There is a tremendous amount of empirical evidence that other people are very much like me in their biological existence, and so the most reasonable assumption is that they also have internal experiences like I do, especially since they all claim, for what that’s worth, that they do have such experiences, and their descriptions of those experiences are much like mine. As stated above, this can’t be “scientifically proven”, but no one doubts it.

    On the other hand, God is an idea that some people have, but there is no common empirical experience of God (one that all people easily and voluntarily describe as they do their own consciousness), no common conception of God, and no process by which to investigate which ideas of God might be “true.”

    Plantinga’s assertion that “the evidence for God is just as good as the evidence for other minds”, is extremely faulty for all practical purposes, and philosophically empty: if we have no way to know that other people might not be zombies, are we justified in likewise concluding that God might also be a zombie?
    ========

    In 123, ba again refers to David Chalmers and the hard problem of consciousness, and links to a video of Chalmers discussing this at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5DfnIjZPGw.

    I have twice pointed out to ba, and again he has never responded, that there is a hard problem for theism as well as materialism:

    1) In materialism, the problem is how do the material activities of the nervous system give rise to consciousness.

    2) For dualisms in general, and theism in general, the hard problem is how does the immaterial mind interact with the physical world to cause it to be different without manifesting any noticeable deviations from what appear as natural processes. More concretely, when I think about moving my arm, how does that thought “touch” the material brain to set off the cascade of biological actions that are necessary for my arm to move.

    3. In the video, Chalmers says he himself favors a position that is perhaps close to my own position: that of panpsychism. This is not a materialist position, but neither is it a theistic “mind of God” position. The idea is that consciousness, at some elemental level, is a fundamental aspect of the universe, in a way analogous to that of energy and matter; and that just as elementary particles can coalesce into larger integrated bodies (stars, tornadoes, human beings), elementary consciousness coalesces into an integrated whole in a human being.

    I assure you this view also has hard problems, but I mention it for two reasons. First, because it is an alternative to ba’s dichotomous position that either mind precedes matter or matter precedes mind: panpsychism is a position where consciousness and “matter” are complementary duals, each of whose functioning depends on the concomitant existence of the other.

    The second reason I mention it is because, since ba is so fond of quoting people like Coyne et al, as if that made a difference, he might fully quote Chalmers sometime as thinking panpsychism is worth consideration.
    ========

    Last issue: quantum mechanics (QM)

    ba is fond of invoking QM as conclusive evidence for God. I am a reasonably well educated person about QM, at the popular science level. I understand, or at least know about, (although I know no one can say they really “understand” QM) the double split experiment, the delayed choice experiments, quantum entanglement, etc. I have no idea to what extent ba really knows about QM beyond the level I do, or whether he mostly has a large collection of quotes about QM that he has collected to support his theism.

    First, I don’t think QM necessarily supports theism, or even necessarily “refutes” materialism. QM has taught us that the material world is vastly different than the old Newtonian worldview, based on our macro-experience, of substantial “things (matter) subject to forces, and possessing, somehow “energy”. The material world, at it’s core, is a ineffable probablistic primal underlayment that manifests itself as matter, energy, and force at the macro level. This itself doesn’t refute materialism: it just changes our understanding of the physical world (and perhaps necessitates a different term.)

    I understand that one of the mysteries of QM is the role of an observer, and that some physicist/philosphers (Wheeler, for instance) believe that QM is evidence for the primacy of mind. However, there are other interpretations, with no definitive consensus: this is another hard problem.

    However, it seems to me reasonable that QM could easily fit into a panpsychism metaphysics, where consciousness exists, in a panpsychic sense, in every quantum event, as part of whatever underlies the transition into matter and energy, and thus human consciousness is a manifestation of this underlying panpsychic consciousness as it condenses in the human brain. Chalmers mentions this in the video ba posted as the hard problem of panpsychism, although he doesn’t mention QM. And Roger Penrose has made suggestions about consciousness being an effect of QM.

    These are all just speculations: no one has any idea how to investigate them, and they may lie outside our ability to empirically investigate.

    But my main point is that they don’t inevitably, conclusively, or even necessarily support the idea of a theistic God (much less the Christian one).

    ========
    Final note to ba. If you decide to respond, I am interesting to see if you could do so without all your standards quotes from other people. I have made a lot of specific points, and perhaps those are ones that you, personally, could respond to. Just a thought.

  136. 136
    Allan Keith says:

    Jdk,

    Wading into discussion with ba …

    That’s like voluntarily wading into four feet of manure. Very fertile ground, but it takes days to get that stink of shit off you. 🙂

  137. 137
    jdk says:

    Hi Allan, and hmmm. Back at 110 you made a nice response to ba77. However, I think 136 is not so good: I certainly didn’t intend for my first comment to be derogatory like that. I was thinking more about the length of his posts and their reliance on recycled quotes from people that aren’t involved in the discussion, and that I was going to take the time to scan through his posts and address a number of issues.

  138. 138
    Allan Keith says:

    BS77,

    There you go AK, prove the genesis of consciousness from matter and you will have falsified Theism and proven that materialism is ‘talking about reality’ instead of talking about neuronal illusions!

    What makes you think that I am trying to falsify theism?

    But, using your own logic, if mind from matter is derivative, mind from designer is also derivative. One is derived from matter and the other is derived from design. Therefore, by your own argument, theists are also neuronal illusions. Don’t blame me for taking your premise to its logical conclusion. And, being an illusion, your opinions are worth no more than those of your average schizophrenic or hallucinogenic drug addict.

  139. 139
    Allan Keith says:

    Jdk@137, I agree. I sometimes go for the sarcastic response over the more nuanced one. And I apologize for that. But I couldn’t resist equating BA77’s scroll ball killing comments with deep piles of manure. There may be fertile ground in them, but does anyone really want to sift through piles of dung to get to the rare gem? Damn, was that sarcasm again? I really have to work on that. Maybe a 12 step program. 🙂

  140. 140
    bornagain77 says:

    jdk at 135,

    1. again, the concept of ‘neuronal illusions’ is a direct result of materialistic premises. I assume nothing but take materialistic premises to their logical end, (i.e. if materialism is true atheists are neuronal illusions and are not persons). Having leading materialistic philosophers honestly agree with me on the direct implications of their materialistic philosophy is merely icing on the cake.

    2. jdk, you dismiss the ‘philosophical zombie’ argument with a wave of your hand but fail to see that the philosophical zombie’ argument underscores the fact that materialistic premises do indeed lead to the conclusion that people do not really exist but are merely ‘neuronal illusions’. Only under Theism, as Alvin Plantinga pointed out in “God and Other Minds”, are we justified in believing that, not only our own, but other minds are real and that they exist.

    3. You claim that,,

    On the other hand, God is an idea that some people have, but there is no common empirical experience of God (one that all people easily and voluntarily describe as they do their own consciousness), no common conception of God, and no process by which to investigate which ideas of God might be “true.”

    Unsurprisingly, you are wrong once again in your claim. God, like the belief in other people’s minds, is a ‘properly basic belief’ which all people, including atheists, share.

    Synopsis of ‘Is Belief in God Properly Basic?’ by Alvin Plantinga
    Excerpt: Alvin Plangtinga argues that belief in God is properly basic as follows.
    1. Basic beliefs can be justified and therefore be properly basic.
    2. The right conditions are the justificatory grounds for proper basic beliefs.
    3. If our cognitive faculties, which are aimed at truth, are functioning properly in the right conditions they will produce properly basic beliefs.
    4. God created us with a cognitive faculty aimed at the truth of His presence. This faculty is our sensus divinitatis (SD).
    5. Belief in God is produced by our (SD).
    6. The right conditions for this faculty are everywhere since God’s glory is everywhere.
    7. (From 5 & 6) Belief in God is produced by our (SD) in the right conditions.
    8. Therefore, belief in God is properly basic.
    http://www.mkowen.org/2016/11/.....rly-basic/

    And in confirmation of Plantinga’s argument that belief in God is a properly basic belief, studies now establish that the design inference is ‘knee jerk’ inference that is built into everyone, especially including atheists, and that atheists have to mentally suppress their very own design inference!

    Out of the mouths of babes – Do children believe (in God) because they’re told to by adults? The evidence suggests otherwise – Justin Barrett – 2008
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm.....god-belief

    Children are born believers in God, academic claims – 24 Nov 2008
    Excerpt: “Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....laims.html

    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

    Is Atheism a Delusion?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o

    It is not that Atheists do not see purpose and/or Design in nature, it is that Atheists, for whatever severely misguided reason, live in denial of the purpose and/or Design that they themselves see in nature.
    I hold the preceding studies to be confirming evidence for Romans1:19-20

    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.

    You go on to state that the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness is also hard for Theism. (I’m glad I wasn’t drinking coffee when I read that because I would have spit it out laughing.)

    Unlike the evidence-free claims from materialists that matter can give rise to conscious experience, there is abundant evidence that the immaterial mind does indeed interact with the material brain.

    Do Conscious Thoughts Cause Behavior? -Roy F. Baumeister, E. J. Masicampo, and Kathleen D. Vohs – 2010
    Excerpt: The evidence for conscious causation of behavior is profound, extensive, adaptive, multifaceted, and empirically strong.
    http://carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/165663.pdf

    “We regard promissory materialism as superstition without a rational foundation. The more we discover about the brain, the more clearly do we distinguish between the brain events and the mental phenomena, and the more wonderful do both the brain events and mental phenomena become. Promissory materialism is simply a religious belief held by dogmatic materialists who often confuse their religion with their science.”
    ? John C. Eccles, The Wonder of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind – 1984

    Materialism of the Gaps – Michael Egnor (Neurosurgeon) – January 29, 2009
    Excerpt: The evidence that some aspects of the mind are immaterial is overwhelming. It’s notable that many of the leading neuroscientists — Sherrington, Penfield, Eccles, Libet — were dualists. Dualism of some sort is the most reasonable scientific framework to apply to the mind-brain problem, because, unlike dogmatic materialism, it just follows the evidence.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....15901.html

    The Case for the Soul: Quantum Biology – (7:25 minute mark – The Mind is able to modify the brain, i.e. Brain Plasticity, and Mindfulness control of DNA expression)
    https://youtu.be/6_xEraQWvgM?t=446

  141. 141
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 140 –

    again, the concept of ‘neuronal illusions’ is a direct result of materialistic premises. I assume nothing but take materialistic premises to their logical end, (i.e. if materialism is true atheists are neuronal illusions and are not persons).

    It might help if you spelled out what you think those material premises are. I certainly son’t see how the logic flows from my own materialistic premises, but I might be missing something.

  142. 142
    bornagain77 says:

    You go on, in 135, to try to defend panpsychism. Ironically, you fail to notice that your appeal to panpsychism, directly after claiming the hard problem of consciousness was a hard problem for Theism to, underscores the fact that the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness is, in fact, a irreconcilably hard problem for materialism (and thus directly undermines the argument you had just made). (Atheists definitely need lessons on basic logic, but then again, it is impossible to logically defend a worldview that is insane in its premises)

    But anyways, despite all your bluff and bluster about understanding Quantum Mechanics, and how you believe that quantum mechanics is not really that much of a problem for materialism (which is a laughable claim), the fact of the matter is that quantum mechanics, beside undermining materialistic claims, undermines panpsychic claims as well. Panpsychism basically holds that consciousness is co-terminus with material reality on some (il-defined) level. Whereas quantum mechanics strongly indicates, from multiple lines of experimental evidence, that consciousness must precede material reality.

    Only Theism makes the claim that consciousness, (i.e. the Mind of God), precedes material reality.

    A Short Survey Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness
    Excerpt: Putting all the lines of evidence together the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
    1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
    Five intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Double Slit, Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect)
    – Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: 5 Experiments – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5qphmi8gYE

    Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK9kGpIxMRM

    Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4

    The Incompatibility of Physicalism with Physics: A Conversation with Dr. Bruce Gordon – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk-UO81HmO4

    Divine Action and the World of Science: What Cosmology and Quantum Physics Teach Us about the Role of Providence in Nature – Bruce L. Gordon – 2017
    http://jbtsonline.org/wp-conte.....ressed.pdf

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:17
    And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

  143. 143
    bornagain77 says:

    As to AK at 138:

    But, using your own logic, if mind from matter is derivative, mind from designer is also derivative. One is derived from matter and the other is derived from design. Therefore, by your own argument, theists are also neuronal illusions. Don’t blame me for taking your premise to its logical conclusion. And, being an illusion, your opinions are worth no more than those of your average schizophrenic or hallucinogenic drug addict.

    And there you have it folks,,, the shining, self-refuting, logic of atheists for all to see.

    According to AK’s logic, my mind being created by the Mind of God means that my mind must be an illusion. 🙂

    And again, for what exactly is this ‘illusion of mind’ occurring?

    “I think the idea of (materialists) saying that consciousness is an illusion doesn’t really work because the very notion of an illusion presupposes consciousness. There are no illusions unless there is a conscious experience or (a conscious person) for whom there is an illusion.”
    Evan Thompson, Philosopher – author of Waking, Dreaming, Being

    Of related note,,, as to further establishing exactly what is real and what is illusory, in the following study, materialistic researchers who had a bias against Near Death Experiences being real, set out to prove that they were ‘false memories’, (i.e. illusions), by setting up a clever questionnaire that could differentiate which memories a person had were real and which memories a person had were merely imaginary.
    They did not expect the results they got: to quote the headline ‘Afterlife’ feels ‘even more real than real”

    ‘Afterlife’ feels ‘even more real than real,’ researcher says – Wed April 10, 2013
    Excerpt: “If you use this questionnaire … if the memory is real, it’s richer, and if the memory is recent, it’s richer,” he said.
    The coma scientists weren’t expecting what the tests revealed.
    “To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors,” Laureys reported.
    The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. “The difference was so vast,” he said with a sense of astonishment.
    Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich “as though it was yesterday,” Laureys said.
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/.....periences/

    Exactly how is it possible for something to become even ‘more real than real’ in a NDE unless the infinite Mind of God truly is the basis for all reality, and this material reality we presently live in, as is claimed in Christianity, really is just a shadow of the heavenly paradise that awaits us after death?

    And since Christianity has ALWAYS claimed that the infinite Mind of God sustains all of material reality in its continued existence,,,

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

    ,,, then on Christianity this ‘more real than real’ finding is expected whereas, once again, materialism is found to be at a complete loss to explain why this should happen.

    A Doctor’s Near Death Experience Inspires a New Life – video
    Quote: “It’s not like a dream. It’s like the world we are living in is a dream and it’s kind of like waking up from that.”
    Dr. Magrisso
    http://www.nbcchicago.com/on-a.....31791.html

    Medical Miracles – Dr. Mary Neal’s Near Death Experience – video (More real than real quote at 37:49 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/WCNjmWP2JjU?t=2269

    “More real than anything I’ve experienced since. When I came back of course I had 34 operations, and was in the hospital for 13 months. That was real but heaven is more real than that. The emotions and the feelings. The reality of being with people who had preceded me in death.”
    – Don Piper – “90 Minutes in Heaven,” 10 Years Later – video (2:54 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/3LyZoNlKnMM?t=173

  144. 144
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H (et al):

    Let’s put JBS Haldane on the table.

    Yes, THAT JBS Haldane:

    “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. (NB: DI Fellow, Nancy Pearcey brings this right up to date (HT: ENV) in a current book, Finding Truth.)]

    The rhetorical pretence that materialism reducing mind to delusion is not a serious issue fails.

    Fails in a context where it has been raised any number of times here at UD and elsewhere, which makes me suspicious of the onward use of the oh it’s these dubious IDiots style of argument.

    Let me be blunt: if you are unwilling to acknowledge a serious issue, in pursuit of imagined rhetorical advantages, evo mat advocates and fellow travellers, you are failing duties of care to truth.

    KF

  145. 145
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Pearcey and Gray:

    A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent? Internal contradictions are fatal to any worldview because contradictory statements are necessarily false. “This circle is square” is contradictory, so it has to be false. An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity — which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself . . . . An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value.

    But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.

    Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” What is the contradiction in that statement?

    Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true.

    Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar’s paradox: “This statement is a lie.” If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie.

    Another example comes from Francis Crick. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, he writes, “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive.” But that means Crick’s own theory is not a “scientific truth.” Applied to itself, the theory commits suicide.

    Of course, the sheer pressure to survive is likely to produce some correct ideas. A zebra that thinks lions are friendly will not live long. But false ideas may be useful for survival. Evolutionists admit as much: Eric Baum says, “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.” Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false.

    To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value.

    [–> that is, responsible, rational freedom is undermined. Cf here William Provine in his 1998 U Tenn Darwin Day keynote:

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . .

    The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [–> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn — and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]

    So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.

    A few thinkers, to their credit, recognize the problem. Literary critic Leon Wieseltier writes, “If reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? … Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.”

    On a similar note, philosopher Thomas Nagel asks, “Is the [evolutionary] hypothesis really compatible with the continued confidence in reason as a source of knowledge?” His answer is no: “I have to be able to believe … that I follow the rules of logic because they are correct — not merely because I am biologically programmed to do so.” Hence, “insofar as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining.” [ENV excerpt, Finding Truth (David C. Cook, 2015) by Nancy Pearcey.]

    Serving evolutionary success rather than truth (= accurate perception/description of reality as it is) is another way to say, grand delusion. Self-referentially incoherent grand delusion on mindedness.

  146. 146
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: Alex Rosenberg, Atheist’s guide to reality

    Alex Rosenberg as he begins Ch 9 of his The Atheist’s Guide to Reality:

    >> FOR SOLID EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, WE’VE BEEN tricked into looking at life from the inside. Without scientism, we look at life from the inside, from the first-person POV (OMG, you don’t know what a POV is?—a “point of view”). The first person is the subject, the audience, the viewer of subjective experience, the self in the mind.

    Scientism shows that the first-person POV is an illusion. [–> grand delusion is let loose in utter self referential incoherence] Even after scientism convinces us, we’ll continue to stick with the first person. But at least we’ll know that it’s another illusion of introspection and we’ll stop taking it seriously. We’ll give up all the answers to the persistent questions about free will, the self, the soul, and the meaning of life that the illusion generates [–> bye bye to responsible, rational freedom on these presuppositions].

    The physical facts fix all the facts. [–> asserts materialism, leading to . . . ] The mind is the brain. It has to be physical and it can’t be anything else, since thinking, feeling, and perceiving are physical process—in particular, input/output processes—going on in the brain. We [–> at this point, what “we,” apart from “we delusions”?] can be sure of a great deal about how the brain works because the physical facts fix all the facts about the brain. The fact that the mind is the brain guarantees that there is no free will. It rules out any purposes or designs organizing our actions or our lives [–> thus rational thought and responsible freedom]. It excludes the very possibility of enduring persons, selves, or souls that exist after death or for that matter while we live.>>

    This one is pretty direct.

  147. 147
    kairosfocus says:

    PPPS: More,

    The materialist, said Chesterton, “is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle.” Materialists like Harris keep asking why we make the decisions we do, and what explanation there could be other than the physiological. The answer, of course, is the psychological, the philosophical, the whimsical, and about a thousand others.

    But these violate the central tenets of his narrow dogma, and so are automatically rejected.

    There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.

    By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.

    And this is not only a mortal consequence for Harris as the one trying to prove his point, it is also problematic from the reader’s perspective: If we are convinced by Harris’s logic, we would have to consider this conviction as something determined not by the rational strength of his logic, but by the entirely irrational arrangement of the chemicals in our brains. They might, as Harris would have to say, coincide, but their relation would be completely arbitrary. If prior physical states are all that determine our beliefs, any one physical state is no more rational than any other. It isn’t rational or irrational, it just is.

    If what Harris says is true, then our assent to what we view as the rational strength of his position may appear to us to involve our choice to assent or not to assent to his ostensibly rational argument, but (again, if it is true) in truth it cannot be any such thing, since we do not have that choice — or any other.

    Indeed, it is hard to see how, if free will is an illusion, we could ever know it. [“The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It: Sam Harris’s Free Will” by Martin Cothran at ENV (echoing C S Lewis and J B S Haldane etc) on November 9, 2012, HT the too often underestimated BA77, cf. here.]

    ******

    Evolutionary materialistic scientism is necessarily self referentially incoherent and self falsifying by way of absurdity of undermining reason itself. Insofar as its fellow travellers seek to fit in with it and go with the flow, they too become absurd. Where, too, estimates of the age of the earth, sol system, galaxy, observed cosmos and world of life or even questions on common descent and mechanisms for such have little or nothing to do with this.

    We are also free to examine the very significant question as to whether the world of life and the cosmos as a whole bear in them traces from the past of origins that per inductive investigation can be deemed strong signs of design. Where, functionally specific complex organisation and associated information and the evident fine tuning of the cosmos from big bang singularity forward that places the world at a locally deeply isolated operating point that enables C-chemistry cell based aqueous medium life are key focal cases.

    As to the existence of God, the mere fact of responsible rational freedom on our part in a world such as we contemplate is sufficient to point to a necessary being root of the cosmos, and to demand a ground of reality that is sufficient to also found moral government by the force of ought.

    There is but one serious candidate for such an IS that also grounds OUGHT: the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our nature.

    And, again, that is independent of the age of the cosmos.

  148. 148
    kairosfocus says:

    P^4S: Ruse and Wilson — and I here emphasise the moral side of the delusion. But the mere fact that reasoning is governed by duty to truth, justice, prudence and more suffices to show there are no handy firewalls to confine the delusions that follow from evolutionary materialism:

    The time has come to take seriously the fact [–> This is a gross error at the outset, as macro-evolution is a theory (an explanation) about the unobserved past of origins and so cannot be a fact on the level of the observed roundness of the earth or the orbiting of planets around the sun etc.] that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day . . . We must think again especially about our so-called ‘ethical principles.’ The question is not whether biology—specifically, our evolution—is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will … In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding… Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place.

    [ –> And everything instantly falls apart as this would set grand delusion loose in our mental lives. Even logical reasoning is guided by the conscience-driven urge to truth, right and justice, so once such a grand delusion is let loose it undermines the general credibility of conscious mindedness, setting up a cascade of shadow-show worlds. The skeptical spider has enmeshed himself in his own web. Thus, any such scheme should be set aside as self-refuting.]

    [Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, , ed. J. E. Hutchingson, Orlando, Fl.:Harcourt and Brace, 1991. (NB: Cf. a separate discussion on the grounding of worldviews and ethics here on, which includes a specific discussion of the grounding of ethics and goes on to Biblical theism; having first addressed the roots of the modern evolutionary materialist mindset and its pretensions to the mantle of science. Also cf. here on for Plato’s warning in The Laws, Bk X, on social consequences of the rise of such a view as the philosophy of the avant garde in a community.]

  149. 149
    ET says:

    jdk:

    1) In materialism, the problem is how do the material activities of the nervous system give rise to consciousness.

    Back up, Jack. With materialism you need to account for the matter and energy of the universe and you cannot. All materialism has to explain anything is sheer dumb luck

  150. 150
    ET says:

    And speaking of global warming-> thanks for the 5 month winter.

  151. 151
    jdk says:

    I ended my post at 135 by writing,

    Final note to ba. If you decide to respond, I am interesting to see if you could do so without all your standards quotes from other people. I have made a lot of specific points, and perhaps those are ones that you, personally, could respond to. Just a thought.

    Looks like ba can’t do this. I don’t understand the appeal of copy-and-pasting from a library of quotes, but it is not a productive means of discussion.

    I will now wade back out.

  152. 152
    ET says:

    jdk:

    I have made a lot of specific points,…

    Where?

  153. 153
    kairosfocus says:

    In re JDK, 135:

    the fact that there are some famous people who have made statements about “neuronal illusions” does not mean that every one with the same general philosophical position as those people has to agree with what those famous people have said, or are obligated to defend them.

    BA77, 140:

    jdk at 135,

    1. again, the concept of ‘neuronal illusions’ is a direct result of materialistic premises. I assume nothing but take materialistic premises to their logical end, (i.e. if materialism is true atheists are neuronal illusions and are not persons). Having leading materialistic philosophers honestly agree with me on the direct implications of their materialistic philosophy is merely icing on the cake.

    2. jdk, you dismiss the ‘philosophical zombie’ argument with a wave of your hand but fail to see that the philosophical zombie’ argument underscores the fact that materialistic premises do indeed lead to the conclusion that people do not really exist but are merely ‘neuronal illusions’. Only under Theism, as Alvin Plantinga pointed out in “God and Other Minds”, are we justified in believing that, not only our own, but other minds are real and that they exist.

    I observe again, JDK, 151:

    I don’t understand the appeal of copy-and-pasting from a library of quotes, but it is not a productive means of discussion.

    Per fair comment, JDK here has set up and knocked over a strawman caricature; in the process, failing to respond to a core point as I highlighted from BA77. And in particular it is entirely legitimate in argument to cite an expewrt or key representative making a key point — especially a telling admission against interest.

    The issue on the table (as J B S Haldane long since pointed out) is the dynamics of computation vs the substance of meaningful, ground and consequent reasoning. Where, a computational substrate is inherently a mechanical, cause-effect dynamical system with some stochastic factors also. Certain environmental or internal structures and contingent variables trigger dynamic-stochastic, cause-effect processes in a chain, yielding an output state or sequence of states. This holds for digital machines, it holds for analogue ones, it holds for so-called neural networks. I most recently discussed this here at UD in connexion with memristors (and memtransistors).

    The direct consequence of this, is that we have mechanical and/or statistical processes at work with no necessary connexion to meaning, truth, prudence, moral considerations and values, etc. Computation simply is not the same sort of thing as rational contemplation. Categorically distinct.

    So, we may freely challenge evolutionary materialists and fellow travellers, not only to account for the organisation, information, GIGO challenge and the like in the wetware processors in our bodies but also to bridge to reason, insightful inference made per ground and consequent and/or inductive framing of well grounded inferences.

    Emergence or the like are nowhere near good enough. And in particular, running in circles from matter is all to somehow mind transcends matter to achieve contemplative, truth knowing morally governed rationality and back to somehow the latter must have emerged from the former is just that: circular argument. Indeed, Haldane’s point obtains with double-force — and take this as an endorsement of a point that I hold to be here aptly addressed and expressed in a few powerful, telling words . . . not a mere empty appeal to authority:

    “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. (NB: DI Fellow, Nancy Pearcey brings this right up to date (HT: ENV) in a current book, Finding Truth.)]

    This is an argument and issue I have addressed here at UD for 12 years, and beyond in my own right for over thirty years since I saw how evolutionary materialist scientism is self referentially self-falsifying.

    Here is Reppert, in a point which I also endorse:

    . . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.

    That is the point some leading advocates of evolutionary materialism and fellow travellers see and have no serious answer to.

    Now, JDK goes on to:

    Chalmers says he himself favors a position that is perhaps close to my own position: that of panpsychism. This is not a materialist position, but neither is it a theistic “mind of God” position. The idea is that consciousness, at some elemental level, is a fundamental aspect of the universe, in a way analogous to that of energy and matter; and that just as elementary particles can coalesce into larger integrated bodies (stars, tornadoes, human beings), elementary consciousness coalesces into an integrated whole in a human being.

    Translated, the whole world is minded, presumably from wavicles and spacetime itself on up. So, whose mind lies at the root of reality?

    That does not sit very well with JDK’s onward:

    God is an idea that some people have, but there is no common empirical experience of God (one that all people easily and voluntarily describe as they do their own consciousness), no common conception of God, and no process by which to investigate which ideas of God might be “true.”

    Plantinga’s assertion that “the evidence for God is just as good as the evidence for other minds”, is extremely faulty for all practical purposes, and philosophically empty: if we have no way to know that other people might not be zombies, are we justified in likewise concluding that God might also be a zombie?

    We all experience mind, which points to Mind as its root, indeed the pantheistic panpsychism in your above directly leads there.

    The Zombie issue of course is that once you lock us down to matter and computation, you have locked in a vast array of problems linked to its self-contradiction. Zombification leads to we are zombies, delusional software riding on a neural network of dubious origin unrelated to truth, logic or duty to same. GIGO obtains and shreds the whole.

    Self-refutation.

    A better start is to realise we cannot be in grand delusion though we may have specific errors. Then, we can reason to: matter cannot ground mind, this implies Mind at the root of reality. With, moral government indicating the same in that root.

    We are at a world framed by the inherently good creator God, a necessary, maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature.

    KF

  154. 154
    Seversky says:

    kairosfocus @ 144

    BO’H (et al):

    Let’s put JBS Haldane on the table.

    Why?

    “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. (NB: DI Fellow, Nancy Pearcey brings this right up to date (HT: ENV) in a current book, Finding Truth.)]

    Argument from incredulity much?

    The rhetorical pretence that materialism reducing mind to delusion is not a serious issue fails.

    The claim that materialism reduces mind to delusion fails.

  155. 155
    Seversky says:

    kairosfocus @ 145

    A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent? Internal contradictions are fatal to any worldview because contradictory statements are necessarily false. “This circle is square” is contradictory, so it has to be false. An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity — which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself . . . . An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value.

    But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.

    And, as we have pointed out a number of times before, Pearcey’s argument only stands if truth-tracking and survival-tracking are different. If one maps exactly to the other or they at least mostly overlap then her argument falls as there is no contradiction.

  156. 156
    Seversky says:

    kairosfocus @ 146

    PPS: Alex Rosenberg, Atheist’s guide to reality

    Rosenberg doesn’t speak for all atheists, certainly not for this a/mat.

  157. 157
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, you are not addressing cogently the dynamical issues at stake, on computational substrates and processing of signals or rather variables. Computation is a blindly mechanical process, with the intelligence external to the raw mechanical and stochastic behaviour of elements as they act on signals, such that organisation, signal structures and scaling etc are key to useful results. And, so that GIGO rules. At least JDK has posited consciousness as part of core reality so that all things are to some extent conscious. Pause to reflect on Reppert especially. KF

  158. 158
    jdk says:

    I didn’t posit “consciousness as part of core reality” if by that you mean endorse that idea. I mentioned it primarily because Chalmers, who ba invoked concerned the hard problem of consciousness, tends to lean towards panpsychism as a favored metaphysic. My main point is that there are a variety of metaphysics that have some type of hard problem with consciousness.

    Also, panpsychism claims that matter and mind are inextricably entangled, so the idea of a Cosmic disembodied mind, as in theism, is not compatible with, or implied by, panpsychism.

  159. 159
    kairosfocus says:

    Note, JDK, 135:

    In the video, Chalmers says he himself favors a position that is perhaps close to my own position: that of panpsychism. This is not a materialist position, but neither is it a theistic “mind of God” position. The idea is that consciousness, at some elemental level, is a fundamental aspect of the universe, in a way analogous to that of energy and matter; and that just as elementary particles can coalesce into larger integrated bodies (stars, tornadoes, human beings), elementary consciousness coalesces into an integrated whole in a human being.

    I started from there and began a response. More should follow when I have time and energy. It’s budget season here.

    For the moment, I just highlight that consciousness is an aspect of personhood, mindedness, and if consciousness pervades space and time and matter, then we are looking at a cosmic, foundational mind; never mind attempts to imagine a sort of lego-brick assembly of higher mindedness.

    Other issues follow from here on out.

    KF

  160. 160
    jdk says:

    kf writes,

    consciousness pervades space and time and matter, then we are looking at a cosmic, foundational mind; never mind attempts to imagine a sort of lego-brick assembly of higher mindedness.

    If you listen to Chalmers, his idea is not that a unified consciousness pervades space and time, but that, yes indeed, consciousness in little bits (quanta, if you like, although he doesn’t use that word) exists as a part of each fundamental physical particle. And, yes, he envisions these quanta of consciousness aggregating into a larger whole in a mind in a way analogous to elementary particles aggregating into physical objects.

  161. 161
    kairosfocus says:

    JDK,

    we are about to embark on a phil discussion, if you want to go down this line.

    A few sketchy initial thoughts.

    A good place to begin is to ask what it means to be conscious — self-aware, but to have a self, a distinct unit of identity.

    Then try to assemble a larger conscious self like we are by bringing together a cloud of conscious components.

    The emergence issue lurks, we are back at poof-magic.

    And BTW, above I did not suggest that Chalmers-/JDK- style pan-psychism asserts that one unified consciousness pervades space, time, matter, energy but that the phenomenon is attached to that which is a component of same. Perhaps, my wording was not very clear.

    I can add, though, that if there is a “natural” emergence by accumulation, then one would have to have a pretty good reason to explain how conscious entities would not fuse to a unified grand consciousness. And if they don’t cohere and unite, then emergence is dead, back to square one.

    So, which is it?

    We can try to restrict the scope of fundamentally conscious elementary “particles” but then that comes back to we have a partly mental, partly purely mechanical world. That seems to be where Chalmers has gone. As for JDK, the border between the two persons is fuzzy; unexplained.

    So, do we really want to run down yet another abstruse rabbit-trail?

    KF

  162. 162
    Origenes says:

    jdk @160

    … quanta of consciousness aggregate into ….

    What Chalmers fails to understand is that consciousness cannot be a composite. A simple example illustrates the problem:

    Take a sentence of a dozen words, and take 12 men and tell to each one word. Then stand the men in a row or jam them in a bunch, and let each think of his word as intently as he wills; nowhere will there be a consciousness of the whole sentence.

    In order to support his erroneous belief in composite consciousness Chalmers refers to scientific evidence:

    Chalmers: … there are cases (especially neuropsychological cases, such as those involving patients with split brains) in which a subject’s states of consciousness are disunified.

    He doesn’t reference his claim, but here at UD we all know what it is about (Sperry and Gazzaniga). And we also know that Chalmer’s claim is bogus.

  163. 163
    jdk says:

    As a preface to some thoughts on panpsychism, kf writes,

    we are about to embark on a phil discussion, if you want to go down this line. So, do we really want to run down yet another abstruse rabbit-trail?

    Well, obviously, kf, you can choose to discuss this or not. However, given that the discussion is about the metaphysics of how might consciousness be a part of the universe, discussing panpsychism in this regard is no more (or no less) a rabbit hole than discussing a universal mind such as God. Many people consider all metaphysics a useless rabbit hole, but I like thinking about it despite my thoughts about the nature of that enterprise.

    However, I appreciate your few sketchy thoughts.

    You write,

    .A good place to begin is to ask what it means to be conscious — self-aware, but to have a self, a distinct unit of identity.

    Not under panpsychism. In panpsychism, some elemental form of consciousness (or whatever better word might describe this additional component), exists as co-equal, concomitant aspect of every elemental particle. We would not say, however, that every such particle is self-aware, or has a sense of self. It is only when those particles aggregate in (as far as we know) a living being does awareness of an integrated whole organism start to appear (although we also don’t know at what level of animal that starts to happen, and what gradations of awareness there might be.)

    Also, of course, we have no idea how this might happen: that is the hard problem that Chalmers identifies for panpsychism, but he also identifies hard problems for materialism and mind/matter dualisms such as theism.

    In theism, consciousness does imply a self, because theism posits a integrated universal mind as opposed to the decentralized quantamized model of panpsychism.

    So your “good place to start” is a starting point for theism, but not a good general place to start that includes the alternative hypothesis of panpsychism

    You write,

    The emergence issue lurks, we are back at poof-magic.

    The first phrase is true, but it is just as true of the physical world: the things of the physical world emerge from the elementary particles. I don’t think anyone thinks that the creation of the elements inside stars is “poof magic”, even though those elements emerge from interactions of the elementary particles.

    You write,

    And BTW, above I did not suggest that Chalmers-/JDK- style pan-psychism asserts that one unified consciousness pervades space, time, matter, energy but that the phenomenon is attached to that which is a component of same. Perhaps, my wording was not very clear.

    I appreciate the clarification. I think we are clear, are we not, that panpsychism is about something else (consciousness or some more elemental precursor), but not about any cosmic unified disembodied mind.

    You write,

    I can add, though, that if there is a “natural” emergence by accumulation, then one would have to have a pretty good reason to explain how conscious entities would not fuse to a unified grand consciousness. And if they don’t cohere and unite, then emergence is dead, back to square one.

    No, because, since consciousness is concomitant with matter, conscious entities would not “fuse into” one without the associated matter fusing so as to act as an integrated organism, and that doesn’t happen.

    So, which is it?

    We can try to restrict the scope of fundamentally conscious elementary “particles” but then that comes back to we have a partly mental, partly purely mechanical world. That seems to be where Chalmers has gone.

    Yes, panpsychism is a philosophy where the world is partly mental/partly physical. However, it is not a dualistic philosophy like theism: the mental and the physical exist simultaneously and in a complementary fashion. It is not possible for them to exist separately.

    And last, you write,

    As for JDK, the border between the two persons is fuzzy; unexplained.

    I don’t understand this sentence, unless it is referring back to a “unified grand consciousness”, which I think I have explained is not possible in panpsychism.

  164. 164
    Origenes says:

    jdk: In panpsychism, some elemental form of consciousness … exists as co-equal, concomitant aspect of every elemental particle.

    What about ‘energy?’ Does that contain “some elemental form of consciousness” as well?

    jdk: … a “unified grand consciousness” … I think I have explained is not possible in panpsychism.

    What then is the status of consciousness at the time of the Big Bang, when there were no elemental particles?

    If consciousness is cumulative, does it follow that large organisms (like the whale) are more aware then relatively small ones (like us)?

  165. 165
    Origenes says:

    One problem with panpsychism is its limited explanatory power wrt life and cosmos. Sure, it is an attempt to explain human consciousness, but it cannot explain the involvement of consciousness in the coming into existence of life itself let alone the (fine-tuned) universe.

    jdk: It is only when those particles aggregate in (as far as we know) a living being does awareness of an integrated whole organism start to appear …

    So, panpsychism needs life in order to explain self-aware experience. Again, from this it follows that there can be no conscious intelligent designer of life.

    Therefore it seems illogical to me that atheist Thomas Nagel arrives at panpsychism. First he argues that it is (very) unlikely that life came about by blind Darwinian processes, and next he suggests that panpsychism can hold some ‘design-like-alternative’? However if one needs life in order to have a self-aware intelligent designer, then what good is panpsychism as an explanation for life?

  166. 166
    kairosfocus says:

    JDK,

    I spoke in the context of recent complaints emanating from the penumbra of skeptics, that UD is highlighting more of philosophical rather than scientific issues. My own view is the two are inextricably intertwined especially where origins and fundamental issues are involved.

    With budget season here at peak for now, I will for the moment just give outline remarks. (After all, I have an underlying intent to take back up the AI issue, which is also key background.)

    In this case, panpsychism in effect implies that consciousness/ mindedness is an integral aspect of a material world, perhaps as magnetism is present with particles and space, interacting and accumulating into all sorts of phenomena. And indeed the concept of mind as a field of influence is a longstanding concept in psychology.

    The issues I have outlined instantly obtain, and tell decisively.

    If space-time and matter-energy entities are associated with a mind-field so to speak, then we already have a universal mind inextricably intertwined with a physical world. Panpsychism becomes a type of pantheism or the variant, panentheism. This then moves the discussion to pantheism and its close relatives. On which, we find the issue that the problem of the one and the many, unity and diversity including the issue of good vs evils, becomes decisive. As backdrop, the logic of being is such that were there ever utter nothing, such having no causal powers, that would forever obtain; that a world is, implies that SOMETHING always was. On the above, this then leads straight to eternal mind.

    Where also, the nature of mindedness and consciousness is that such is inherently unified, inherently volitional and free entity. This, is on pain of undermining responsible, rational freedom and rendering argument useless, as forces that are essentially material would drive the result on cause-effect bonds, not lead through insightful reason and ground-consequent inference or the like. Mind has to be sufficiently independent to be free and sufficiently capable of interaction with the material to account for our own responsible, rational freedom. Or else we are immediately in self-referential absurdity that renders discussion pointless.

    The alternative, and that seems to be where Chalmers is, is that some entities are minded, others are not. This then leads to the point that mind is now distinct from the physical cosmos, radically undermining the force of panpsychism.

    I should add that the dualism and dichotomy of theism have been greatly exaggerated. Exaggerated to the point where there is a needless debate over how could mind or spirit ever interact with the mechanical-stochastic world of physical entities. BTW, this rather reminds me of some debates in macroeconomics, especially where the rational, free agent and his/her expectations become important.

    The theistic vision is, and has always been that the world is the free creation of God, and so matter is undergirded and sustained by mind. In speaking to the Athenians at Mars Hill c. 50 AD, Paul cited a pagan poet, that we are his offspring, and again, that in him we live and move and have our being. Likewise, here is a spokesman for the school of Paul, writing to the Hebrews:

    Heb 1:1 God, having spoken to the fathers long ago in [the voices and writings of] the prophets in many separate revelations [each of which set forth a portion of the truth], and in many ways, 2 has in these last days spoken [with finality] to us in [the person of One who is by His character and nature] His Son [namely Jesus], whom He appointed heir and lawful owner of all things, through whom also He created the universe [that is, the universe as a space-time-matter continuum]. 3 The Son is the radiance and only expression of the glory of [our awesome] God [reflecting God’s [a]Shekinah glory, the Light-being, the brilliant light of the divine], and the exact representation and perfect imprint of His [Father’s] essence, and upholding and maintaining and propelling all things [the entire physical and spiritual universe] by His powerful word [carrying the universe along to its predetermined goal]. When He [Himself and no other] had [by offering Himself on the cross as a sacrifice for sin] accomplished purification from sins and established our freedom from guilt, He sat down [revealing His completed work] at the right hand of the Majesty on high [revealing His Divine authority], 4 having become as much superior to angels, since He has inherited a more excellent and glorious [b]name than they [that is, Son—the name above all names]. [AMP]

    So, eternal mind is on the table, and its sustaining of all things is on the table.

    The need to address the one and the many, providing coherent unity that has room for diversity including that moral diversity we describe on good vs evil, and giving our own mindedness with responsible rational freedom due significance, is now on the table.

    That complex balance puts Christian, trinitarian theism on the table as the option to beat. Probe Ministries, long ago now, put the point thusly:

    When it comes to discussing worldviews the starting point is the question, Why is there something rather than nothing?{6} [BTW, philosophy is best understood as the study of such hard basic questions, the comparison of alternative answers, and the application of our findings to living based on the love of wisdom thereby discovered . . . ] As you may already know, there are three basic answers to this question. The pantheist would generally answer that all is one, all is god, and this “god with a small g” has always existed. Second, the naturalist would say that something, namely matter [in some form], has always existed. Third, the theist holds that a personal, Creator-God is eternal and out of nothing He created all that there is . . . .When we look around at what exists, we see an amazing collection of seemingly disparate elements such as gasses, liquids, and solids, planets and stars, horses, flowers, rocks, and trees. And seeing all of these things we notice that they all exist in some sort of equilibrium or unity. How is it that such diversity exists in such apparent unity? And are we as human beings any more important than gasses or ants? [Thus, we see the problem of the one and the many, with a particular emphasis on human individuality and value of the person, which ties directly into the point that a right is a moral claim we make on others in light of our inherent dignity as human beings] . . . .

    The pantheist’s commitment to an all-inclusive oneness leaves no room for the real world in which people live, where I am not you and neither of us is one with a tree or a mountain. The naturalist has no problem accepting the reality of the physical world and the diversity present in it. However, there is no solid ground for understanding why it is all held together. In short, [as Francis Schaeffer often noted] there is no infinite reference point so we are left with the circular argument: everything holds together because everything holds together; if it didn’t, we wouldn’t be here to see it. What a coincidence! In fact, coincidence, or chance, is the only basis for anything. As a result human beings are left with an absurd existence . . . .

    Trinitarian theism is the only option that contains within itself an explanation of both the one and the many while saying that people are important. In the Trinity, God has revealed Himself as the eternal, infinite reference point for His creation. Moreover, the Trinity provides the only adequate basis for understanding the problem of unity and diversity since God has revealed Himself to be one God who exists in a plural unity. Ultimately then, as Horrell concludes, “Every thing and every person has real significance because each is created by and finally exists in relationship to the Triune God.” [Article, What Difference Does the Trinity Make?, emphases, links and parentheses added.]

    In short the problem of balancing unity and diversity in the cosmos is a major issue in assessing the coherence of a worldview — does it make sense? Does it account for reality? Can I live consistent with what it implies and squarely face myself in the mirror come tomorrow morning? Of the three major live options, it is trinitarian redemptive monotheism that makes best sense, for it best accounts for how the one and the many we observe around us came to be, and it promotes moral coherence, thence the significance of man, as well.

    A note for reflection, for now, just to keep a stall open in the marketplace of worldviews level ideas.

    Focus is elsewhere, given the budget season.

    KF

  167. 167
    ET says:

    Seversky:

    The claim that materialism reduces mind to delusion fails.

    The claim that materialism can account for the mind fails

Leave a Reply