“Mirror” Needs to Hold One Up To His Side

_{Barry Arrington

October 13, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

A commenter who goes by “Mirrortothesun” writes:

Here’s the problem with every single post on this site, including this one. They are all examples of motivated reasoning. The authors start with what they wish were the truth– that evolution is false– and then they look desperately for evidence that their wish is true. They construct arguments around that wish. Ultimately it is just intellectual dishonesty and propaganda, alas.

Perhaps Mirror has never read evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin’s famous “divine foot” screed. Here it is:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Mirror accuses ID proponents of being committed to an a priori assumption and interpreting all data in the context of that assumption. Perhaps that is the case with some ID proponents. Personally, I am open to Darwinism. Indeed, I would love to be a Darwinist. It would make my life so much easier if I could go along with the herd instead of constantly swimming upstream. Alas, I cannot handle the necessary faith commitments.

Here is the point of my post. Mirror’s comment is laden with unintended irony; for he seems to be blissfully unaware of the close-minded dogmatism of many Darwinists. Only those bad ID types have a priori assumptions. Darwinists bravely follow the evidence wherever it leads. His naivety would be amusing if it were not so common . . . and so dangerous.

Comments

Yes, all your comments are irrevant, including your naive perception that a tsunami can, ever has, or ever could part the waters leaving a clean walkway between two walls, especially at the same time a human being would command it to be so. Indeed, you have confirmed the theme of this thread, exhibiting your own personal bias against the power of intelligent agency. And, of course, you were fearful of providing a straight answer to a straight question. An intellectually honest Darwinst (permit the oxymoron for now) would have had the courge to say this: "Yes, a tsunami can time itself to unleash its forces at exactly the same time a man raises his arms and commands the waters to part, and, it can change its unilateral direction and go both ways at once, as if was two tsumamis, each working against the other. As a Darwinst, I believe this ridiculous proposition (shades of Lewontin) because I cannot, under any circumstances, allow a divine foot in the door." In that same sense, you, like all Darwinists, received your information about Lourdes from uninformed sources, probably Wikipedia. Naturally, you ignored the 67 miraclees confirmed with no controversies and obssessed over the one which did. This is another example of your raging bias. In any case, you seem not to know that the final verdict comes from a panel of experts in the form of a consensus decision, not from one dissenter with irrational objections (he complained that the panel did not use technology yet to be invented). You so desperately want you false beliefs to be true that you throw out all evidence that doesn't support them. Even at that, your comments are, once again, irrelevant since the issue is whether science can appropriately comment on the likelihood of miracles occuring--not whether their conclusions are true or false.StephenB_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Mr. Murray, I am not sure we are in disagreement. Certainly a scientist can "take account" of a miracle in the sense of saying "this is beyond the ken of known natural causes" with respect to any given event. A scientific theory cannot, however, be predicated on the occurance of miracles, because they are, by definition, unpredictable. That was all I was saying. It is illustrated nicely by the following: http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.phpBarry Arrington_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

I'll have to disagree with Mr. Arrington here, where he says:
"Science does not, indeed cannot, take account of miracles. The entire scientific project is premised upon previously observed regularities continuing to occur."
Because science observes and identifies where such regularities occur, it is obviously the best tool for locating where such regularities have been apparently violated or suspended. The same methodology that identifies and quantifies regularity must also be able to identify and quantify non-regularity. If miracles were precisely described phenomena, and materialism a precise set of values, and divine feet were known commodities, then Lewontin's maxim wouldn't be so problematical. The problem is that miracles, materialism and divine feet are vague, socio-cultural worldview structures that are easily susceptible to various baises. The claim that science cannot investigate miracles or divine feet in the door is really just a setup for the biased dismissal of any proposition that seems to contradict one's particular materialist perspective. Can science investigate a "miraculous" healing? Of course. Can science investigate claims of contact with the dead? Of course. Does it matter if one calls a phenomena "demonic possession" or "a mental disease"? Can't both claims be scientifically (methodologically) investigated? Of course they can. Because an entity deliberately does something that is not explicable via resort to natural laws and chance doesn't mean science cannot investigate the matter. Science can rule out (to a reasonable degree) natural law; that's how we gain findings of arson and murder. That's how we recognize archaeological artifacts and distinguish them from natural artifacts. When science investigates quantum effects that apparently depend on the status of the observer, is it investigating what formal 19th century materialists would have considered to be miraculous? Let's say afterlife researchers could film and document the spirits of the dead, and hold conversations with them - would that be a "miracle"? If science could document psi events like telekinesis, would those be miraculous? If bilocality was observed, or local reality found to be untrue, are those miraculous discoveries? The problem with an a priori commitment to materialism, and an a priori avoidance of the "miraculous", is that those things are vague, socio-cultural worldview biases that predispose people to dismiss, avoid, and even ridicule that which seems, at the time, to fall outside of the purview of our definition of proper scientific inquiry. That is the danger and failing of Lewontin's maxim. Best to simply follow the evidence and stop trying to make claims about what science can and cannot investigate. People can attempt to investigate anything using sound scientific principles, even that which some might claim is "miraculous", and even when investigating the effects of unknown sentient entities. Is the capacity to organize matter into virtually infinite FSCO/I, from nothing other than intent, without even a functioning knowledge of, much less a working control of, how intent is translated into biochemical impulses and mechanisms which then generate the FSCO/I onto page or into voice, a miracle? Hasn't reasonable natural law been violated? If the answer is no, why is that? What justifies that claim? Because we are familiar with the miraculous doesn't mean that natural laws (regularities) aren't being (by any reasonable definition) suspended or violated every day all around us. Can we not examine this abrogation of the Universal Probability Bound? Can we not measure them?William J Murray_{October 15, 2011
October
10
Oct
15
15
2011
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

Irrelevant? Really? LOL. Any scientist, like your meteorologist, would be foolish to not negate the accounts of the biblical creation of man given the aliens testimony. If your going to follow the evidence where it leads then it follows that God did not create man in his image the aliens did, in this hypothetical. Documented evidence of one source of 'waters parting' are now irrelevent? Now that's some funny. Try watching some of the videos from 2006 tsunami. Is your meteorologist ignorant of the effects of tsunamis? Also you know there is no evidence that the Red Sea, or is that the Reed Sea, was ever parted by Moses or anyone else....but maybe you don't. As for Moses as I said before his arrival would be of more interest than any parting of any waters. Not only for returning from the dead after thousands of years but for his alleged life span. We also have examples of mechanisms which can move vast amouunts of water that create unflooded land. We have no instances of anyone returning from the dead. If as you suggest Moses did return from the dead there would be no need to even add the 'parting of the waters' that alone would be sufficient for anyone to believe in miracles. Of course it never happened and never will happen so such is the life in imagine land. As for the miracle at Lourdes many are certainly in question concerning the diagnostic capabilities at the time. Most resemble MS which is well known to have periods of remission. The rate of 'miracles' has certainly slowed as medical diagnostic technology has advanced. Which is no surprise to anyone including some of the doctors on the panel who voted no concerning some of the alleged 'miracles'.Acipenser_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

---Acipenser: "Of course you need to document someone returning thousands of years after his death. I see now you recognize the problem and have changed the question to that of a ‘man’. I said "IF Moses came back," which is, of course, a hypothetical. We don't need to document a hypothetical because a hypothetical is always assumed as a fact for the sake of argument. Didn't you know that? Inasmuch as you chose to evade the issue, I said let's consider "any" man so that you would stop evading the substance of the question, not because there was anything wrong with my original formulation. But, of course, you will not stop evading it. No problem. I will answer it for you, which is what I must always do with Darwinists who refuse to engage in honest dialogue, which, as far as I can tell, is all of them. If a meteorologist observes a man who stands by the Red Sea, raises his hands, and parts the waters, the scientist will, if he is of sound mind, say that, based on the data and his reservoir of scientific knowledge, the event is not likely the result of natural causes and is, most likely, a miracle. Here is another example of the same principle: Of the thousands of alleged medical cures at the famous Lourdes site in France, only 68 have been officially recognized by the Catholic Church as being of a miraculous nature. In each case, the Church asks skeptical doctors and scientists from various locations around the world to take part in the investigation and judge if these events are likely beyond medical explanation. Sometimes, not often, the scientists judge in the affirmative and it is on the strength of those scientific judgments that the Church verifies the suspicion that a miracle is the best explanation. Not one of the scientists that were consulted ever said that he will not participate in the exercise on the grounds that science must consider only natural causes. --"For example we know that after a earthquake tsunamis may be generated. We also know that these waves can travle very long distances and when they arrive on a shoreline the shallow waters adjacent to land are drawn far out to sea. That would need to be evaluated before someone concluded Divine interaction as the immediate cause of the problem. To not do so would be remiss and not doing science." Irrelevant. --"So if the aliens created mankind are they now going to be worshipped as God?" No. Also irrelevant. ---"I forgot to mention that the aliens look like humans but acknowledge that they are the sole source of biological diversity on Earth, i.e., they created mankind in their image." Are they now the entity called God that is worshipped by many religious people?" No. Also irrelevant.StephenB_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

notes: Here is a graph showing a partial list of fossil groups showing their sudden appearance in the fossil record- (without the artificially imposed dotted lines) - Timeline Illustration: http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/wp-content/majorgroups.jpg The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Stephen J. Gould http://thedesignspectrum.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/sudden-appearance-and-stasis-in-the-fossil-record/ The Truth About Evolution - Transitional Fossils Excerpt: Major adaptive radiations provide a formidable challenge to biological evolution.,,, Major adaptive radiations of groups of vertebrates are: a) Placoderms in the early Devonian. Because they were heavily armored, jawed fish, intermediates and ancestral forms should have fossilized but none are found. No placoderms exist today. b) Chondrichtyes during the Devonian. They are the cartilaginous fish such as sharks and rays. Intermediates and ancestors are unknown. c) Agnatha Fish in the Silurian. These were jawless fish with bony skeletons. Intermediates and ancestors should have fossilized but none are found. Most types became extinct but hagfish and lampreys are living jawless fish. d)Tetrapods in the early Carboniferous. These were many, diverse forms of four-legged amphibians that are believed to have evolved from fish. But no fossilized links to fish have been found and specific interrelationships of the numerous lineages is unknown. e) Amniotes in the late Carboniferous. Amniotes are characterized by their complex reproductive system and include reptiles, birds and mammals. They are believed to have evolved from amphibians but their ancestry has not been determined from the fossil record. f) Archosaurs in the late Permian. They were reptiles with diverse sizes and shapes that became extinct in the Triassic. Some as long as six meters have been found. g ) Dinosaurs in the late Triassic. Dinosaurs include the largest terrestrial animals that have ever lived. Their diversity in size and shape was spectacular. Their ancestry is unknown and specific interrelationships of the numerous types is unknown. h) Teleosts in the late Cretaceous. These are bony fish approximately 20,000 living species in 35 orders and 409 families. Interrelationships of the higher groups are unknown. i) Therian mammals in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. These are placental and marsupial mammals. When they first appear in the fossil record, they are very diverse and interrelationships are unknown. j) Birds in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. There are estimates of 8900 living species in 166 families and about 27 orders. Fossil evidence is lacking for establishing the interrelationships of the orders of birds. http://tellall.org/fossils.htm Saltational Evolution: Hopeful Monsters are Here to Stay - Günter Theißen - 2009 "While we already have a quite good understanding of how organisms adapt to the environment, much less is known about the mechanisms behind the origin of evolutionary novelties, a process that is arguably different from adaptation. Despite Darwin's undeniable merits, explaining how the enormous complexity and diversity of living beings on our planet originated remains one of the greatest challenges of biology." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/09/nsf_spends_almost_2_million_of038581.html Genesis 1:21 & 25 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.,,,,, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Lynn Margulis Criticizes Neo-Darwinism in Discover Magazine (Updated) Casey Luskin April 12, 2011 Excerpt; This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create....[N]eo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify and organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change-led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/lynn_margulis_criticizes_neo-d045691.html EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840 "...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit') http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger - podcast with link to peer-reviewed paper Excerpt: Dr. Gauger experimentally tested two-step adaptive paths that should have been within easy reach for bacterial populations. Listen in and learn what Dr. Gauger was surprised to find as she discusses the implications of these experiments for Darwinian evolution. Dr. Gauger's paper, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,". http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2010-05-10T15_24_13-07_00bornagain77_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

BA77,
Intelligent Design finds itself only requiring ‘random’ top down implementation of novel genetic information at the inception of each parent species
At last, somebody says something specific. It's funny, but this and what KF believes cannot both be true. According to him the bodyplan of species X cannot evolve and has to be tinkered with to become species Y. Yet you believe that there was only one "tinkering", at the inception of each "parent" species (whatever that is). Can you give me the name of one of these "parent" species? How do you know that? Are there fossils? So BA77, how do you know that Intelligent Design requires top down implementation of novel genetic information at the inception of each parent species? Is that in the Bible? I don't remember reading it.kellyhomes_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth again makes this assertion:
I’m not sure what Barry’s point is. He, I’m glad to say, appears to agree with both me and Lewontin that scientific methodology is incapable of dealing with miraculous events because it its methodological principle is prediction. By definition, a miracle cannot be predicted.
So again I respond; For a atheist, such as Elizabeth, to say we can ONLY study law-like events that can be faithfully predicted is sheer hypocrisy on the atheist part, for indeed the atheist holds that strictly random, non-regular, non-law-like, events are responsible for why the universe, and all life in it, originated, and 'evolves', in the first place. The atheist’s worldview, far from demanding regularity, demands that random, by definition 'non-predictable', events be at the base of reality and of all life. Being 'non-predictably random' is the exact polar opposite of the predictability of science that Elizabeth accuses Theists of violating when they posit God. In truth, the atheist is just extremely prejudiced, and irrational, as to exactly what, or more precisely WHO, he/she will allow to be the source for his/her required source for the random, irregular, non-predicatable, non-law-like, events that he/she himself demands to be at the very basis of the creation of the universe and all life in it.,,, Moreover, unlike neo-Darwinian evolution which continually requires 'miraculous', non-law like, random events, (which is the antithesis of 'science' according to Elizabeth's own criteria) Intelligent Design finds itself only requiring 'random' top down implementation of novel genetic information at the inception of each parent species, with sub-speciation, from the parent species, following law-like adherence to the principle of genetic entropy. A principle that is in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, as well as in accordance with the law of Conservation of Information as laid out by Dr. Dembski and Marks.bornagain77_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth: What evidence suggests that FUCA and LUCA were not the same organism? I am curious. Please, detail.gpuccio_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

tbh, I'm not sure what Barry's point is. He, I'm glad to say, appears to agree with both me and Lewontin that scientific methodology is incapable of dealing with miraculous events because it its methodological principle is prediction. By definition, a miracle cannot be predicted. So I'm not really sure why we are arguing :) It isn't that scientists are somehow biased against miraculous hypotheses, but that they simply cannot test them.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

Mr. Arringotn obviously should have been Mr. Arrington. My aplogies for the typo.Acipenser_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

Mr. Arringotn, it is not so much of a hobby for me as it is for kairofocus it seems. He's posted thousands of words on the subject! One point I have is that if your stated goal was to help educate mirror via this: "Perhaps Mirror has never read evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin ’s famous “divine foot” screed." then I still don't understand the necessity of editing the paragraph. Doing so, IMO, only supported mirror's original point.Acipenser_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

No, I am not doing so, junkdnaforlife. I only ever mention it when people mention the LUCA. If there was a LUCA there must have been a FUCA. I think the evidence suggest that there were, and they were not the same organism. But it doesn't "have to be true", and may not be. So I'm still waiting for the example I asked for :)Elizabeth Liddle_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

Acipenser, it was my judgment (a correct judgment I should add) that the two sentences to which you refer did not change the sense of the quotation in the context of the purpose for which I was using it. This is quite a hobby horse of yours isn’t it?Barry Arrington_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

The fact that to my knowledge none have, UBP. I'm really not sure what your point is. (I'm assuming you mean "hypothesised" not "implemented" - I'm extremely sure that no ID proponent has implemented a miracle.)Elizabeth Liddle_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

Well, if you say silly things, UBP, you can’t really blame me for not understanding them, can you?
And what it is that now prevents you from listing any ID proponents that have implemented a miracle in their ID books and papers? Since after all, that is what the comment was about from the start. (I will return after a short break to address your answer to the music box question)Upright BiPed_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Mr. Arrington, was it bias that led you to excise the last two sentences in Lewontin's paragraph in the OP?Acipenser_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Oh, right, you said it. I thought you meant I said it. Well, if you say silly things, UBP, you can't really blame me for not understanding them, can you? Any let's see if I get on any better with your rephrased question:
a) the natural forces at work in the material of the music box, or b) by natural forces working elsewhere on the material that makes up the music box?
That's an either/or question? Sheesh. The first question is about proximal causes, the second is about distal causes. Both questions have answers. They aren't alternatives.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Mirror, you seem to be missing the point of my OP. Let me try to help you. In your comment you implied that “motivated reasoning” is somehow unique to ID. (If you didn’t, it is difficult to see the point of your comment). The point of my OP is that another word for “motivated reasoning” is bias, and everyone is biased toward one point of view or another, and I gave an example of an opponent of ID discussing his own biases, which, to his credit, he freely admits. Here’s another example of materialist “motivated reasoning”:
I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves . . . For myself . . . the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation . . . sexual [and] political.
Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the Methods Employed for Their Realization (New York: Harper Bros, 1937), 270. I hope you understand now. It really is quite a simple and obvious point.Barry Arrington_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Of somewhat related interest; Rainbows are formed by what are called ‘Quantum Catastrophes’. Thus, since I find Quantum Mechanical phenomena to be thoroughly Theistic, as to the necessity of providing a coherent non-local (beyond space and time) causation, that does not dissolve into absurdity as postulated ‘non-reductive’ materialistic causes do, then yes I actually do think God does form rainbows;
Quantum Catastrophes Excerpt: Catastrophes [1] are at the heart of many fascinating optical phenomena. The most prominent example of such a catastrophe is the rainbow. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~ulf/catastrophe.html 27 Amazing Miracles in Real Life Excerpt: Our son died of a brain tumor at 17. On the second anniversary of his death, as I was driving to work, a double rainbow appeared in the clear sky. One end was on the road in front of us and the other at the cemetery where he was buried. —Peggy H., Boone, North Carolina http://www.rd.com/family/27-amazing-miracles-in-real-life-2/
bornagain77_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

As to:
Of course you need to document someone returning thousands of years after his death.
Let's see Moses died 1406 BC and yet was seen alive again during Jesus's earthly ministry 1400 years later:
Matthew 17:3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
As for evidence that the Red Sea was parted, surprisingly, we now have some fairly strong evidence for that: The following videos have some fairly persuasive archaeological, and even geological, evidence that the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt actually did occur:
Exodus Revealed part 2 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bJ5JdBd4QU The Exodus Case Interviews with Lennart Moller - video http://www.prophecyinthenews.com/the-exodus-case-interviews-with-lennart-moller/
But you object that we need to explain the parting, 'naturally', by a Earthquake first??? And the cause of the Earthquake is what??? You say Material causation??? And material itself that makes up the earthquake, since it is not self sustaining as shown quantum mechanics, is caused by what??? Dang it back to a transcendent causation again!!! Oh well, at least you can take comfort in the fact that you have deluded yourself that it may have happened 'naturally' by purely material causes!!!. As to aliens, didn't Richard Dawkins mention something about aliens being more acceptable to him than God in his interview with Ben Stein??? Oh well so much for being unbiased in these questions of origins! further notes Historically, the Bible has indeed proven extremely resilient in its historical accuracy with stunning archaeological confirmation:
"In Extraordinary ways, modern archaeology has affirmed the historical core of the Old and New testaments - corroborating key points of the stories of Israel's patriarchs, the Exodus, the Davidic monarchy, and the life and times of Jesus." Jeffery Sheler - 'Is The Bible True', U.S. News and World Report, Oct. 25th, 1999, pg.52
This is a gem of a quote from a Bible skeptic who thought it unfair to use the Bible as a guide in archeology since,,,::
‘he knew immediately that, proceeding in this way (using the Bible as a guide), “she would certainly find that building” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/materialism-vs-science-in-archaeology-and-the-difference-it-makes/ Jericho Unearthed - Bible Confirmed Once Again - video http://vimeo.com/27636080 Archeology: Digging for the Truth of the Bible - Dr. Don Patton - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWawVUZg3Es
The following video is downright eye-opening with its evidence for authenticity of the Bible:
The Physical Ashen Remains Of Sodom and Gomorrah - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwTVFk1HK3Y
The Dead Sea Scrolls were of no minor impact when they were discovered
Dead Sea Scrolls - Dr. Don Patton - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEa1dGHyDJY Isaiah 53 and the Dead Sea Scrolls - verified prophecy before the birth of Christ http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/dead-sea-scrolls-2.htm
This is a interesting video that was surprising in the way it found evidence that the feeding of the 5000 was a authentic miracle:
Accuracy Of The Bible - Feeding 5000 - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6745194
bornagain77_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Mirrortothesun suffers from the usual materialist fallacy, the belief that atheism is rational... so theism by extension and definition is irrational. It is not necessary for Mirror to analyze or refute any of the arguments since they are being made by irrational agents... hmmm.... agents? No! naturalism doesn't allow for agency, rational or otherwise. I guess there is some other reason... hmmm... reason?dgosse_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Who said that the falling piano was a miracle?
Well, I first intimated it as such in my post at #3.0 where I was poking fun at the strawman objection that if should we recognize the blantantly observable physical inferences to design in nature, then "surely the regularities of nature will be burst wide open, being forever ruptured with pianos falling from the sky." Then I said it again directly in post #3.1.1 where I sated "Of course, falling pianos is code for miracles; so tell me who has worked miracles into their ID books and papers?" How you missed both of those references while still commenting on them is a mystery.
What it can’t do is posit “a miracle” as an explanation, because it isn’t one in a scientific sense – it’s completely non-predictive.
And I am still waiting on who "has worked miracles into their ID books and papers?"
Re your question about the musical box: No, I don’t have an answer because I don’t understand the question.
Regarding a melody coming from a music box, you stated: “The melody that emerges can of course be explained simply “in terms of natural forces”.” I then gave you two options. Either the melody is explicable by a) the natural forces at work in the material of the music box, or b) by natural forces working elsewhere on the material that makes up the music box? Quite frankly, I find it hard to believe that you don't see a distinction bretween those two.Upright BiPed_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

Who said that the falling piano was a miracle? I didn't say that science can't study alleged miracles. It can, and does. What it can't do is posit "a miracle" as an explanation, because it isn't one in a scientific sense - it's completely non-predictive. Re your question about the musical box: No, I don't have an answer because I don't understand the question.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

PaV: "If science can’t explain what happened, then of what utility is science? Doesn’t this point to the absolute limited utility of science?" Well, there yah go. If there's anything science can't explain, then what good is science? Let's see - you had ten or twenty thousand people who came from miles around and gathered in a field in the rain. They were there because three teenagers claimed to have met the Virgin Mary and they believed them. Most of them were hoping to see a miracle that day and they were psychologically primed to interpret anything unusual as the miracle they came to see. Then the sun came out and everybody stared at it. Try that sometime, just for a few seconds. See how everything dances? There were a lot of clouds around and there were probably some atmospheric events too since the sun was often shining through thin clouds. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_phenomenon for pictures of some of the astonishing and spectacular things that happen when you mix sunlight and thin clouds. Check out circumzenithal arcs, crepuscular rays, glories (they didn't see a glory at Fatima, but I saw one last month from an airplane and it knocked my socks off. Look at the pictures of the aircraft glories with the shadow of the airplane right in the center. It's enough to drive you to Jesus if you don't know what it is.) halos, cloud iridescence, light pillars and especially sun dogs. We can't tell for sure what happened that day because most of the witnesses were excited and descriptions contradict each other wildly. Some non-enthusiasts saw something, so it wasn't all excitement and imagination, but several million soldiers were outdoors fighting WW I at the time and none of them noticed the sun swooping around so whatever it was, it was local. Nevertheless, science can't say exactly what happened on that day, so what good is science anyway?dmullenix_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Of course you need to document someone returning thousands of years after his death. I see now you recognize the problem and have changed the question to that of a 'man'. A scientist must, of course, consider natural explanations. For example we know that after a earthquake tsunamis may be generated. We also know that these waves can travle very long distances and when they arrive on a shoreline the shallow waters adjacent to land are drawn far out to sea. That would need to be evaluated before someone concluded Divine interaction as the immediate cause of the problem. To not do so would be remiss and not doing science. So if the aliens created mankind are they now going to be worshipped as God? I forgot to mention that the aliens look like humans but acknowledge that they are the sole source of biological diversity on Earth, i.e., they created mankind in their image. Are they now the entity called God that is worshipped by many religious people?Acipenser_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Mirror,
I was obviously referring to the main entries to the blog, not to every single comment posted by every single poster, as one could infer in two seconds based on the fact that I am one of said posters.
Your comment that religious motivation "Drips from every post" is hardly true. And BTW, the "main entries" are typically referred to as the "OP" and the comments are typically referred to as the "posts". Your confusion in terms is duly noted. No problem.
Regardless, I have seen some of your posts in the past. You are religiously motivated and you do have fish to fry.
So I am guilty without evidence, based upon no more than your word being taken as a fact? Okay. But if that is the case, allow me to return the favor: Your comments are racially motivated. How do I know? Because I said so.
Regardless, I have seen some of your posts in the past. You are religiously motivated and you do have fish to fry.
Yes, no doubt, the judgement is in. All that is needed now is some evidence to corroborate it. Provide some, or recant, or be seen as disconnected from evidence as those to whom you wished to criticise.
While I certainly can’t prove it, your claim that you decided to convert to religion based on your philosophical analysis that materialism is inadequate certainly rings false, since materialism’s inadequacy has nothing to do with the truth of your Christian religious beliefs. If your claim is indeed true, then you did so on logically fallacious grounds.
What are you talking about? You must be confused about much more than the posts. Perhaps you should lay off the sweeping judgement program. I don't think its working for you. CheersUpright BiPed_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

The answer to your question is no, but it has nothing to do with the problem of whether science must proceed as if nature is all there is, which is the point at issue. Just to help you out here with my question, we don't need to document Moses' return. If, in the presence of a Meteorologist, a man stands in front of the Red Sea, raises his arms, and parts the waters, is the scientist required to assume that the event was the result of natural causes?StephenB_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

Hit what again? The fact that a Divine foot has no place in science? I notice that you ignored my request for clarification on your claim of my question being 'stupid-assed'? I hope we could agree that there is no way to discern the imput of a Divine or Demon foot in any experiment and that we depend on regular, predictable responses when conducting scientific investigations, e.g., dose-responce relationships in a organism exposed to a chemical compund.Acipenser_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

"Statement: All life originates from a series of chemical reactions that was deliberately initiated." Scott, what you need to do then is to write up some grant proposals outlining how you will go about investigating this hypothesis. In a grant proposal you include the background supporting information, the methods you will use with a justification of why those methods are appropriate, then state your deliverables. Once completed submit to the granting agency for review. To my knowledge no one from the ID camp has taken these steps. In fact the Templeton foundation was a bit perplexed when no one from the ID camp responed to their request for proposals. The DI institute would be another source of funding for such research lines. There are also numerous other agencies who solicit grant proposals that may be appropriate for submission.Acipenser_{October 14, 2011
October
10
Oct
14
14
2011
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply