Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The smog is beginning to clear around hydroxychloroquine

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
arroba Email

Revealing the way politics has invaded science all the way down:

We live in a culture that has uncritically accepted that every domain of life is political, and that even things we think are not political are so, that all human enterprises are merely power struggles, that even the idea of “truth” is a fantasy, and really a matter of imposing one’s view on others. For a while, some held out hope that science remained an exception to this. That scientists would not bring their personal political biases into their science, and they would not be mobbed if what they said was unwelcome to one faction or another. But the sordid 2020 drama of hydroxychloroquine—which saw scientists routinely attacked for critically evaluating evidence and coming to politically inconvenient conclusions—has, for many, killed those hopes…

What is unique about the hydroxychloroquine discussion is that it is a story of “unwishful thinking”—to coin a term for the perverse hope that some good outcome that most sane people would earnestly desire, will never come to pass. It’s about how, in the midst of a pandemic, thousands started earnestly hoping—before the science was really in—that a drug, one that might save lives at a comparatively low cost, would not actually do so. Reasonably good studies were depicted as sloppy work, fatally flawed. Many have excelled in making counterfeit bills that look real, but few have excelled at making real bills look counterfeit. As such, as we sort this out, we shall observe not only some “tricks” about how to make bad studies look like good ones, but also how to make good studies look like bad ones. And why should anyone facing a pandemic wish to discredit potentially lifesaving medications? Well, in fact, this ability can come in very handy in this midst of a plague, when many medications and vaccines are competing to Save the World—and for the billions of dollars that will go along with that…

Philosophically, and psychologically, it is a fantastic spectacle to behold, a reversal, the magnitude and the chutzpah of which must inspire awe: a public health establishment, showing extraordinary risk aversion to medications and treatments that are extremely well known, and had been used by billions, suddenly throwing caution to the wind and endorsing the rollout of treatments that are entirely novel—and about which we literally can’t possibly know anything, as regards to their long-term effects. Their manufacturers know this well themselves, which is why they have aimed for, insisted on, and have already been granted indemnification—guaranteed, by those same public health officials and government that they will not be held legally accountable should their product cause injury.

Norman Doidge, a contributing writer for Tablet, is a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and author of The Brain That Changes Itself and The Brain’s Way of Healing.

Norman Doidge, “Hydroxychloroquine: A Morality Tale” at Tablet

There’s a good chance that, even though most people don’t directly say it, the reputation of “science” will never recover from this episode. People will disbelieve politely but thoroughly.

Comments
It's so bad JVL that you and your materialist brethren can not defend your position with facts, only with baseless opinions. Darwinian-Naturalism is Pseudo-Science
The biological evolution of Neo-Darwinism can be simply expressed as the process of natural selection acting on random genetic mutation for a long time. In fact, except for point-mutations, all other genetic mutations are non-random. In mathematics, randomness refers to the uncertainty of process results. In order to insist that genetic mutations are random, Neo-Darwinists define the mutation randomness as that mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful, this is, they define randomness as the uncertainty of process effects, not the uncertainty of process results. This definition artificially converts all non-random mutations into random mutations. This is an academic fraud, as bad as faking data. Neo-Darwinists’ definition of randomness is not based on facts, but on their Naturalistic position. Naturalism holds that all natural phenomena, including all biological processes, follow the natural laws, so all natural phenomena have or will have scientific explanations without the need for God. From a Naturalistic point of view, driven by directionless and purposeless natural forces, genetic mutations must be random. Darwinian-Naturalism is a pseudoscience under the guidance of philosophy.
Truthfreedom
265 JVL
I am not going to take you seriously anymore.
So you are quitting. Ok. :) That shows you have a weak position that you can not defend and you are giving up. Again: apart from your blatant double standards and hypocrisy, general equivocation and word games: do you have anything of substance to bring to the table? Are Mutations Really Random?
So the assumption that genetic mutations are random has, strictly speaking, no empirical basis. Its motivation is merely subjective: many cannot fathom any plausible mechanism that could impart a pattern on the mutations themselves. Compelling as this may sound, lack of imagination and a subjective sense of plausibility aren’t valid reasons to pronounce scientific facts.
Truthfreedom
ID is falsifiable. There is a huge difference between being falsifiable and being unable to be falsified. ID's claims can bet tested. Unguided evolution doesn't make testable claims ET
JVL:
That is incoherent.
Nope. You are just too stupid to understand it.
Very obviously and many, many times you have stated that it’s not possible for proponents of unguided evolution to prove their point.
And no one can falsify the claim that 1+1=2. No one can falsify the claim that Stonehenge is an artifact.
I’ve asked for better evidence, not proof.
The only "better evidence" is proof. What ID has is by far more than any alternative has.
You are allowed your opinion, no matter how skewed and uninformed it is.
What I said is all facts. Clearly you are the uniformed one here, JVL. It is very telling that you have FAILED to produce any models for unguided evolution. You have FAILED to produce any analogies.
And I know from experience that no matter what evidence is brought to the forum you will claim it’s insuffecient regarding refuting a design inference.
And I know from experience that you are a bluffing fool and a liar. Again, the ONLY reason probability arguments exist is because your side has nothing. IF you did it would just be presented to refute Dembski. The only reason the paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" exists is because your side doesn't have any experimental evidence to support its claims. If it did they would just be presented to refute Behe. ET
Can Darwinism Be Falsified?
The Darwinian narrative isn’t really science. It’s a historical narrative without witnesses. A just-so story. That’s really the bottom line in all this. A bedtime story that comforts atheists is being labeled as science when it’s really just a story.
Truthfreedom
265 JVL
That is your opinion.
Other opinions are available. Thank God I care about facts. Again: ZERO proof of "unguided evolution". Truthfreedom
265 JVL
Your mind is made up, your position is unfalsifiable. Your position is not scientific.
So are "unguided evolution"/ "random mutations". Philosophical garbage. Opinions in the hairdressing. Truthfreedom
Truthfreedom: You don’t have a clue about the difference: – methodological naturalism – metaphysical naturalism Maybe I don't. Maybe I do. But you're just shouting me down because I disagree with you. There’s zero proof of “unguided evolution”/ “random mutations”. That is your opinion. Many, many working scientists and philosopers and even theologians disagree. So you have your weird belief about nature creating itself and you being a useless primate and not having free-will and other general self-refuting non-sense. And that’s laughable but you are free to believe childish things. You are assuming a lot of beliefs on my part. Why don't you actually try and deal with what I actually think instead of what you think I should think? Or is that too difficult for you? Is it easier for you to just label anyone you disagree with as a lost and imbecilic person? But to claim science being on your philosophical side? Nuh nuh. Zero, rien, nihil, no way. Philosophical presuppositions (and stupid ones) is what materialists have. That’s all. Seems like you are not actually interested in a dialogue or an honest discussion. Your mind is made up, your position is unfalsifiable. Your position is not scientific. By that criteria I am not going to take you seriously anymore. JVL
263 JVL
Your own personal position is unfalsifiable.
So is "unguided evolution". Truthfreedom
ET: Still wrong. I have established that although it is falsifiable it is unable to be falsified. I even presented examples- Stonehenge; 1+1=2 and many, many more. Science is loaded with such things. That is incoherent. Ask Truthfreedom. If he has the integrity to answer honestly. Again you have it backwards. I have said exactly what it would take to change my mind. On the other hand you just dismiss all evidence for design and present us with nothing but bluffs, lies and promissory notes. Very obviously and many, many times you have stated that it's not possible for proponents of unguided evolution to prove their point. Therefore, you, personally, have an unfalsifiable position. You have been very, very clear about that. Wow. That’s quite rich from someone demanding proof for Intelligent Design. I've asked for better evidence, not proof. I guess you haven't been paying attention. JVL mentions models- there aren’t any models that demonstrate the efficacy of unguided evolution. OTOH genetic algorithms exemplify the efficacy of telic evolution, ie evolution by means of telic/ guided processes. There aren’t any models nor analogies with respect to unguided evolution in the context of it’s being able to create something more than diseases and deformities. You are allowed your opinion, no matter how skewed and uninformed it is. And I know from experience that no matter what evidence is brought to the forum you will claim it's insuffecient regarding refuting a design inference. And, quite recently, it has been discerned that your own personal position is unfalsifiable. So, honestly, why should anyone spend time discussing any of these issues with you? JVL
JVL You don't have a clue about the difference: - methodological naturalism - metaphysical naturalism But the only important part: There's zero proof of "unguided evolution"/ "random mutations". So you have your weird belief about nature creating itself and you being a useless primate and not having free-will and other general self-refuting non-sense. And that's laughable but you are free to believe childish things. But to claim science being on your philosophical side? Nuh nuh. Zero, rien, nihil, no way. Philosophical presuppositions (and stupid ones) is what materialists have. That's all. Truthfreedom
Truthfreedom: But you are philosophically illiterate (and not very bright and you bold like a lunatic). You can stop conversing with me anytime. But you don't. Why is that? Sweetheart, do you understand the difference between: – methodological naturalism – and metaphysical naturalism? Yes, I do. AND, Sweetheart, I'm not that kind of guy. JVL
JVL mentions models- there aren't any models that demonstrate the efficacy of unguided evolution. OTOH genetic algorithms exemplify the efficacy of telic evolution, ie evolution by means of telic/ guided processes. There aren't any models nor analogies with respect to unguided evolution in the context of it's being able to create something more than diseases and deformities. ET
Mac and cheese:
Your comment suggests that there would be a point to some discussions with ET.
Not for people, like yourself and JVL, who only have nonsense to spew, anyway. Unless you like being a proven loser. :razz: ET
JVL:
Apparently you don’t understand how science works.
Wow. That's quite rich from someone demanding proof for Intelligent Design. JVL is obviously a hypocrite ET
JVL:
I also noted that it was anti-design.
Yes, but only via bald assertion.
Yes, you have already established that your position is unfalsifiable.
Still wrong. I have established that although it is falsifiable it is unable to be falsified. I even presented examples- Stonehenge; 1+1=2 and many, many more. Science is loaded with such things.
In which case further discussion with you is pointless as there is nothing that would make you change your mind.
Again you have it backwards. I have said exactly what it would take to change my mind. On the other hand you just dismiss all evidence for design and present us with nothing but bluffs, lies and promissory notes. Anyone who can follow along can see that, JVL. ET
255 JVL
You can’t ‘prove’ a scientific position. You can only build up enough evidence to make doubt a much less likely stance.
Duh duh. Which is akin to 'prove' a position (enough warrant). But you are philosophically illiterate (and not very bright and you bold like a lunatic). Sweetheart, do you understand the difference between: - methodological naturalism - and metaphysical naturalism? Truthfreedom
Truthfreedom: Then, kindly shut up and do not opine about theology. I'm not, you are. I am pointing out what you seem to believe in. If that's not right then please elaborate. No proof then of the Universe “creating itself” (which is ridiculous). No one has a 'proof'. Some have models. Personally, I don't find any of them absolutely convincing. So I'll delay my vote. Nope. Unpredictable by mathematical models and “unguided” are not the same. “Unguided”= unwarranted philosophical assumption. Okay, explain how guided could appear to be random. Or why it would do. So no proof. “Random” has zero meaning. Unpredictable by mathematical models and “random” are not the same. You're clearly not a mathematician. Sigh. Again: zero proof of “unguided evolution” /”the Universe created itself”/ “there is not a Mind out there”. No one has a 'proof'. Apparently you don't understand how science works. Sigh. Mathematics has proofs, science does not. Scientific knowledge is provisional, i.e. subject to revision when new data or evidence is found. You can't 'prove' a scientific position. You can only build up enough evidence to make doubt a much less likely stance. JVL
252 JVL
I know nothing about theology.
Then, kindly shut up and do not opine about theology. No proof then of the Universe "creating itself" (which is ridiculous). Thank you.
I think any good university level book on evolution presents lots of good physical evidence that evolution is unguided.
Nope. Unpredictable by mathematical models and "unguided" are not the same. "Unguided"= unwarranted philosophical assumption.
Are you really too lazy to look for the research on this yourself?
So no proof. "Random" has zero meaning. Unpredictable by mathematical models and "random" are not the same. Again: zero proof of "unguided evolution" /"the Universe created itself"/ "there is not a Mind out there". Thank you! Truthfreedom
Mac McTavish: You are far too generous. Your comment suggests that there would be a point to some discussions with ET. ? When he gets overly abusive and profane I'll quit but up to that point I find his protestations somewhat amusing since he's been saying the same thing with no real evidence for years and years. You'd think even he would admit that there is no such thing as ID research going on anywhere. You'd think he'd be embarrassed 'cause the ID people with the money (The Discovery Institute for one) aren't actually working hard to support his view. You'd think that even he would begin to realise that ID is not gaining any ground in the scientific community and that maybe they should consider looking for more evidence of at least the presence of a designer. You'd think but . . . JVL
Truthfreedom: Nice dodge. Proof of it (an act of creation) not being possible: 1. __________ I know nothing about theology. If you want to believe some undefined and undetected and unsourced being created the whole universe and its laws and then just buggered off to let it all unwind as it would then that's fine with me. Since there is no evidence that that is the case I'll pass. Nor there is any hard physical evidence that establishes evolution is “unguided”. I think any good university level book on evolution presents lots of good physical evidence that evolution is unguided. I don't really feel the need to reiterate things you can go find for yourself. Proof of “random” mutations (not assumptions): Are you really too lazy to look for the research on this yourself? It has everything to do with this thread. Kastrup is showing that the mantra “random mutations” is an assumption without scientific proof. But you can show the undeniable proof of “random mutations” (“proof that according to you, #153, does “not exist”. Lol. Sigh. You want me to spend time tracking down and finding papers and research addressing well-accepted science just so you can nit-pick it and try and deny it? I'll think about it. Here's one early experiment: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_07 Gee, this one is from a religious forum: https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-evidence-for-random-mutations.207446/ JVL
248 JVL
Yes, you have already established that your position is unfalsifiable.
So is "unguided evolution". Truthfreedom
JVL
Yes, you have already established that your position is unfalsifiable. In which case further discussion with you is pointless...
You are far too generous. Your comment suggests that there would be a point to some discussions with ET. :) Mac McTavish
247 JVL
Some deists do say things like that. Are you a deist?
Nice dodge. Proof of it (an act of creation) not being possible: 1. __________
There’s no hard physical evidence it is true. So, it’s a hypothesis that has not been established.
Nor there is any hard physical evidence that establishes evolution is "unguided". Physical proof of "unguided" evolution: 1. __________
Other opinions are available. But since you’ve probably dismissed all the arguments against your stance I doubt I have anything new to add.
Good to know then that neither philosophy nor science are based on opinions, but on facts. Opinions in the hairdressing. Proof of "random" mutations (not assumptions): 1. _________
I’m choosing not to respond since it’s not part of the main point of this thread.
It has everything to do with this thread. Kastrup is showing that the mantra "random mutations" is an assumption without scientific proof. But you can show us the undeniable proof of "random mutations" ("proof" that according to you, #153, does "not exist"). Lol.
And since I consider that mutations being random with respect to fitness is well established. 
What you "consider" and what is true do not have to be the same thing. Proof of "mutations" being random (you need an account of all mutations since life began): 1. _________
You just gotta love people who claim that unobserved science ain’t science asking for something that could not possibly have been observed.
Nice dodge. If it could not have been observed, you don't have the right to claim it's all "random mutations". Proof of "random" mutations (not partial assumptions): 1. _________
Choosing not to respond is not the same as being unable to respond. I decide when I want to respond and how much time I want to spend balanced against the effect I think responding will have.
Nice blah blah/ dodge. Sorry way to announce you have nothing. Proof of "random mutations" (you need the whole account since life began): 1. ________ We're waiting. Truthfreedom
ET: JVL, you can’t even follow along. The quote I furnished was in response to your demand. And although they may say stuff about natural selection they still don’t have any evidence for its efficacy. Yes, the quote did address the question nicely. I also noted that it was anti-design. We can dismiss anyone who says that nature produced the genetic code and all it requires. That is because they don’t have any evidence for such a thing nor do they know how to test the claim. Yes, you have already established that your position is unfalsifiable. In which case further discussion with you is pointless as there is nothing that would make you change your mind. JVL
Truthfreedom: Why not? What if ‘natural selection’ is part of the process of the design? To not clutter the biosphere for example? Some deists do say things like that. Are you a deist? How could you prove it’s not true? (I have highlighted “prove”, not “assume”). (The “proof” that according to you does not exist, lol). There's no hard physical evidence it is true. So, it's a hypothesis that has not been established. Mmm… “Unguided” evolution is a extraordinary claim with ZERO proof. Other opinions are available. But since you've probably dismissed all the arguments against your stance I doubt I have anything new to add. We’re awaiting your reply to my # 232 (that you have conveniently forgotten). I'm choosing not to respond since it's not part of the main point of this thread and since I consider that mutations being random with respect to fitness is well established. I've got nothing to say that hasn't already been said over and over and over again. Proof of “random” mutations? (considering all mutations since life began): You just gotta love people who claim that unobserved science ain't science asking for something that could not possibly have been observed. It’s very telling that you (a materialist) can not defend your position. Choosing not to respond is not the same as being unable to respond. I decide when I want to respond and how much time I want to spend balanced against the effect I think responding will have. JVL
Upright BiPed: And you are still playing the transparent deception that this conversation is about design versus naturalism. This whole site is about design vs naturalism. It's at the heart of almost everything posted here. It’s embarrassing. If you want to quit, quit. JVL
We can dismiss anyone who says that nature produced the genetic code and all it requires. That is because they don't have any evidence for such a thing nor do they know how to test the claim. That JVL can't get that through his thick skull just proves he is on an anti-science agenda. ET
JVL, you can't even follow along. The quote I furnished was in response to your demand. And although they may say stuff about natural selection they still don't have any evidence for its efficacy. So that would be a major problem. ET
JVL *Crickets chirping.* Chirp, chirp, chirp. Zero proof of "random mutations" then. It's very telling that you (a materialist) can not defend your position.
To demonstrate that the genetic mutations underlying evolution are random, one would need a fairly complete record of (a) the mutations themselves, as they occurred throughout the history of life on Earth, including those discarded by natural selection; and (b) the corresponding phenotypic characteristics. Only then could one run a randomness test to verify that no phenotypic trends are present before natural selection plays its role. Of course, the fossil record is far too sparse to allow for such a test. https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2019/08/evolution-is-true-but-are-mutations.html
Kastrup is an intelligent man. :) Truthfreedom
239 JVL
Both are extraordinary cases and would require extraordinary evidence.
Mmm... "Unguided" evolution is a extraordinary claim with ZERO proof. We're awaiting your reply to my # 232 (that you have conveniently forgotten). Proof of "random" mutations? (considering all mutations since life began): 1. __________ Truthfreedom
237 JVL
So, no design suggested.
Why not? What if 'natural selection' is part of the process of the design? To not clutter the biosphere for example? How could you prove it's not true? (I have highlighted "prove", not "assume"). (The "proof" that according to you does not exist, lol). Truthfreedom
.
Just because I said something does not mean I would trust myself to evaluate the signal or object in question.
No one is suggesting that you personally should bust into SETI and evaluate the signal yourself. When the need to obfuscate causes you to say stupid things and take stupid positions, perhaps it is best to rethink. And you are still playing the transparent deception that this conversation is about design versus naturalism. Deception and obfuscation JVL? It's embarrassing. Upright BiPed
Upright BiPed: in both cases I would wait for knowledgeable scientists in the pertinent field to weigh in on the matter. I don't know exactly what kind of interstellar signal would be sufficient which is why I said "something like . . . "; I'm not even sure how compressed data is evaluated. Anyway, it hasn't happened yet. Likewise I don't know exactly what kind of biological structure would be enough for mainstream biologists to come to a design conclusion and that hasn't happened yet either. Just because I said something does not mean I would trust myself to evaluate the signal or object in question. Which is why I would depend on more knowledgeable views. And, in that way, I am not contradictory. Both are extraordinary cases and would require extraordinary evidence. JVL
.
UB: JVL, why do you apply a flagrant double standard to physical evidence in order to deny the inference to intelligence? You actually have that answer, I don’t. JVL: I don’t think so.
You don't know why you apply a double standard? You say things and don't know why you say them?
Doesn’t look like we’ll resolve that disagreement does it?
Not if you apply a double standard in your reasoning and then allow yourself to pretend you don't know why you do and say the things you do and say. This is child-like excuse-making. You are not a child:
-- Double Standard -- JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data. So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain. UB: Why the double standard? JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available
Upright BiPed
ET: From the quote you furnished:
This review intends to underline the scientific nature of biosemiotics, and to this purpose, it aims to prove (1) that the cell is a real semiotic system, (2) that the genetic code is a real code, (3) that evolution took place by natural selection and by natural conventions, and (4) that it was natural conventions, i.e., organic codes, that gave origin to the great novelties of macroevolution
So, no design suggested. JVL
Upright BiPed: JVL, why do you apply a flagrant double standard to physical evidence in order to deny the inference to intelligence? You actually have than answer, I don’t. I don't think so. You think I do. Doesn't look like we'll resolve that disagreement does it? Anyway, it is clear that at least some biologists have taken the time to consider the affect of semiotic theory on modern evolutionary theory.and, even if they are a bit fractured in their views, they do not seem to have come to a consensus that the genetic system was designed. I didn't see any statement like that at least. Nor have I seen such a statement by Dr Pattee. I understand why you choose to focus on his work as he seems to garner a lot of respect from others in the field. I'm not sure it is the case that semiotics has not been duly considered by the biological community. At the very least it seems clear that those who have considered it can not come to a clear conclusion. Perhaps that is because those who disagree with design cannot let go of their unguided bias; that's impossible for me or anyone to say without knowing the people personally. All I can go with is their published statements. JVL
From the first wikipedia biosemiotics reference: Biosemiotics: a new understanding of life
Biosemiotics is the idea that life is based on semiosis, i.e., on signs and codes. This idea has been strongly suggested by the discovery of the genetic code, but so far it has made little impact in the scientific world and is largely regarded as a philosophy rather than a science. The main reason for this is that modern biology assumes that signs and meanings do not exist at the molecular level, and that the genetic code was not followed by any other organic code for almost four billion years, which implies that it was an utterly isolated exception in the history of life. These ideas have effectively ruled out the existence of semiosis in the organic world, and yet there are experimental facts against all of them. If we look at the evidence of life without the preconditions of the present paradigm, we discover that semiosis is there, in every single cell, and that it has been there since the very beginning. This is what biosemiotics is really about. It is not a philosophy. It is a new scientific paradigm that is rigorously based on experimental facts. Biosemiotics claims that the genetic code (1) is a real code and (2) has been the first of a long series of organic codes that have shaped the history of life on our planet. The reality of the genetic code and the existence of other organic codes imply that life is based on two fundamental processes—copying and coding—and this in turn implies that evolution took place by two distinct mechanisms, i.e., by natural selection (based on copying) and by natural conventions (based on coding). It also implies that the copying of genes works on individual molecules, whereas the coding of proteins operates on collections of molecules, which means that different mechanisms of evolution exist at different levels of organization. This review intends to underline the scientific nature of biosemiotics, and to this purpose, it aims to prove (1) that the cell is a real semiotic system, (2) that the genetic code is a real code, (3) that evolution took place by natural selection and by natural conventions, and (4) that it was natural conventions, i.e., organic codes, that gave origin to the great novelties of macroevolution. Biological semiosis, in other words, is a scientific reality because the codes of life are experimental realities. The time has come, therefore, to acknowledge this fact of life, even if that means abandoning the present theoretical framework in favor of a more general one where biology and semiotics finally come together and become biosemiotics. (bold added)
CHALLENGES THE NORMATIVE VIEWS OF BIOLOGY ET
CHALLENGES THE NORMATIVE VIEWS OF BIOLOGY JVL:
What does that mean exactly? Please back up your answer with evidence from the source and not just your assumptions.
It means it challenges the mainstream views, JVL. Buy a dictionary and learn how to use it. ET
.
I didn’t say it was the consensus
You posited a double standard in your reasoning and when it was pointed out for anyone with a pulse to see, you started trying to change the subject to design vs the mainstream consensus (of which biosemiotics is surely not part) in order to distract from the glaring fact that your reasoning is fatally flawed. And with all your might, that is still what you are trying to do.
considering aspects of semiotics as they pertain to evolution
Some do and some don’t. Biosemiosis is not a matured discipline; it is broken into factions that have different terms and assumptions. That is why I follow Dr. Pattee, JVL; because he circumvents the biosemiotic rhetoric and follows the physics instead. Did you know any of that about biosemiotics, JVL? No you didn’t. So you posited a flagrant double standard in your reasoning, and when unable to un-ass yourself of that double-standard, you appealed to a scientifically irrelevant mainstream consensus as a transparent dodge, then found out that they don’t even consider the physical conditions of semiosis (which you already affirmed), so then you switched to the outlier Biosemiotics for a new consensus to appeal to, only to find out that there is no consensus in that consensus, all the while you are pumping the false idea that’s this discussion is about design versus naturalism — which it is not. It is about the unvarnished double standard you inject into your reasoning when confronted with the science and history surrounding the symbolic nature of the gene system, and contrasted that with what you will accept as universal evidence in the SETI project. You actually sound like I am arguing that mainstream science believes in design and you are trying to convince me otherwise. The twisting and turning is rampant, and unnecessary. I answered your little stinger question long ago. It remains a distraction. Instead of asking me a question that you can answer yourself, why don’t you be a big boy and answer it. JVL, why do you apply a flagrant double standard to physical evidence in order to deny the inference to intelligence? You actually have than answer, I don’t. Upright BiPed
JVL There is a challenge from another thread that you have not solved. Regarding this "randomness" thing:
Are Mutations Really Random? "The problem is that evidence for natural selection is not evidence for random mutations: nature will select for survival fitness whether the mutations themselves follow a trend or not. To demonstrate that the genetic mutations underlying evolution are random, one would need a fairly complete record of (a) the mutations themselves, as they occurred throughout the history of life on Earth, including those discarded by natural selection; and (b) the corresponding phenotypic characteristics. Only then could one run a randomness test to verify that no phenotypic trends are present before natural selection plays its role. Of course, the fossil record is far too sparse to allow for such a test. So the assumption that genetic mutations are random has, strictly speaking, no empirical basis. Its motivation is merely subjective: many cannot fathom any plausible mechanism that could impart a pattern on the mutations themselves. Compelling as this may sound, lack of imagination and a subjective sense of plausibility aren’t valid reasons to pronounce scientific facts. The spirit of scientific investigation is precisely to look for yet-undiscovered natural patterns, thereby implicitly assuming—if anything—that they, in fact, exist. To affirm, on account of subjective dispositions, that genetic mutations are pattern-less is arguably antithetical to the very spirit of science." https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2019/08/evolution-is-true-but-are-mutations.html
Truthfreedom
ET: CHALLENGES THE NORMATIVE VIEW OF BIOLOGY What does that mean exactly? Please back up your answer with evidence from the source and not just your assumptions. JVL
Upright BiPed: 3) Biosemiotics is not anywhere even near the consensus OoL researchers you appeal to, and this STILL doesn’t relieve your argument from its flawed double standard. It’s just a distraction. I didn't say it was the consensus but it clearly is a significant area of study and also points out that there are working biologist who have and are considering aspects of semiotics as they pertain to evolution. AND YET they still are NOT coming to a designed conclusion. Why is that do you think? How can it be that there are organisations and journals dedicated to semiotic in biology and yet they still are not coming to a designed conclusion? JVL
"The field, which challenges normative views of biology, is generally divided between theoretical and applied biosemiotics." CHALLENGES THE NORMATIVE VIEW OF BIOLOGY ET
Actually, there are whole books about biosemiotics. https://web.archive.org/web/20151207062949/http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/Courses/SE302/ste1/ste1.html And there used to be a journal (it looks defunct now) https://web.archive.org/web/20170922170826/http://see.library.utoronto.ca/pages/SEED_Journal.html Actually, it looks like a lot of biologists have, in fact, considered semiotics and evolution and not come to the conclusion that the genetic system was designed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosemiotics JVL
There isn't one working scientist who can disagree with the design inference for the genetic code on scientific grounds. And we are more than OK with that. ET
JVL:
But my point is that very, very few have concluded that it was designed.
Your point is a lie because you don't have any idea. Again, the mere fact that there isn't any evidence that nature could do it means the claim can be dismissed. Your alleged scientists lose. ET
. 1) The attention I think it deserves? IT is a description of the physical system as it actually is. Do you not think it deserves attention? Really, do you not? (This is a rhetorical question, I realize you are unable to answer it in earnest). 2) I am not criticizing you for others, I am pointing out that the irrelevant consensus you pose to distract from your double standard is itself toothless. 3) Biosemiotics is not anywhere even near the consensus OoL researchers you appeal to, and this STILL doesn’t relieve your argument from its flawed double standard. It’s just a distraction. Upright BiPed
Gosh, it looks like there are a lot of biologists who have considered semiotics. https://www.biosemiotics.org/what-is/ https://www.biosemiotics.org/what-is/publications/ JVL
219 JVL
Again, other opinions are available.
Then it's fantastic news that neither science nor philosophy are based on opinions, but on facts. Opinions in the hairdressing. Truthfreedom
This particular paper seems to be somewhat in support of design but I've just read the introduction. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286892978_Towards_a_Theory_of_Evolution_of_Semiotic_Systems JVL
217 JVL
Oh well.
What a powerful retort! Oh my! Well, then you are trying to gather scientific"proof" to support your materialist philosophy, although you say: "there are no proofs in science or philosophy". Which shows you are an irrational H. sapiens that clutters the threads for the sake of it.
I just didn’t have a reason to look.
See above. You are a waste of time. And we already knew it. But may-be onlookers who don't. And now, they know it. :) We are mopping the floor with you, kiddo. Truthfreedom
Upright BiPed: You can’t, because they haven’t, so your irrelevant appeal doesn’t even have any teeth My point was I don't know if they have or nave not given that work the attention you think it deserves. Have you looked to see if they have? There's no point in criticising me for something that others have or have not done. As a distraction from your double standard, you are left to argue that people have come to a different conclusion about evidence they don’t even address. Maybe you should ask some of them to see what they make of it? It seems to me your real argument is with the working scientists who disagree with your conclusion. JVL
ET: Science has delivered the goods. However, unguided evolution has not delivered anything but lies, misconceptions and misrepresentations. Other opinions are available. That is nothing but a cowardly bluff. It is clear that no one has asked the working scientists that question pertaining to the genetic code. Maybe so. Why don't you ask them then? Again- No one has concluded, scientifically, that nature produced the genetic code. No one. No one knows how it was 'created'. But my point is that very, very few have concluded that it was designed. So, at the very least, the vast majority of scientists do not believe we have exhausted the machinations of natural processes. The only people who think that nature didit are people who don’t care about science or reality. Again, other opinions are available. JVL
JVL is happy to bluff and lie his way through any discussion. Pathetic, really. ET
Truthfreedom: Duh duh. Then, science “proves” things (your “darwinian” worldview for example). Although you say that “it proves nothing and you don’t ask for proof”. You seem really conflicted, kiddo. Oh well. Lololol! A nice scientific are you. I just didn't have a reason to look. JVL
. JVL, you weren’t asked if the consensus thinks the system was designed. You make a scientifically irrelevant appeal to consensus, and were then asked to provide a quote from their research demonstrating that they have even engaged the evidence. You can’t, because they haven’t, so your irrelevant appeal doesn’t even have any teeth. As a distraction from your double standard, you are left to argue that people have come to a different conclusion about evidence they don’t even address. Upright BiPed
214 ET
No one has concluded, scientifically, that nature produced the genetic code.
True. The "unguided" part is not science, it's philosophical speculation. But according to JVL, "there are no proofs neither in philosophy nor in science". Which is quite bizarre. :) Truthfreedom
Again- No one has concluded, scientifically, that nature produced the genetic code. No one. The only people who think that nature didit are people who don't care about science or reality. ET
208 JVL
Nope. I haven’t even looked
Lololol! A nice scientific are you. Truthfreedom
JVL:
I haven’t even looked because it’s clear that almost all working scientists do not think the genetic system was designed.
That is nothing but a cowardly bluff. It is clear that no one has asked the working scientists that question pertaining to the genetic code. It is also clear, from the lack of peer-review, that not one scientist knows how nature could have produced it. So we can dismiss anyone who says nature did it because they don't have any evidence for it. ET
Science has delivered the goods. However, unguided evolution has not delivered anything but lies, misconceptions and misrepresentations. ET
209 JVL
Anyway, science seems to work pretty well most of the time. It certainly has been delivering the goods for the last 150 years or so.
Duh duh. Then, science "proves" things (your "darwinian" worldview for example). Although you say that "it proves nothing and you don't ask for proof". You seem really conflicted, kiddo. Truthfreedom
Truthfreedom: Donald Hoffman’s Evolutionary Argument Against Reality: if “darwinian evolution” were true, we would not be seeing reality as it is. Maybe. Anyway, science seems to work pretty well most of the time. It certainly has been delivering the goods for the last 150 years or so. JVL
Upright BiPed: Can you provide a quote from a “consensus” OoL researcher that actually engages in full the evidence of the symbolic nature of the gene system, its requirements of complimentary constraints and semantic closure in order to begin to function? Nope. I haven't even looked because it's clear that almost all working scientists do not think the genetic system was designed. Maybe they haven't fully engaged or understood the work you reference. Maybe they have looked at it but not felt it ruled out natural processes. It's clear that much of work you reference is considered important and some of it's fairly famous so I still find it odd that so many people come to a different conclusion than you. JVL
. Can you provide a quote from a “consensus” OoL researcher that actually engages in full the evidence of the symbolic nature of the gene system, its requirements of complimentary constraints and semantic closure in order to begin to function? The closest you might come is likely Koonin talking about the requirement of a “coupled” system — and he concluded that we’ll need an unlimited multiverse in order to give dynamics enough opportunities to produce such a thing. Is this what you had in mind when you talked about the “plausible” evidence of the consensus? I will await your quote. Upright BiPed
203
I’m not contradicting myself,
Yes, you are. You are asking for scientific *proof* because according to you, "good science" maps reality (over time we get closer and closer to knowing the "outside world"). But then you say science offers "proof of anything".
It seems to reflect observed data pretty well though!
May-be, may-be. Observed data and "reality" are not the same. Remember Hoffmman's simulation? Donald Hoffman's Evolutionary Argument Against Reality: if "darwinian evolution" were true, we would not be seeing reality as it is. We've already talked about this. Truthfreedom
It is very telling that not one of JVL's working scientists has any clue as to how nature could have produced the genetic code. Not one of them knows how to test that claim. That says it all, really. ET
Upright BiPed: That question is posed as a distraction from your double standard, JVL; it doesn’t change the physical evidence or the history of science , and I’ve already answered it. But it does bring up the point that even though the work you reference is widely accepted almost all working scientists have not come to the same conclusion as you regarding the genetic system. Which means either they're missing some point or they're lying. OR you're missing some point that they see or understand; I am quite certain that you are being straight and honest. JVL
Truthfreedom: “More refined and accurate” means that over time the models get closer to what’s “out there” (World). That’s “proof” that we are correctly maping reality. You contradict yourself again. I'm not contradicting myself, you're claiming I'm looking for proof which I am not doing. Do you always try and tell people what they mean even when they tell you you're incorrect? That's kind of rude isn't it? Oh thanks for the heads-up. Then “darwinian evolution” isn’t proof of anything. It seems to reflect observed data pretty well though! But it clearly isn't complete; new bits and bobs are being discovered all the time. JVL
200 JVL
Over time the models get more and more refined and accurate.
"More refined and accurate" means that over time the models get closer to what's "out there" (World). That's "proof" that we are correctly mapping reality. You contradict yourself again.
No proof of anything.
Oh thanks for the heads-up. Then "darwinian evolution" isn't proof of anything. Truthfreedom
. That question is posed as a distraction from your double standard, JVL; it doesn’t change the physical evidence or the history of science , and I’ve already answered it. Upright BiPed
Truthfreedom: That means you are assuming that science can offer “proof” of how the “outside world” is. It's not proof. We come up with models that mimic what we observe, to some extent. Over time the models get more and more refined and accurate. But they're still only approximations. No proof of anything. JVL
Upright BiPed: From physical analysis, the phenomenon in question is the organization of a finite set of rate-independent symbol vehicles in a linear medium, along with a complementary set of physical constraints that use spatial orientation within each symbol vehicle to establish a stands-for relation for each of the individual referents to be conveyed by the system. This semiotic architecture enables capacities that are unique among all physical systems, and its structure is independent of its content. So why do you think that mainstream science hasn't come to the conclusion that the genetic system was designed? JVL
196 JVL
I’m good with going with the consensus of the scientific community.
That means you are assuming that science can offer "proof" of how the "outside world" is. You are contradicting yourself again. Truthfreedom
Only morons and fools think that science is done via some consensus. And it is very telling that no one can model unguided evolution. As for knowledge, unguided evolution hasn't helped anyone in that regard. ET
Truthfreedom: What are you asking for then? I'm good with going with the consensus of the scientific community realising that when there's new data or results or evidence opinions may change. All we can hope to do at any given time is to model reality with our laws and theories and theorems as best we can. But we shall probably always miss some subtleties because our models are only ever approximations. All scientific knowledge is just provisional; that seems confusing and limited but that's what we've got to work with. JVL
.
You are really desperate to get people to agree with you when the data might lead people to think the other way.
This is more of your (silly) attempt to position me out, i.e. to shoot the messenger. The problem with this is that you yourself are unable to disagree with me. That is one of the great things about recorded history – either The Beatles released the White album in November of 1968 or they didn’t. Either American logician Charles Pierce wrote a theory in the 1860’s about the triadic requirements of signification (symbol/referent/interpretant), or he didn’t. Either Carrol Shelby won Le Mans in 1959 driving an Aston Martin, or he didn’t. Either Alan Turing wrote in 1936 about a universal computing machine based on the use of symbols and their interpretations, or he didn’t. Either Washington Roebling took over for his father to begin construction of the Brooklyn Bridge in 1870 or he didn’t. Either Jon Von Neumann gave a series of lectures in the 1940’s describing open-ended autonomous self-replication based a system of symbols and their interpretations, or he didn’t. Get the idea? Ether Francis Crick predicted an independent set of “adapter” molecules to establish the gene code, or he didn’t. Either Hoagland and Zamecnik confirmed Crick’s prediction in 1958, or they didn’t. Either physicists (and other scientists) such as Howard Pattee, Marcello Barbieri, and others have recognized the thread of understanding from Pierce, to Turing, to Von Neumann, to Crick (and have written about it) or they haven’t. You see, the facts aren’t even in question. They are not even controversial. The gene system is a system of rate-independent symbols and non-integrable constraints. Their unique physical properties have been carefully recorded in the literature as such. You’ve even affirmed this reality. The only thing you want to do now is to outright dismiss a conclusion that falls naturally from the evidence; a conclusion you are otherwise happy to accept. Encoded symbols are a universal correlate of intelligence, unless you don’t want them to be. It’s nothing but a plain old (cheap) double standard, followed by a rash of rationalization. Upright BiPed
.
Excellent . . . for non-living signals.
You are now just grabbing at straws -- undefined straws with transparently ideological purposes, but without any foundation whatsoever in the physics of symbols systems. From physical analysis, the phenomenon in question is the organization of a finite set of rate-independent symbol vehicles in a linear medium, along with a complementary set of physical constraints that use spatial orientation within each symbol vehicle to establish a stands-for relation for each of the individual referents to be conveyed by the system. This semiotic architecture enables capacities that are unique among all physical systems, and its structure is independent of its content.
Which is the whole basis of your argument.
Not even close. Upright BiPed
JVL We are awaiting your reply. If you aren't asking for scientific proof (which according to you "does not exist" #153), What are you asking for? Truthfreedom
Too funny. It isn’t Dembski’s. Even he calls it standard operating procedure. If you understood science you would have known that. And the EF includes probabilities because you and yours have NOTHING of substance. JVL
You’re just putting off dealing with the question with denialist gobblied goop.
'There wasn't any question in your babble. It is a fact that the EF is SoP. It is a fact that the only reason probability arguments exist is because your side has nothing. If you did you would just present it to refute Dembski and Behe. Yet no one has. So the only person being a denialist is you, JVL. Or perhaps you are really that clueless. ET
JVL:
Peer review is full of research supporting unguided evolution.
Liar. "Waiting for TWO Mutations" is proof of your lies. The fact that the professional evos @ the Dover trial lied their way through it, is also proof of your lies. There isn't any use having a discussion with you if all you can do is lie.
What ET fails to do is to definitely establish that mutations are guided.
That is done with the obvious intelligent design of the origin of living organisms. What YOU need to do is tell us how it was determined the mutations are blind and mindless, spontaneous events. You can't do that. Not only that you can't show that an accumulation of mutations can produce functional proteins and protein machines. Lenski's LTEE is demonstrating the severe limits of evolutionary change. The fact that someone like Nathan Lents can easily write a book that supports Michael Behe's point about genetic decay (Human Errors), and yet can't write one supporting blind watchmaker's ability to produce what it then breaks, it very telling. No one has been able to expand on the endosymbiotic hypothesis for the origin of eukaryotes. Another very telling sign. And, as pointed out above, peer-review says that evolutionary biologists still have not figured out what determines biological form. ET
189 JVL
Like saying I ask for scientific ‘proof’
What are you asking for then? Truthfreedom
What’s the point of you cluttering the threads asking for “scientific proof” if according to you “scientific proof does not exist”? (#153) I've got some weird voices in my head. They keep saying weird things. Like saying I ask for scientific 'proof' which I have never done. Maybe those voices are just my own devil's advocate keeping me in line. Anyway, if those voices are just part of my internal construct then I don't need to confront them outside of my own psyche. JVL
Uprigth BiPed: Hmmmm. What about looking for an encoded high-capacity symbol system? What about a symbol system that not only conveys symbols, but also conveys the key to decode those symbols? Like in the movie Contact Excellent . . . for non-living signals. Which is the whole basis of your argument. Nah wait, surely that’s not designed. We’ll need a double standard to get that one off the table. I get it. You are really desperate to get people to agree with you when the data might lead people to think the other way. So you push and push and push for your very narrow and particular interpretation of things. It all makes sense really. JVL
ET: Evidence of work, according to Stanford. Okay, now we're getting somewhere. What does that mean exactly regarding a suspected bone tool? And design is a mechanism. Which means it would demand mechanistic traces and evidence. Clearly. Where is the evidence that energy was used to build my house? Physics. Many. College level. Several. Be specific. What courses exactly. Too funny. It isn’t Dembski’s. Even he calls it standard operating procedure. If you understood science you would have known that. And the EF includes probabilities because you and yours have NOTHING of substance. You're just putting off dealing with the question with denialist gobblied goop. Clearly you have mental issues, JVL. If you guys had something of substance there wouldn’t be any need for probability arguments. What is wrong with you? Peer-review is devoid of evidence for unguided evolution. Textbooks are devoid of evidence for unguided evolution. YOU avoid posting evidence for unguided evolution. The trend is easy to see. Peer review is full of research supporting unguided evolution. It really is. What ET fails to do is to definitely establish that mutations are guided. He can't actually do that so his suppositions fail. Any that promoted dogma, duh. All churches promoted dogma. That's their purpose. Again you choose to fail to answer the actual question. You are a bad witness for your god. JVL
JVL What's the point of you cluttering the threads asking for "scientific proof" if according to you "scientific proof does not exist"? (#153) That sounds absolutely deranged. Do you have mental issues? Truthfreedom
.
I’m not talking about the stuff that’s clear, I’m talking about things that are iffy. What do you look for?
Hmmmm. What about looking for an encoded high-capacity symbol system? What about a symbol system that not only conveys symbols, but also conveys the key to decode those symbols? Like in the movie Contact !! Nah wait, surely that’s not designed. We’ll need a double standard to get that one off the table. /sarc Upright BiPed
JVL:
The first thing an archaeologist looks for when considering an object that may or may not be intelligently designed is .
Evidence of work, according to Stanford.
But implementation would be a mechanistic process.
And design is a mechanism.
So why is there no evidence of that kind of thing having taken place?
Where is the evidence that energy was used to build my house?
Disagreeing with you is not the same thing as being ignorant.
True, but your posts prove that you are ignorant with respect to biology and science.
So, how many biology courses did you take? At what level? At which university?
Many. College level. Several.
Dr Dembski’s explanatory filter is a probability argument!
Too funny. It isn't Dembski's. Even he calls it standard operating procedure. If you understood science you would have known that. And the EF includes probabilities because you and yours have NOTHING of substance. Clearly you have mental issues, JVL. If you guys had something of substance there wouldn't be any need for probability arguments. What is wrong with you? Peer-review is devoid of evidence for unguided evolution. Textbooks are devoid of evidence for unguided evolution. YOU avoid posting evidence for unguided evolution. The trend is easy to see.
Which Church?
' Any that promoted dogma, duh. ET
ET: That has nothing to do with whether or not said object was intelligently designed or not. Absolutely it does! The first thing an archaeologist looks for when considering an object that may or may not be intelligently designed is . . . I'm not talking about the stuff that's clear, I'm talking about things that are iffy. What do you look for? We do NOT have to know how before we can determine if it was designed or not. The how always comes after. But implementation would be a mechanistic process. If you think something was designed then clearly implementation took place. Which means there must have been some physical manipulation of raw materials and spending of energy. Which means the energy and raw materials must have come from someplace. Which means something gather or collected the necessary resources and brought them to a particular location to carry out the implementation. So why is there no evidence of that kind of thing having taken place? ]It isn’t a bluff and it is very true. You don’t even understand the basics of biology. Disagreeing with you is not the same thing as being ignorant. So, how many biology courses did you take? At what level? At which university? Again, the reason probability arguments exist is because your side has NOTHING. Too funny. Dr Dembski's explanatory filter is a probability argument! No one forced him to come up with that. If he doubted the ability of unguided processes for being able to bring about life as we know it on Earth he could have chosen lots of different ways of refuting it. He CHOSE to make a probability argument. He's a trained mathematician, he knows how powerful probability arguments can be. I rather doubt he was forced into making a probability argument because his opponents 'had nothing' which, in fact, is not true. In my opinion, Dr Dembski had to make a probability argument because he had no hard physical evidence to support the presence of a designer who he thinks is God. And he knew that just saying it was God would kill off any credibility his idea had in the mathematical and scientific communities. Why hasn’t mainstream been swayed? Because they are biased and very closed-mined. In reality they are as bad, if not worse, than the Church was centuries ago. Which Church? The Christian churches? Would you extend that criticism to Muslims and Jews? What do you say to people who say that science derived from a Christian world view? JVL
JVL:
But you haven’t ever been able to answer the most important question regarding what does an archaeologist consider when examining an object that may or may not have been used by ancient man.
That has nothing to do with whether or not said object was intelligently designed or not.
Right so design was not implemented via some mechanistic process?
We do NOT have to know how before we can determine if it was designed or not. The how always comes after. Again, your ignorance is showing.
We have already established that your personal view is unfalsifiable.
1+1=2 is unfalsifiable too. Yet it is testable. As I said, JVL is ignorant. Unlike JVL I have taken the university courses with respect to biology and evolution. It is a given that I have forgotten more about this than JVL knows- and I don’t forget.
A bluff which is false.
]It isn't a bluff and it is very true. You don't even understand the basics of biology. it is clear that not one working biologist knows how blind and mindless processes could have done it. It is clear they don’t even know how to test the concept. That means it remains outside the realm of science.
You can keep saying this and, maybe, some ignorant people will believe it.
I will keep saying it because it is true. And it is very telling that YOU have been unable to refute it. Again, the reason probability arguments exist is because your side has NOTHING. Why hasn’t mainstream been swayed? Because they are biased and very closed-mined. In reality they are as bad, if not worse, than the Church was centuries ago.
Just your opinion. There is no evidence to back up that view.
It's a fact and the evidence has been presented. Your willful ignorance is NOT an argument, JVL. Try again ET
TF, actually, there are proofs in phil, full formal ones in propositional calculus notation with modal operators. They can be very useful in showing chains of reasoning, and highlighting debates over start-points; certain modal ontological arguments come to mind and particularly the S5 reduction of modal operator chains. In sciences, the mathematical aspect can have demonstrations (and even theorems!) but of course empirical warrant is never a proof. KF kairosfocus
JVL The moron who uses a philosophical statement (there are no proofs in philosophy or science) to "prove" that philosophy can not offer proofs. Truthfreedom
JVL The moron who only accepts "scientific proof" while he says: there are no proofs in philosophy or science. #153 Truthfreedom
174 JVL
It seems to be it is also about your refusal to address an important issue: why is it that virtually all biologist have not come to the same conclusion you have after considering the semiotic content of the genetic code?
This coming from the moron who asks for "scientific proof/ consensus" while he refutes himself and says: (JVL): There are no proofs in philosophy or science. 
I have stated my criteria several times. I would depend on the pertinent experts in the fields under concern to make the call.
This coming from the moron who asks for "scientific/ expert consensus" while he refutes himself and says: (JVL): There are no proofs in philosophy or science. 
You want to make it all about semiotic but clearly that is not the central issues for almost all scientists. 
This coming from the moron who resorts to "science/ scientists" while he refutes himself and says: (JVL): There are no proofs in philosophy or science. 
No amount of avoiding my question can hide that.
This coming from the moron who wants "scientific proof/ consensus" to validate him while he refutes himself and says: (JVL): There are no proofs in philosophy or science. 
I’ll have a guess when we get one.
Nice dodge coming from the moron who accepts "scientific proof" while he refutes himself and says: (JVL): There are no proofs in philosophy or science.  Truthfreedom
173 JVL
Oh dear, Truthfreedom appears to be stuck and unable to present a cogent argument.
You can not prove Truthfreedom is not a figment of your imagination.
I’m afraid the case might be terminal.
You are talking to yourself. Truthfreedom
.
It seems to be it is also about your refusal to address an important issue
No, it is not about that at all, JVL. This is solely about the double standard you use to dismiss documented science and history. You are actually arguing that a fatal flaw in your logic is okay if others appear to agree with you. Upright BiPed
ET: That’s stupid talk. The design is detection of the designer. And archaeology is the exact same thing! But you haven't ever been able to answer the most important question regarding what does an archaeologist consider when examining an object that may or may not have been used by ancient man. How is via intelligent design, duh. But I digress. YOURS is the mechanistic position, not ID. Right so design was not implemented via some mechanistic process? Is that what you're saying? How did the design get to be made real? You dodge and dodge and dodge but you never, ever even try to address that. Your ignorance is not an argument. We have said exactly how to test and falsify ID. Just because no one can falsify it doesn’t mean it isn’t testable We have already established that your personal view is unfalsifiable. Unlike JVL I have taken the university courses with respect to biology and evolution. It is a given that I have forgotten more about this than JVL knows- and I don’t forget. A bluff which is false. Every time you pretend to know what I or anyone else has studied you make your own stance even more tenuous. it is clear that not one working biologist knows how blind and mindless processes could have done it. It is clear they don’t even know how to test the concept. That means it remains outside the realm of science. You can keep saying this and, maybe, some ignorant people will believe it. Why hasn’t mainstream been swayed? Because they are biased and very closed-mined. In reality they are as bad, if not worse, than the Church was centuries ago. Just your opinion. There is no evidence to back up that view. . JVL
upright BiPed: JVL, your last post is yet another attempt at deception. The issue before you does not turn on anyone else — it is specifically about you and your indifference to reason. It seems to be it is also about your refusal to address an important issue: why is it that virtually all biologist have not come to the same conclusion you have after considering the semiotic content of the genetic code? Again JVL, we are not disagreeing about a fact in question. The issue here is that you apply one standard to evidence when it suits you, then apply another standard to that same phenomenon when it suits you differently. There is no mystery here. You use a double standard based on what suits you. I have stated my criteria several times. I would depend on the pertinent experts in the fields under concern to make the call. So far there has been no interstellar signal which has been accepted as coming from an alien civilisation. Likewise there has been no clear indicadtion that any aspect of biological development on Earth is due to intelligent design except for the obvious breeding choices. You want to make it all about semiotic but clearly that is not the central issues for almost all scientists. Which is why I keep asking you why you think that is the case? And you keep dodging and ignoring that question. Why is that? No amount of obfuscation can hide that. No amount of avoiding my question can hide that. By the way JVL, who or what is the source of the intelligence when you receive a semiotic signal (compressed data, as you referred to it) from space? I'll have a guess when we get one. JVL
Truthfreedom: You can’t trust the reasoning above because you can’t trust your brain.You can’t trust the reasoning above because you can’t trust your brain.You can’t trust the reasoning above because you can’t trust your brain.You can’t trust the reasoning above because you can’t trust your brain.You can’t trust the reasoning above because you can’t trust your brain.You can’t trust the reasoning above because you can’t trust your brain.You can’t trust the reasoning above because you can’t trust your brain.You can’t trust the reasoning above because you can’t trust your brain. Oh dear, Truthfreedom appears to be stuck and unable to present a cogent argument. This coming from the moron who says that “there are no proofs in science.” #153This coming from the moron who says that “there are no proofs in science.” #153This coming from the moron who says that “there are no proofs in science.” #153 I'm afraid the case might be terminal. JVL
. By the way JVL, who or what is the source of the intelligence when you receive a semiotic signal (compressed data, as you referred to it) from space? Upright BiPed
JVL:
Yes but I’m interested in why biology in general hasn’t accepted that that hasn’t shifted the unguided processes paradigm.
No one uses unguided evolution for anything. It is useless as a heuristic. At least ID's concepts are useful and being used in the form of genetic algorithms.
AND it’s clear that almost no working biologist has come to the conclusion that the genetic code was clearly not produce by unguided processes.
it is clear that not one working biologist knows how blind and mindless processes could have done it. It is clear they don't even know how to test the concept. That means it remains outside the realm of science. Why hasn't mainstream been swayed? Because they are biased and very closed-mined. In reality they are as bad, if not worse, than the Church was centuries ago. ET
JVL:
I’m suggesting that you don’t know either, especially since you think ID is not about the how or when. It’s all just down to some mysterious, undefined and undetected designer(s) who did something sometime somehow.
That's stupid talk. The design is detection of the designer. And archaeology is the exact same thing!
Whereas you say nothing about when it arrived or how.
How is via intelligent design, duh. But I digress. YOURS is the mechanistic position, not ID.
We’ve already established that your position is unfalsifiable therefore untestable
Your ignorance is not an argument. We have said exactly how to test and falsify ID. Just because no one can falsify it doesn't mean it isn't testable Heck, evolutionary biology is so barren biologists can’t even tell us what determines biological form.
So says the arm-chair scientist.
Again, YOUR ignorance is not an argument: On the problem of biological form Unlike JVL I have taken the university courses with respect to biology and evolution. It is a given that I have forgotten more about this than JVL knows- and I don't forget. ET
. JVL, your last post is yet another attempt at deception. The issue before you does not turn on anyone else -- it is specifically about you and your indifference to reason.
JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data. So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain. UB: Why the double standard? JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - JVL: "I just think we’ve pursued that issue as far as we can given our desperate views". Again JVL, we are not disagreeing about a fact in question. The issue here is that you apply one standard to evidence when it suits you, then apply another standard to that same phenomenon when it suits you differently. There is no mystery here. You use a double standard based on what suits you. No amount of obfuscation can hide that. Upright BiPed
165 JVL
Because it seems that a vast majority of biologists, and maybe Dr Pattee as well, have not come to the conclusion that the semiotic argument has ruled out an origination of the genetic code via unguided processes.
This coming from the moron who says that "there are no proofs in science." #153
Yes but I’m interested in why biology in general hasn’t accepted that that hasn’t shifted the unguided processes paradigm.
This coming from the moron who says that "there are no proofs in science" #153 but he resorts to "proofs" in biological sciences.
AND it’s clear that almost no working biologist has come to the conclusion...
This coming from the moron who resorts to "scientific proof" while he says that "there are no proofs in science." #153 Truthfreedom
164 JVL
???? If I have 47 results regarding a phenomenon and 32 of them roughly agree then it’s not a matter of trusting my brain to come to at least a tentative conclusion.
You can't trust the reasoning above because you can't trust your brain.
Nice dodge. You will absolutely refuse to consider that your experience of a superior being might be mistaken. So, your position is unfalsifiable.
You can't trust the statement above because you can't trust your brain.
Actually, in reality, my brain seems to handle things pretty well. I might not bet the farm on it but in general it’s pretty dependable.
You can't trust the conclusion above because you can't trust your brain.
You certainly remind me of some fictional characters I’ve encountered.
You can not prove I am not a figment of your imagination.
I don’t think I do actually. Disagreeing with you is not the same as denial.
You can't trust your reasons to disagree because you can't trust your brain.
I just try and focus on the data and evidence myself.
You can't trust your evaluation of evidence because you can't trust your brain.
Other opinions are available.
You can't trust your evaluation of opinions because you can't trust your brain. Truthfreedom
ET: JVL is still clueless. “Mainstream science” doesn’t know how nature could have produced the genetic code. It doesn’t even know how to test the claim that nature produced it. I'm suggesting that you don't know either, especially since you think ID is not about the how or when. It's all just down to some mysterious, undefined and undetected designer(s) who did something sometime somehow. That means everything they say about the genetic code’s origins can be dismissed. Whereas you say nothing about when it arrived or how. No one should care what mainstream science says if what they say is untestable We've already established that your position is unfalsifiable therefore untestable. Heck, evolutionary biology is so barren biologists can’t even tell us what determines biological form. So says the arm-chair scientist. Someone who has never published a paper, never done any research, never even gone past beginning level university courses. Someone who has never, ever submitted his ideas to working scientists to find out what they think and to take their criticisms and feedback into account. JVL
You have a fatal flaw in your position JVL. You use a glaring double standard in your reasoning, causing your reasoning to be illegitimate on its face. The urgency for you to now get the focus off that fatal flaw is palpable. I just hink we've pursued that issue as far as we can given our desperate views. So I thought I'd move onto another topic: why do you think mainstream science does not share your view about the genetic code, i.e. that it could not have arisen via natural processes? There's lots of different answers you could give. The “interpretation” of the gene system as a semiotic system is not mine. It was predicted to be a semiotic system prior to its discovery, and that prediction was famously confirmed by experimental result. These facts are well-documented in both the scientific literature and in the history of science. Confronted with these facts, you yourself have affirmed the symbolic (semiotic) nature of the gene system. Yes but I'm interested in why biology in general hasn't accepted that that hasn't shifted the unguided processes paradigm. This then forms the basis of the double standard in your reasoning. You have already stated that you accept the existence of encoded symbolic content as a valid inference to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence. You then turn around and deny that very thing: Because it seems that a vast majority of biologists, and maybe Dr Pattee as well, have not come to the conclusion that the semiotic argument has ruled out an origination of the genetic code via unguided processes. And I keep reiterating that and also asking you why you think that is the case. It is interesting to note that the key issue (judging by your reasoning above) is that the signal must “very clearly NOT be produced by unguided processes”. AND it's clear that almost no working biologist has come to the conclusion that the genetic code was clearly not produce by unguided processes. And what is the criteria you use to verify that this is the case? What is that most-critical observation in your reasoning? Well, it is the presence of symbolic content, of course — the very thing you turn around to deny elsewhere. Again, that has not swayed the scientific opinion regarding the genetic code. Why do you think that is? JVL
Truthfreedom: You can’t know that the reasoning above leads to truth because you don’t trust your brain. ???? If I have 47 results regarding a phenomenon and 32 of them roughly agree then it's not a matter of trusting my brain to come to at least a tentative conclusion. You can’t know that the question above makes sense because you use your brain to form it and you don’t trust your brain. Nice dodge. You will absolutely refuse to consider that your experience of a superior being might be mistaken. So, your position is unfalsifiable. You can not know if you can trust the above conclusions because you use your brain to form them and you don’t trust your brain. Actually, in reality, my brain seems to handle things pretty well. I might not bet the farm on it but in general it's pretty dependable. You can not prove I am not a figment of your imagination. You certainly remind me of some fictional characters I've encountered. Why do you dismiss science and history? I don't think I do actually. Disagreeing with you is not the same as denial. Science is (or should be) free of ontological presuppositions. But evo/ materialists disingenuously add their natural- selection- and-billions-of-years-of-the-gaps to try to legitimize their false philosophy. I just try and focus on the data and evidence myself. There is a coherent alternative to materialism that preserves scientific integrity: Hylemorphism. Other opinions are available. JVL
161 ET
JVL is still clueless. “Mainstream science” doesn’t know how nature could have produced the genetic code.
Science is (or should be) free of ontological presuppositions. But evo/ materialists disingenuously add their natural- selection- and-billions-of-years-of-the-gaps to try to legitimize their false philosophy. There is a coherent alternative to materialism that preserves scientific integrity: Hylemorphism.
Naturalism cannot escape its own epistemological nightmare—a nightmare directly caused, not by natural science itself, but by illicitly attempting to identify natural science with the false philosophy of materialism. Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back).
Ouch. Truthfreedom
No one should care what mainstream science says if what they say is untestable. Heck, evolutionary biology is so barren biologists can't even tell us what determines biological form. ET
JVL is still clueless. "Mainstream science" doesn't know how nature could have produced the genetic code. It doesn't even know how to test the claim that nature produced it. That means everything they say about the genetic code's origins can be dismissed. How pathetically desperate do you have yo be to trust scientists that aren't as smart as blind and mindless nature? Even Dawkins understands that science can accept only so much luck. But without Intelligent Design it is all sheer dumb luck. That alone means it is out of the realm of science. ET
JVL Why do you dismiss science and history? Truthfreedom
.
Let’s address the question: why
You have a fatal flaw in your position JVL. You use a glaring double standard in your reasoning, causing your reasoning to be illegitimate on its face. The urgency for you to now get the focus off that fatal flaw is palpable.
if your interpretation is correct
The “interpretation” of the gene system as a semiotic system is not mine. It was predicted to be a semiotic system prior to its discovery, and that prediction was famously confirmed by experimental result. These facts are well-documented in both the scientific literature and in the history of science. Confronted with these facts, you yourself have affirmed the symbolic (semiotic) nature of the gene system. This then forms the basis of the double standard in your reasoning. You have already stated that you accept the existence of encoded symbolic content as a valid inference to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence. You then turn around and deny that very thing:
JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data. So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain. UB: Why the double standard? JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available
It is interesting to note that the key issue (judging by your reasoning above) is that the signal must “very clearly NOT be produced by unguided processes”. And what is the criteria you use to verify that this is the case? What is that most-critical observation in your reasoning? Well, it is the presence of symbolic content, of course -- the very thing you turn around to deny elsewhere.
You are completely and absolutely convinced you are correct.
This is beautiful. The man who openly dismisses science and history turns to the man who doesn’t, and says “so you think you are so right…” Upright BiPed
157 JVL
Try disproving it.
Disproving what? You made an assertion, meaning you have a basis to defend it. Show that you know what you are talking about. Truthfreedom
156 JVL
But I do trust repeated and double-checked experiences.
You can't know that the reasoning above leads to truth because you don't trust your brain.
If your going to doubt everything then you have to doubt your experience of a greater being yes?
You can't know that the question above makes sense because you use your brain to form it and you don't trust your brain.
You have a belief as well. No real way of knowing if your belief is true is there? Your belief all comes down to faith. In my system, I accept that further data might supersede my own person experience.
You can not know if you can trust the above conclusions because you use your brain to form them and you don't trust your brain.
But what about you?
You can not prove I am not a figment of your imagination. Truthfreedom
Truthfreedom: If you do not trust your brain (and it makes sense because you lack intelligence), then you can’t know if you can trust the statement above. But I do trust repeated and double-checked experiences. If your going to doubt everything then you have to doubt your experience of a greater being yes? If you’re your brain, you can’t trust and not trust yourself at the sime time. (But you lack intelligence and philosophical training). You're getting repetitive. Nice philosophical statement. Now prove it with philosophical proof. The one that according to you does NOT exist. Lol. Try disproving it. But you can’t trust your brain, so you can’t know if that’s true. Can't trust your brain either. Except that you believe in an unknown, undetected and undefined deity. You have a belief. A weird and mainstream one that makes you believe you are ultra cool. But a believe nonetheless. You have a belief as well. No real way of knowing if your belief is true is there? Your belief all comes down to faith. In my system, I accept that further data might supersede my own person experience. It might be the case that I end up accpeting some alterations in my views based on what others bring to the table. But what about you? Is your view alterable? Could it be falsified? Are you absolutely convinced you are correct? Doesn't that imply that you must be wrong? JVL
153 JVL
Anyway, I agree, I can’t discount or disprove a greater intelligence.
Of course not. So please stop saying the "unguided evolution" non-sense, since you have acknowledged you can't discount a greater intelligence. You have a belief. A weird and mainstream one that makes you believe you are ultra cool. But a believe nonetheless. Zero PROOF of "unguided evolution". And there's PROOF materialism is a failed philosophy (bye-bye to your "empirical verification"): Naturalism's Epistemological Nightmare
"Empirical verification presupposes epistemological realism—meaning that through sensation we know directly the exterior physical world around us. Natural science proclaims that it discovers the nature of the real physical cosmos, external to our brains or subjective selves. Yet, when we trace the optics and physiology of the sense of sight, we find ourselves entrapped in epistemological idealism -- meaning that we do not know external reality, but rather merely some change within our brains that we hope to be an accurate representation of the external world. Dr. Dennis Bonnette https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/
Truthfreedom
153 JVL
Because I am not trusting my brain alone.
If you do not trust your brain (and it makes sense because you lack intelligence), then you can't know if you can trust the statement above.
And because it has worked pretty well so far.
If you can't trust your brain, you can't know if you can trust the statement above. If you're your brain, you can't trust and not trust yourself at the sime time. (But you lack intelligence and philosophical training).
There are no proofs in philosophy or science.
Nice philosophical statement. Now prove it with philosophical proof. The one that according to you does NOT exist. Lol.
Actually, I don’t think there are proofs in science.
But you can't trust your brain, so you can't know if that's true.
That’s okay, I’ll stick with the empirical and physical evidence.
That you can't trust because you need your brain to understand them and you do not trust your brain. Truthfreedom
Truthfreedom: This is so friggin’ stupid. If you “do not trust your brain”, how can you trust this conclusion since you have arrived at it with your brain??? Because I am not trusting my brain alone. And because it has worked pretty well so far. Your philosophical illiteracy is appalling and that’s why your posts are always the same nauseous non-sense. My mum taught me good. Materialism is really a mental problem. I don't see how thinking evolution is due to unguided processes makes me a materialist. But, as you say, apparently I am a moron. Some reading and less bolding like a maniac could do you good. Aye aye Captain! Again, what you “think” is of no interest to me. I care about proof (which is a far more broader concept than the one your ridiculous empiricism dictates). There are no proofs in philosophy or science. Only in mathematics and logic. But those don't always directly correlate to the real world. And proof is: materialism is a dissecated fossil. I disagree, I disagree, I disagree blah blah blah… Philosophical proof is what is needed. And you have none. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to learn to live with that. THE ONLY “PROOF” YOUR EVO/MATERIALIST SIDE HAS IS THAT THERE IS NOT AN ANTHROPOMORPHIC PHYSICAL FORM TWEAKING WITH NATURE’S BIOLOGICAL FORMS. Actually, I don't think there are proofs in science. BUT YOU CAN’T DISCOUNT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, VIA “SCIENCE” THAT THERE IS NOT A GREATER INTELLIGENCE IN THE UNIVERSE. Does it really help when uou put things all in caps? Anyway, I agree, I can't discount or disprove a greater intelligence. But I don't think the evidence in favour of one is very good. Spare me the “I disagree” garbage. This is a philosophical battle, a vicious and very long one by the way, and you are not equipped to fight it because you are philosophically illiterate. That's okay, I'll stick with the empirical and physical evidence. But if you read, maybe (probably not) you’ll learn something: Why bother? According to you I'm a lost cause. JVL
upright BiPed: Please, please, please UB, take the bait! Please, please, please, let’s pretend the bias enforced against design is a just a myth. Let’s pretend materialists haven’t gloated about it in print for years on end. Please, please, please, let’s pretend that von Neumann didn’t predict the system. Let’s pretend all the required parts weren’t discovered one by one to the very end. Let’s pretend that that Nobel laureates didn’t notice the confirmation. Let’s pretend that someone has come up with something. I’m tired of you cutting and pasting my double standard over and over for all to see. Please Please Please, can’t we just change the subject once and for all. Let's address the question: why, if your interpretation is correct, hasn't main-stream science changed its tune? You think there is a bias . . . where does it come from? What does it benefit people? So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain In both cases I would wait for confirmation by scientists knowledgeable in the field which is a perfectly reasonable stance. You are completely and absolutely convinced you are correct. So why do you think mainstream science hasn't accepted your interpretations of the work done? Why is there a bias? Who gains from it? JVL
135 JVL
I disagree. I think there is good, solid, physical evidence that unguided processes ‘guided’ the development of life on Earth.
Again, what you "think" is of no interest to me. I care about proof (which is a far more broader concept than the one your ridiculous empiricism dictates). And proof is: materialism is a dissecated fossil. I disagree, I disagree, I disagree blah blah blah... Philosophical proof is what is needed. And you have none. THE ONLY "PROOF" YOUR EVO/MATERIALIST SIDE HAS IS THAT THERE IS NOT AN ANTHROPOMORPHIC PHYSICAL FORM TWEAKING WITH NATURE'S BIOLOGICAL FORMS. BUT YOU CAN'T DISCOUNT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, VIA "SCIENCE" THAT THERE IS NOT A GREATER INTELLIGENCE IN THE UNIVERSE. Spare me the "I disagree" garbage. This is a philosophical battle, a vicious and very long one by the way, and you are not equipped to fight it because you are philosophically illiterate. But if you read, maybe (probably not) you'll learn something: Aristotle (and the soul) are back. Truthfreedom
116 JVL
I don’t think being an atheist is equivalent to being a determinist nor do I think that makes me inconsistent despite your view on the matter.
I don't care about what you "think". Being a materialist/ evo forces the logical conclusion that you have no free will. If you think you have free will, you have to offer a convincing argument (hint: philosophers far more intelligent than you have tried it and failed). But hey, good luck. Maybe you'll surprise the whole world with your discovery. Atheism and free will = hypocrisy. And illogical consistency. Kindergarten, failed philosophy. Some reading and less bolding like a maniac could do you good. For starters: how your non-sensical philosophy refutes itself and falls trap of epistemological idealism; Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). Truthfreedom
116 JVL
I don’t completely trust my brain or anyone else’s brain. But I do believe that if we’re open and honest and consider a plethora of views and results we have a better chance of figuring out what is true.
This is so friggin' stupid. If you "do not trust your brain", how can you trust this conclusion since you have arrived at it with your brain??? Your philosophical illiteracy is appalling and that's why your posts are always the same nauseous non-sense. You have refuted yourself. Materialism is really a mental problem. Truthfreedom
. Please, please, please UB, take the bait! Please, please, please, let's pretend the bias enforced against design is a just a myth. Let's pretend materialists haven't gloated about it in print for years on end. Please, please, please, let's pretend that von Neumann didn't predict the system. Let's pretend all the required parts weren't discovered one by one to the very end. Let's pretend that that Nobel laureates didn't notice the confirmation. Let's pretend that someone has come up with something. I'm tired of you cutting and pasting my double standard over and over for all to see. Please Please Please, can't we just change the subject once and for all. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I don’t think it is a double standard.
JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data. So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain. UB: Why the double standard? JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Your reasoning is fatally flawed JVL, and you know it. No amount of obfuscation is going to change that fact. Upright BiPed
Upright BiPed: Despite all your obfuscation, JVL, the fact remains that you clearly, explicitly, and unambiguously accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain. I accept such content as indicative of an unknown intelligence once verified by experts in the field. So far no such acknowledgement has happened in the realms of SETI or biologic research. If semiotic work was such a slam-dunk then why haven't we seen working scientists admit that? Having successfully denied by double standard what you otherwise except, you then turn to say that you find the end result unconvincing. It is an intellectual fraud. It is blatantly so, and you are defending it. You are actually defending the use of a double standard, and judging by your repeated requests, you would be most happy if I would shut up about it. Can you please explain to me why the vast majority of the scientific community does not agree with your conclusion if it's so clear? You know for a fact from your reading (since this confrontation began) that the gene system is indeed a semiotic system of symbols and constraints, and must be semantically closed in order to function. You know for a fact that this condition must necessarily be of primary importance to OoL research, yet you cannot produce a single quote from a research paper by any frontline OoL researcher that even mentions it. Meaningless descriptions like “plausible” become easy once double standards are in the fabric of your reasoning. Again, if you're right then why is it that mainstream biological research hasn't come around to your point of view? If that were actually true then you wouldn’t depend on a double standard in order to dismiss exactly that evidence. You wouldn’t need faulty reasoning. Again, it should be embarrassing to need me to point this out. I don't think it is a double standard. But let's pursue the reasons why your view is not shared by mainstream science. Can you give a reason why that would be the case? JVL
.
I’m not trying to fool anyone.
JVL, pointing to people who employ the same double-standard as you does nothing whatsoever to remove that double standard from your reasoning. It should be embarrassing to have me point this out to you. Despite all your obfuscation, JVL, the fact remains that you clearly, explicitly, and unambiguously accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain. Having successfully denied by double standard what you otherwise except, you then turn to say that you find the end result unconvincing. It is an intellectual fraud. It is blatantly so, and you are defending it. You are actually defending the use of a double standard, and judging by your repeated requests, you would be most happy if I would shut up about it.
The counter-arguments seems plausible
You know for a fact from your reading (since this confrontation began) that the gene system is indeed a semiotic system of symbols and constraints, and must be semantically closed in order to function. You know for a fact that this condition must necessarily be of primary importance to OoL research, yet you cannot produce a single quote from a research paper by any frontline OoL researcher that even mentions it. Meaningless descriptions like “plausible” become easy once double standards are in the fabric of your reasoning.
I don’t think the extraordinary evidence which establishes some mysterious, undefined and undetected designer has been achieved
If that were actually true then you wouldn’t depend on a double standard in order to dismiss exactly that evidence. You wouldn’t need faulty reasoning. Again, it should be embarrassing to need me to point this out. Upright BiPed
UB, fallacy of the closed mind, but then by now that is unsurprising. KF kairosfocus
JVL, I find your response, to put it mildly, to be disingenuous. But then again. being disingenuous goes hand in hand with an atheist trying to maintain his atheism in a debate. All I might add in rebuttal to your post is that the correspondence between measurement in quantum mechanics and conscious observation goes well beyond what you tried to imply. If the measurement problem were as easily resolved as you tried to imply, I guarantee you that the 'spooky' controversies surrounding Quantum Mechanics would have been resolved long ago when Einstein and Bohr first started debating them. As it is, the controversies have only gotten more pronounced as the years have gone by and as numerous experimental results, from many different angles of experimentation, have all confirmed that the fundamental 'spookiness' inherent in Quantum Mechanics not going to go away. In short, there is no doubt whatsoever that fundamental aspects of consciousness are integral to the actions we are seeing in quantum mechanics: A few notes along that line.
The Measurement Problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE July 2020 - How the mental attributes of 'the experience of the now' and of 'free will' correlate with recent advances in quantum mechanics https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/neuroscience/michael-egnor-talks-with-podcaster-lucas-skrobot-about-how-we-can-know-we-are-not-zombies/#comment-706147 How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas
bornagain77
Bornagain77: All I might add in rebuttal to your post is that the correspondence between measurement in quantum mechanics and conscious observation goes well beyond what you tried to imply. Other opinions are available. If the measurement problem were as easily resolved as you tried to imply, I guarantee you that the ‘spooky’ controversies surrounding Quantum Mechanics would have been resolved long ago when Einstein and Bohr first started debating them. I don't think that is a fair characterisation of the measurement problem. It's not a matter of who or what did the observation; it's a matter of what was being looked for. In short, there is no doubt whatsoever that consciousness is fundamental to the actions we are seeing in quantum mechanics: I don't think so. I'll look for some references later after I've taken care of my family. JVL
ET: And reality isn’t falsifiable. The pyramids of Giza being artifacts cannot be falsified. Stonehenge being an artifact cannot be falsified. The Antikythera mechanism being an artifact is cannot be falsified. But we aren't talking about inanimate objects are we? Living systems need a different criterion. But if your view isn't falsifiable then there is no point in discussing it further. JVL
JVL, I find your response, to put it mildly, to be disingenuous. But then again. being disingenuous goes hand in hand with an atheist trying to maintain his atheism in a debate. All I might add in rebuttal to your post is that the correspondence between measurement in quantum mechanics and conscious observation goes well beyond what you tried to imply. If the measurement problem were as easily resolved as you tried to imply, I guarantee you that the 'spooky' controversies surrounding Quantum Mechanics would have been resolved long ago when Einstein and Bohr first started debating them. In short, there is no doubt whatsoever that consciousness is fundamental to the actions we are seeing in quantum mechanics: A few notes along that line.
The Measurement Problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE July 2020 - How the mental attributes of 'the experience of the now' and of 'free will' correlate with recent advances in quantum mechanics https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/neuroscience/michael-egnor-talks-with-podcaster-lucas-skrobot-about-how-we-can-know-we-are-not-zombies/#comment-706147 How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas
bornagain77
Upright BiPed: You are you, right? You are doing your reasoning, right? You said “Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data”, right? You’ve said that kind of thing more than once, right? You knew what you were saying and why you were saying it, right? If so, then stop denying it. You may very well wait for “an expert” at SETI to tell you if there is indeed “compressed data” (i.e. semiosis) found in a signal, but once that announcement is made, you are going to infer intelligence along with everyone else. So stop obfuscating. You are not fooling anyone. I'm not trying to fool anyone. If a signal gleaned from outer space passes the scrutiny of knowledgeable scientists and they decided it was not naturally caused then I'll accept it. So far, most knowledgeable scientists have NOT declared or agreed that the genetic code was not naturally caused. Apparently they don't think semiotics is enough for them to change their minds. Perhaps you should argue with them and not with me. You claimed that there was no evidence of design in biology. You were faced with that very evidence, which you cannot deny. You applied a double standard in your reasoning in order to dismiss that evidence. You quickly denied that you applied a double standard. You then claimed that the evidence was unconvincing instead. And now you don’t want to talk about it anymore. I'm happy to rehash our points over and over again I just don't see it coming to anything. Especially since I"m not trying to convince anyone. And, again, I don't find the evidence for design in biological systems compelling. The counter-arguments seems plausible and so I don't think the extraordinary evidence which establishes some mysterious, undefined and undetected designer has been achieved. JVL
JVL, I find your response, to put it mildly, to be disingenuous. But then again. being disingenuous goes hand in hand with an atheist maintaining his atheism. All I might add in rebuttal is that the correspondence between measurements in quantum mechanics and conscious observation goes well beyond what you tried to imply. In short, there is no doubt whatsoever that consciousness is fundamental to the actions we are seeing in quantum mechanics: A few notes along that line.
The Measurement Problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE July 2020 - How the mental attributes of 'the experience of the now' and of 'free will' correlate with recent advances in quantum mechanics https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/neuroscience/michael-egnor-talks-with-podcaster-lucas-skrobot-about-how-we-can-know-we-are-not-zombies/#comment-706147 How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas
bornagain77
JVL:
If you think there isn’t any way to test that claim
It isn't what I think. It is a fact. And reality isn't falsifiable. The pyramids of Giza being artifacts cannot be falsified. Stonehenge being an artifact cannot be falsified. The Antikythera mechanism being an artifact is cannot be falsified. But you are correct. There is nothing to discuss with you as you are ignorant of science and can only deny reality. Good luck with that ET
. JVL,
So, is it possible, that the physical dependancies and chemical affinities…
When you claim you don’t ask for proof of a negative in your reasoning, it is actually not true is it? In any case, the part of the system that is missing is “rate-independent” – meaning it is not derived from the exchange, and rate of exchange, of energy. This tidbit of information, by the way, comes from experts in the field. It is one of the reasons that all such systems require complementary descriptions; one for the dynamic organization and another for the semiotic organization. In short, the answer is no. The physical properties of ink in a pen does not establish the alphabet.
I am not knowledgeable enough in that field to make the call.
You are you, right? You are doing your reasoning, right? You said “Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data”, right? You’ve said that kind of thing more than once, right? You knew what you were saying and why you were saying it, right? If so, then stop denying it. You may very well wait for “an expert” at SETI to tell you if there is indeed “compressed data” (i.e. semiosis) found in a signal, but once that announcement is made, you are going to infer intelligence along with everyone else. So stop obfuscating. You are not fooling anyone.
I don’t think that is the case but I don’t have anything further to add that would change the impasse we are at. Which is why I’m suggesting we leave it go.
We are not at an impasse. We are not disagreeing about a fact in evidence. This is about your response to evidence. You very clearly apply a double standard to physical evidence (#78), and you don’t want to acknowledge that recorded fact, or have it exposed for what it is. You claimed that there was no evidence of design in biology. You were faced with that very evidence, which you cannot deny. You applied a double standard in your reasoning in order to dismiss that evidence. You quickly denied that you applied a double standard. You then claimed that the evidence was unconvincing instead. And now you don’t want to talk about it anymore. Upright BiPed
. KF, unfortunately, that kind of logic and observation will not work with Matt. Matt quite firmly believes that the origin of life – whatever it was -- did not require any record or medium of information to specify what was being replicated. He believes it – whatever it was -- had all the information it needed just by being whatever it was. Asking him how that could happen only makes him become more certain than he was before the asking, if you catch my drift. Upright BiPed
Truthfreedom: You are not very intelligent (and you suffer from philosophical illiteracy) Gee, thanks. If I were a rule consequentialist would you think better of me? So lemme try again. Do you understand the meaning of the CONDITIONAL particle if? Probably. Which is what any intelligent person knows. That “atheistic evolution” is a ridiculous fairy-tale with z.e.r.o. proof. I disagree. I think there is good, solid, physical evidence that unguided processes 'guided' the development of life on Earth. I think the explanation with the fewest assumptions should the null hypothesis so I take the materialist view on biological development to be the base. If your alternate hypothesis is: the development of life on Earth was guided (in some unspecified way) then it's up to you to bring forward evidence to support that hypothesis. If it were me, I'd start by being more specific about what you mean by: it was guided, i.e. be more specific about when at least. So far, I find the evidence brought forward by ID proponents to be underwhelming; a great amount of it is negative (unguided processes could not have done this or that), some of it is circular (we think this is designed and only intelligent beings can design so there must have been a designer which, funnily enough, we already believe in) and some rests on unproven concepts (irreducible complexity and complex specified information). Find some more hard evidence that there is/was some kind of designer around at what time exactly? Who did what exactly? And you just might change some minds. JVL
Upright BiPed: Yes! symbols and life appear in the physical history of earth at the same time. And so? Just checking that I am understanding you correctly. Yes! all symbol systems have a physical substrate suited to their system. We don’t use smoke signals in libraries. So, is it possible, that the physical dependancies and chemical affinities helped bring about the symbolic system? There seems to be some evidence that the genetic code may have arisen from some very basic chemistry. I'm just asking, don't jump all over me for asking. BS. You have talked about the SETI project more than once on this forum and you did not hesitate to explicitly state that finding symbolic content (semiosis) outside earth would be an unmistakable proof of a previously unknown intelligence. You spoke with absolute confidence on the matter because you know (like everyone else) that encoded symbol systems are a universal correlate of intelligence. It is pure deception on your part to suggest you are waiting for “an expert” to tell you if this is true. I am not knowledgeable enough in that field to make the call. That is what I am saying. I would depend on people who know such things to determine that a particular signal HAD to come from some alien intelligence. If they say it's good then I'd accept it. Since that moment, you have done nothing but run from the science and history. The simple fact of the matter: If you didn’t find the evidence convincing, you wouldn’t need a double standard in order to dismiss it. But you do just exactly that, openly for all to see (i.e. #78). I don't think that is the case but I don't have anything further to add that would change the impasse we are at. Which is why I'm suggesting we leave it go. JVL
ET: That is what the evidence and science demonstrate- that biological organisms were intelligently designed. There isn’t any evidence that blind and mindless processes can do it and there isn’t even a way to test that claim. So we can dismiss it. If you think there isn't any way to test that claim then your position is unfalsifiable. So there's not point in discussing it further. JVL
Bornagain77: You just can’t make this stuff up. As I explained in post 119, (a post that JVL apparently ignored), Dr. Hoffman found that, IF darwinian evolution were true, then the mathematics of population genetics predict that ALL of our perceptions are illusory. That may be the case but I still think that by pooling our experiences and cross-checking them we can 'overcome' our limited, interpreted perceptions. As I further explained in post 119, it is a claim that, number 1, directly contradicts the experimental results from quantum mechanics which show that ALL our conscious observation of reality are far more integral to reality, and therefore far more reliable of reality, than was predicted for Darwinian evolution by Hoffman. I'm not sure but I think you're taking the notion of an 'observation' in quantum mechanics to mean something other than a measurement. In other words, a camera or detector can 'observe' an experiment. In short, in spite of Hoffman’s results for Darwinian evolution, JVL instead believes that his observations of reality are, for the most part, reliable and trustworthy. Which is all fine and well since the progress of science itself testifies to the fact that our observations of reality must be, for the most part, reliable and trustworthy. Not my own personal, admittedly limited observations. This is why, it's becoming increasingly obvious, that eye-witness testimony in court are not as reliable as once supposed. But, again, if you take my observations and those of others, lots of others, and you pool them, sift them, see what is common and repeatable then I think you're getting at what's real. That is to say, YOU cannot hold that both Darwinian evolution is true and that your observations of reality are, for the most part, reliable and trustworthy as you are currently trying to do. Again, my own personal perceptions are suspect but I think the collective ones are much more reliable. Although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to: Other opinions are available. Might I invite you into reality? i.e. Into Christianity? The water is just fine over here! I have many good friends who are thoughtful, intelligent Christians and, in some ways, I envy their sureness, their view of the world. It just doesn't work for me, it feels artificial and too . . . constrained. But, as I said, other opinions are available. I can only be true to myself. JVL
MS, dna and rna are so central to cell based life that we can in fact freely take it that the linguistic, algorithmic code system is coeval with cell based life and in terms of causal dynamics an antecedent condition of said life that uses proteins as the smart polymer workhorse molecules of cells including enzymes. KF kairosfocus
129 MatSpirit
Then you must know what the first living creature
From Middle English creature in the original sense of “a created thing”. In "darwinian language", what would its name be? An "spontaneature"? One can only guess, because darwinism is very fond of its wild imagination... Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). Truthfreedom
UB @ 126: "Yes! symbols and life appear in the physical history of earth at the same time." Oh really? Then you must know what the first living creature looked like and how it functioned!! You're exactly what the OOL people have been looking for! This will be of unestimable help to the OOLs. Please describe the first living thing, especially its mechanism for coding and decoding symbolic information! I'm not kidding you when I say this is Nobel Prize stuff. Think of what a grand feather in its cap this will be for the ID movement! Not to mention Uncommon Descent for publishing it here first. We're all eagerly awaiting your theory. MatSpirit
121 JVL
So, you’d just stop trying to figure it all out?
Nooooope! Nooooope!
1. IF "atheistic evolution" were true, we could not trust our visual perceptions about our environment (per Hoffmman). 2. We can trust them (for the most part or we could not practice science). Therefore: "Atheistic evolution" is not true.
Which is what any intelligent person knows. That "atheistic evolution" is a ridiculous fairy-tale with z.e.r.o. proof. Science says that there are biological changes and explains (more or less), DNA modifications. Science DOES NOT and CAN NOT say that the Universe created itself/ there is not a Master Mind = God. Materialism is a kindergarten, obsolete, failed philosophy. Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). Truthfreedom
JVL You are not very intelligent (and you suffer from philosophical illiteracy). So lemme try again. Do you understand the meaning of the CONDITIONAL particle if? Truthfreedom
. returning ... to #113
JVL: So, they arrive on the scene at the same time? JVL: So, there are some physical/chemical dependancies?
Yes! symbols and life appear in the physical history of earth at the same time. And so? Yes! all symbol systems have a physical substrate suited to their system. We don’t use smoke signals in libraries. These are pointless questions, intended to appear provocative, but you only ask them in a transparent attempt to hide the blatant double standard you already put on the table. These tactics fool no one JVL.
UB: You accept semiosis as an unambiguous inference to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence in one domain, but immediately deny it in another. JVL: Again, I would leave the call to experts in the pertinent field.
BS. You have talked about the SETI project more than once on this forum and you did not hesitate to explicitly state that finding symbolic content (semiosis) outside earth would be an unmistakable proof of a previously unknown intelligence. You spoke with absolute confidence on the matter because you know (like everyone else) that encoded symbol systems are a universal correlate of intelligence. It is pure deception on your part to suggest you are waiting for “an expert” to tell you if this is true.
UB: This is not about changing your mind, JVL. You stand by your statement that there is no evidence of design in biology, even though you now clearly know that this is false. JVL: I don’t find the evidence convincing.
Oh, yes you do -- you absolutely do. That is why you run from it is as fast as you can. In fact, when I first presented the evidence to you in May, you stammered for just a moment before you got your ideological legs back beneath you and started running the other way. Your exact words were ”if you don’t hear from me on this matter for a while it’s because you’ve given me a lot to chew on as it were” -and- ”Thank you for the follow-up. I think most of us tend to cling to ideas they’ve held for a long time; it’s hard to admit you’ve got it wrong after years and years and some ideas are comforting to us. I don’t know how I’ll react”. Since that moment, you have done nothing but run from the science and history. The simple fact of the matter: If you didn’t find the evidence convincing, you wouldn't need a double standard in order to dismiss it. But you do just exactly that, openly for all to see (i.e. #78). Upright BiPed
JVL:
As usual, you put the onus onto those you disagree with without providing clear criteria that you would be willing to accept.
Look, it is up tp YOU to support your claims. It is not my fault that you cannot.
You dismiss design implementation out of hand but surely that is the crux of the matter.
LoL! Again, your ignorance is not an argument. We do NOT have to know how something was designed in order to infer that it was and then study it as such.
You think some biological systems were designed.
That is what the evidence and science demonstrate- that biological organisms were intelligently designed. There isn't any evidence that blind and mindless processes can do it and there isn't even a way to test that claim. So we can dismiss it.
That means a design was implemented. When? How? Without answering those questions you are just pontificating.
Again, your ignorance is not an argument. Those questions are NOT part of ID. We don't even ask those questions until AFTER design has been detected. And even then we may never know. And there are more important questions to answer first.
Avoiding that makes you look like a science stopper, someone who can’t get to the heart of the matter.
Again, your ignorant opinion is not an argument. Obviously ID is NOT a science stopper as it clearly opens up new questions that we will try to answer in time.
You can on and on and on trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory but until you shore up your own case you aren’t going to be taken seriously.
LoL! There isn't any scientific theory of evolution to poke. And ID has more than your side ever will. Perhaps JVL should get an education into science. He definitely doesn't understand it. ET
JVL at 122 states,
"Dr Hoffman says that’s all an illusion, just our limited perspective. You can’t have it both ways guys. I believe there is an actual physical reality that we can slowly, step-by-step learn to understand."
You just can't make this stuff up. As I explained in post 119, (a post that JVL apparently ignored), Dr. Hoffman found that, IF darwinian evolution were true, then the mathematics of population genetics predict that ALL of our perceptions are illusory. As I further explained in post 119, it is a claim that, number 1, directly contradicts the experimental results from quantum mechanics which show that ALL our conscious observation of reality are far more integral to reality, and therefore far more reliable of reality, than was predicted for Darwinian evolution by Hoffman. In other words, these experimental results from quantum mechanics (that I referenced in post 119) directly falsify the mathematical prediction for Darwinian evolution that ALL of our perceptions will be illusory. All of this is good, clean, hard science, and should, (if Darwinian evolution were a normal science instead of being basically a unfalsifiable religion for atheists), count as yet another powerful experimental falsification of Darwinian evolution. To repeat Feynman, “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
“Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. 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.” – Richard Feynman – On the Scientific Method https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-scientific-method/
And number 2, as I further pointed out in post 119, (since reliable observation is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself), Hoffman's results also directly undermine Darwinian claims that it can possibly be based on the scientific method.. Even JVL himself stated that he does not believe Hoffman's results, but he instead believes that "there is an actual physical reality that we can slowly, step-by-step learn to understand." In short, in spite of Hoffman's results for Darwinian evolution, JVL instead believes that his observations of reality are, for the most part, reliable and trustworthy. Which is all fine and well since the progress of science itself testifies to the fact that our observations of reality must be, for the most part, reliable and trustworthy. JVL even had the audacity to say "You can’t have it both ways guys." Like I said, you just can't make this stuff up. FYI JVL, it is YOU yourself who believes Darwinian evolution to be true! Not us!!! Thus it is YOU yourself who can't have it both ways. That is to say, YOU cannot hold that both Darwinian evolution is true and that your observations of reality are, for the most part, reliable and trustworthy as you are currently trying to do. If you had any integrity JVL you would honestly admit that your Darwinian worldview can't possibly be true. Moreover, as I have pointed out many times before, (and as JVL has apparently ignored many times before), perception is hardly the only place where Darwinian evolution 'predicts' that things will be illusory for us. Although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM
It would be hard to fathom a worldview that is more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
So JVL, as you said, 'you can't have it both ways'. You can either live in reality or you can live in a world of illusion and fantasy. Might I invite you into reality? i.e. Into Christianity? The water is just fine over here! Of supplemental note to differentiating reality from illusion. In the following study, materialistic researchers who had a bias against Near Death Experiences being real, set out to prove that they were merely ‘false memories’ 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. Simply put, 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. - per cnn Memories of Near Death Experiences (NDEs): More Real Than Reality? - Mar. 27, 2013 Excerpt: University of Liège ,,,researchers,, have looked into the memories of NDE with the hypothesis that if the memories of NDE were pure products of the imagination, their phenomenological characteristics (e.g., sensorial, self referential, emotional, etc. details) should be closer to those of imagined memories. Conversely, if the NDE are experienced in a way similar to that of reality, their characteristics would be closer to the memories of real events. The researchers compared the responses provided by three groups of patients, each of which had survived (in a different manner) a coma, and a group of healthy volunteers. They studied the memories of NDE and the memories of real events and imagined events with the help of a questionnaire which evaluated the phenomenological characteristics of the memories. The results were surprising. From the perspective being studied, not only were the NDEs not similar to the memories of imagined events, but the phenomenological characteristics inherent to the memories of real events (e.g. memories of sensorial details) are even more numerous in the memories of NDE than in the memories of real events. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130327190359.htm
My question for atheists is this, exactly how is it remotely possible for something to become even ‘more real than real’ for a person having an NDE unless the infinite Mind of God truly is the basis for all reality, and this material reality we presently live in, and as is claimed in Christianity, is really just a shadow of the heavenly paradise that awaits us after death? Here are a few quotes that get this 'more real than real' finding from NDEs across,
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 - per nbc chicago 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 “I was in the spiritual dimension. And this spiritual dimension, this spiritual world, that’s the real world. And this spiritual man that I was seeing and perceiving, that was the real me. And I instantly knew it. The colors are brighter. The thoughts are more intense. The feelings have greater depth. They’re more real. In the spirit world instantly I knew that this is the real world.,,,” – The Near Death Experience of Mickey Robinson – video (testimony starts at 27:45 minute mark) https://youtu.be/voak1RM-pXo?t=1655 Dr. Eben Alexander Says It's Time for Brain Science to Graduate From Kindergarten - 10/24/2013 Excerpt: To take the approach of, "Oh it had to be a hallucination of the brain" is just crazy. The simplistic idea that NDEs (Near Death Experiences) are a trick of a dying brain is similar to taking a piece of cardboard out of a pizza delivery box, rolling it down a hill and then claiming that it's an identical event as rolling a beautiful Ferrari down a hill. They are not the same at all. The problem is the pure materialist scientists can be so closed-minded about it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ingrid-peschke/near-death-experiences_b_4151093.html
Verses:
Matthew 6:19-21 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. 2 Corinthians 4:18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.
Also of supplemental note:
September 2020 - "Where this gets interesting is that, whereas atheists have no experimental evidence supporting their unfounded conjectures for multiverses, Christians, on the other hand, can appeal directly to Special Relativity, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, (i.e. our most precisely tested theories ever in the history of science), to support their belief that God upholds this universe in its continual existence, as well as to support their belief in a heavenly dimension as well as support their belief in a hellish dimension." https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/physicists-life-forms-could-flourish-in-the-interior-of-stars/#comment-711489
bornagain77
JVL, it is the evolutionary mindset (that is reduced to using the minds it implies we don't have), through freedom governed by moral principles (ditto) that is trying to deny the import of what is there before our eyes. We have found our SETI signal, right there in every cell of our bodies. KF kairosfocus
Kairosfocus: Yes, there is alphanumeric, digital, algorithmic code in the cell. Backed by molecular nanotech execution machinery, manifesting verbal language and antecedent to biological cell based life. Ah but Dr Hoffman says that's all an illusion, just our limited perspective. You can't have it both ways guys. I believe there is an actual physical reality that we can slowly, step-by-step learn to understand. JVL
Truthfreedom: Dr. Hoffman has published his scientific paper and his model, showing that under evolution, we can not know reality as it is, just a “downgraded version” IF we only depend on our our personal impressions and observations. But the fact that human beings figured out Quantum Mechanics and Relativity shows that we can punch above our own personal weight. Meaning, as I said above, that atheistic evolution is a dead end. We can only know a very small part of our environment, therefore all grandiose claims about the Universe, its origins and its design were never meant for us. So, you'd just stop trying to figure it all out? "We can't get there so why try?" I don't think that's what you mean but it sounds like it. Only a person who appeals to a transcendent, immutable source of knowledge (the God that originated this Universe and created us in His image) can hold a rational position when he/ she claims that we are able to understand what’s going on here. Maybe but I don't think theology had anything to do with the discovery of Calculus, the laws of thermodynamics, Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. Or even plate tectonics. Evolution never intended for us anything except to be another unremarkable primate that one day will disappear without never apprehending “truth”. But we've managed to transcend our physical and historical limitations! That's pretty cool don't you think? And, in the last few hundred years, we've started to create our own fitness landscape wherein having greater insight will improve ones 'fitness'. He is saying that the materialist paradigm is over but “a hard one to let go of” and that “matter” is just a “projection” in our consciousness (which is primary). Moreover, he explains that the materialist claim of an “external, mind-independent objective reality” is false. Which is what your “materialist” paradigm is so fond of claiming we are exhausting (“we are uncovering the truth”). But he doesn't (as you do) thence support the notion of some greater being ruling over all of us. He reminds me of David Hume in a way. I just don't find that attitude particularly helpful when you're trying to figure things out. JVL
UB, you are seeing selective hyperskepticism backed by an ideological commitment that sets up a crooked yardstick. Yes, there is alphanumeric, digital, algorithmic code in the cell. Backed by molecular nanotech execution machinery, manifesting verbal language and antecedent to biological cell based life. There is but one plausible source for language, and algorithms are inherently goal directed linguistic phenomena. It's not just messages, it is goal-directed applications of identifiable machine code. We have good reason to declare independence of the ideological straightjacket and infer design. The double standard on SETI simply shows the selective hyperskepticism. KF PS, BTW, any advanced civilisation likely would use deeply encoded broadband radio indistinguishable from noise. Unless, they were sending messages in the clear to others, which does not make a lot of sense on cosmic scale. kairosfocus
Per Hoffman's results, his results play into my larger point about the primary importance of empirical evidence in science. Donald Hoffman, via the mathematics of population genetics, proved that if Darwinian evolution were true then ALL of our perceptions of reality would be illusory, (not just some of our perceptions being illusory as was generally held before Hoffman's work):
Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? - Video - 9:59 minute mark Quote: “fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction (those organisms) that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?” https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601 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/
Although Hoffman tried to limit his results to just our visual perceptions, as Plantinga had pointed out years before Hoffman came along, there is no reason why the results do not also extend to undermining our cognitive faculties as well:
The Case Against Reality – May 13, 2016 Excerpt: Hoffman seems to come to a conclusion similar to the one Alvin Plantinga argues in ch. 10 of Where the Conflict Really Lies: we should not expect — in the absence of further argument — that creatures formed by a naturalistic evolutionary process would have veridical perceptions.,,, First, even if Hoffman’s argument were restricted to visual perception, and not to our cognitive faculties more generally (e.g., memory, introspection, a priori rational insight, testimonial belief, inferential reasoning, etc.), the conclusion that our visual perceptions would be wholly unreliable given natural selection would be sufficient for Plantinga’s conclusion of self-defeat. After all, reliance upon the veridicality of our visual perceptions was and always will be crucial for any scientific argument for the truth of evolution. So if these perceptions cannot be trusted, we have little reason to think evolutionary theory is true. Second, it’s not clear that Hoffman’s application of evolutionary game theory is only specially applicable to visual perception, rather than being relevant for our cognitive faculties generally. If “we find that veridical perceptions can be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality” (2010, p. 504, my emphasis), then why wouldn’t veridical cognitive faculties (more generally) be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality? After all, evolutionary theory purports to be the true account of the formation of all of our cognitive faculties, not just our faculty of visual perception. If evolutionary game theory proves that “true perception generally goes extinct” when “animals that perceive the truth compete with others that sacrifice truth for speed and energy-efficiency” (2008), why wouldn’t there be a similar sacrifice with respect to other cognitive faculties? In fact, Hoffman regards the following theorem as now proven: “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” (Atlantic interview). But then wouldn’t it also be the case that an organism that cognizes reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that cognizes none of reality but is just tuned to fitness? On the evolutionary story, every cognitive faculty we have was produced by a process that was tuned to fitness (rather than tuned to some other value, such as truth). http://www.gregwelty.com/2016/05/the-case-against-reality/
Moreover, in direct contradiction to the mathematical prediction from Darwinian theory that ALL of of perceptions will be illusory, experimental results from quantum theory prove that ALL our perceptions, and/or conscious observations, of reality, far from being unreliable and illusory, are experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, and therefore far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics predicted for Darwinian theory. In the following experiment, it was found that "“It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
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. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html
Likewise, the following experiment also found that "reality does not exist when we're not observing it."
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007 ? Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell's inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell's inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics.?Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.?They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism."? http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
And as the following recent experiment also stated, “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019 Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”. https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html
Thus, according to the mathematical predictions of Darwinian theory, ALL of our perceptions are illusory. Yet according to the experimental results quantum theory, ALL our perceptions of reality, far from being illusory. are found to integral to, and therefore reliable of, reality. (whatever that definition of 'reality' may turn out to be). In science, experimental results trump theory every time. As Feynman stated, “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
“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.” – Richard Feynman – On the Scientific Method
Moreover, reliable observation also happens to be a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself
Steps of the Scientific Method Observation/Research Hypothesis Prediction Experimentation Conclusion http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html
Thus, In what should be needless to say, a worldview that undermines the scientific method itself by holding that all our observations of reality, and cognitive faculties, are illusory is NOT a worldview that can possibly be grounded within the scientific method! In short, Darwin's theory turns out to be, not only a unfalsifiable pseudo-science, but to undermine the science method itself. If that does not disqualify Darwin's theory from being considered science nothing ever will!
Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77
116 JVL
Truthfreedom: Both Hoffman and Dr. Bonnette explain the same: that “materialism” does not exist at all. JVL: I don’t think Dr Hoffman supported that view actually.
Then you have not understood what you read. Donald Hoffmann, (who is a cognitive scientist) is a Berkeleyian or subjective idealist.
" I’m emphasizing the larger lesson of quantum mechanics: Neurons, brains, space … these are just symbols we use, they’re not real. It’s not that there’s a classical brain that does some quantum magic. It’s that there’s no brain! Quantum mechanics says that classical objects — including brains — don’t exist. So this is a far more radical claim about the nature of reality and does not involve the brain pulling off some tricky quantum computation. So even Penrose hasn’t taken it far enough. But most of us, you know, we’re born realists. We’re born physicalists. This is a really, really hard one to let go of." The Evolutionary Argument against Reality
He is saying that the materialist paradigm is over but "a hard one to let go of" and that "matter" is just a "projection" in our consciousness (which is primary). Moreover, he explains that the materialist claim of an "external, mind-independent objective reality" is false. Which is what your "materialist" paradigm is so fond of claiming we are exhausting ("we are uncovering the truth"). Nope. Truthfreedom
116 JVL
I don’t completely trust my brain or anyone else’s brain. But I do believe that if we’re open and honest and consider a plethora of views and results we have a better chance of figuring out what is true.
That's not empirical support. That's a guess. Dr. Hoffman has published his scientific paper and his model, showing that under evolution, we can not know reality as it is, just a "downgraded version" ("desktop icon"). Meaning, as I said above, that atheistic evolution is a dead end. We can only know a very small part of our environment, therefore all grandiose claims about the Universe, its origins and its design were never meant for us. Only a person who appeals to a transcendent, immutable source of knowledge (the God that originated this Universe and created us in His image) can hold a rational position when he/ she claims that we are able to understand what's going on here. Evolution never intended for us anything except to be another unremarkable primate that one day will disappear without never apprehending "truth". Truthfreedom
Truthfreedom: What’s the empirical support for your theory of: “we should trust our brain because trusting our brain is what got us here”? (Which is circular reasoning). I don't completely trust my brain or anyone else's brain. But I do believe that if we're open and honest and consider a plethora of views and results we have a better chance of figuring out what is true. Both Hoffman and Dr. Bonnette explain the same: that “materialism” does not exist at all. I don't think Dr Hoffman supported that view actually. But that doesn’t make it science, just philosophy hiding behind the facade of science. But repeated and independent results pointing to the same conclusion indicate that we're getting at the truth. I don't think my life is purposeless or meaningless. In fact, most atheists I know care deeply about looking after other human beings and strive to make the world a better place for all. You may choose to poo-poo that sentiment but it does exist and it informs decisions and behaviour. Which means you're going to attack me because I'm supporting the notion of free will whereas you think I shouldn't support such a notion. Personally, I don't think being an atheist is equivalent to being a determinist nor do I think that makes me inconsistent despite your view on the matter. JVL
113 JVL
I disagree with you.
Irrelevant. You have to show why you disagree and substantiate it. Then others can judge the evidence. Truthfreedom
113 JVL
I don’t find the evidence convincing. And I am not alone in that conclusion.
Fallacious appeal to numbers. Millions of people do not find the alleged evidence for "darwinian evolution" convincing. Truthfreedom
Upright BiPed: "Life originated with symbolic memory, and symbols originated with life." So, they arrive on the scene at the same time? " The implementation of a code requires a subtle but essential physical condition. The code’s arbitrariness means that the constraint of the coding process must have freedom that is not completely under the control of the dynamics, but at the same time it must depend on the dynamics for execution of the coding rules." So, there are some physical/chemical dependancies? You accept semiosis as an unambiguous inference to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence in one domain, but immediately deny it in another. Again, I would leave the call to experts in the pertinent field. I can speculate and guess what would be convincing but I will always defers to those who know better. Also, interstellar signals are inanimate whereas the genetic code is part of a web of living systems. This is not about changing your mind, JVL. You stand by your statement that there is no evidence of design in biology, even though you now clearly know that this is false. I don't find the evidence convincing. And I am not alone in that conclusion. So it's not just me being stubborn. This confrontation is about exposing the way in which you arrive at and maintain that false statement. Well, pardon me if I don't take it as seriously as you do. You ignore the science and history, then apply a double standard to what is left. I disagree with you. JVL
106 JVL
I understand: you have a deep and personal experience of a greater, loving being in your life. I’m not trying to dissuade you from that heart-felt and defining situation. But that doesn’t make it science nor does it mean that when you think you’ve found some academic justification for your beliefs that the rest of us have to accept it.
We understand: you "materialists" have a deep and personal experience of being "purposeless primates in a world without design where truth is an illusion and free will doesn't exist." We are not trying to dissuade you, because in fact you have free will and may choose to believe any strange, non-sensical thing. But that doesn't make it science, just philosophy hiding behind the facade of science. An obsolete and obviously absurd philosophy by the way. And of course no sane person accepts it and it's just a "matter" of time (pun intended) for the "ivory tower elites" to catch up with what's coming and accept the massive failure of their worldview. Naturalism's Epistemological Blunder Truthfreedom
103 JVL
So, who knows if he’s right?
He has published his paper on the Journal of Theoretical Biology . You can read it. What's the empirical support for your theory of: "we should trust our brain because trusting our brain is what got us here"? (Which is circular reasoning).
By the way, no where in that interview does Dr Hoffman argue for design or a designer. Just sayin’.
Well, in fact, he argues for something far more interesting: subjective idealism (which remember is where the combination "materialism" + the physiology of vision leads; I am venturing you did not read the link I posted): Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). Both Hoffman and Dr. Bonnette explain the same: that "materialism" does not exist at all. Idealism is the new paradigm (preeminence of "mind" over "matter"). And "mind" = God (who is the Master Designer). Just commentin'. Truthfreedom
Kf, I am very well aware of Lakatos's (and Kuhn's) subsequent work. That still does not negate any specific theory's primary requirement to submit to empirical testing in order for it to even be in the realm of science in the first place. That is to say, passing empirical tests (and/or the ability of any specific theory to not be falsified by empirical testing), is the first and foremost criteria for ANY specific theory to even be considered truly scientific in the first place. You can debate predictive power, auxiliary hypothesis, epicycle theories, etc... afterwards, But first and foremost, for a theory to even be in the realm of empirical science in the first place, is for that theory to pass empirical testing. PERIOD! The ability to be empirically tested, (and potentially falsified) is what makes falsification the 'go to gold standard' for ascertaining whether a theory even to be considered truly scientific in the first place! Please note Ellis's critique of multiverse scenarios is that they try to exempt themselves from empirical testing and quote unquote, "a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific."
Defend the integrity of physics - George Ellis - 2014 Attempts to exempt speculative theories of the Universe from experimental verification undermine science Excerpt: This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theor­ etical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific. https://personal.lse.ac.uk/ROBERT49/ebooks/PhilSciAdventures/img/ellis-silk.pdf
I say Hear, Hear! Also of note: since you brought up Lakatos, Darwin's theory also fails Lakatos's subsequent criteria for being considered a science. Imre Lakatos, who was a student of Karl Popper, and who is also regarded as another prominent philosopher of science in the 20th century, stated that "nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific"
Imre Lakatos - Pseudoscience - Darwin's Theory According to the demarcation criterion of pseudoscience originally proposed by Lakatos, a theory is pseudoscientific if it fails to make any novel predictions of previously unknown phenomena, in contrast with scientific theories, which predict novel fact(s).[21] Progressive scientific theories are those which have their novel facts confirmed and degenerate scientific theories are those whose predictions of novel facts are refuted. As he put it: "A given fact is explained scientifically only if a new fact is predicted with it....The idea of growth and the concept of empirical character are soldered into one." See pages 34–5 of The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, 1978. Lakatos's own key examples of pseudoscience were Ptolemaic astronomy, Immanuel Velikovsky's planetary cosmogony, Freudian psychoanalysis, 20th century Soviet Marxism,[22] Lysenko's biology, Niels Bohr's Quantum Mechanics post-1924, astrology, psychiatry, sociology, neoclassical economics, and Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[23] he also claimed that "nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific". Almost 20 years after Lakatos's 1973 challenge to the scientificity of Darwin, in her 1991 The Ant and the Peacock, LSE lecturer and ex-colleague of Lakatos, Helena Cronin, attempted to establish that Darwinian theory was empirically scientific in respect of at least being supported by evidence of likeness in the diversity of life forms in the world, explained by descent with modification. She wrote that "our usual idea of corroboration as requiring the successful prediction of novel facts...Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions.." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Pseudoscience
Lakatos also went on to state that “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts”
Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) – “In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture http://www.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/science-and-pseudoscience-overview-and-transcript/
And another prominent philosopher of science of the 20th century, Thomas Kuhn, who introduced the term 'paradigm shift', also noted that when faced with an anomaly, a theory's defenders "will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict."
Inquiry-Based Science Education -- on Everything but Evolution - Sarah Chaffee - January 22, 2016 Excerpt: As Thomas Kuhn wrote in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, when faced with an anomaly, a theory's defenders "will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/01/inquiry-based_s102534.html
And in regards to a theory making predictions that are shown to be false and then making up ad hoc theories to try to cover up those embarrassing falsified predictions, then by that ‘predictability’ falsification criteria set out by Lakatos and Kuhn, Darwinian evolution more than qualifies as a pseudoscience rather than a real science. Here is a site, that was put together by Dr. Cornelius Hunter, that goes over many of the failed predictions of Darwinian evolution.
Darwin’s (Failed) Predictions – Cornelius Hunter https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/
As Dr. Hunter goes on to state in the following article,,, “With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony.”
Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition – June 17, 2014 Excerpt: “With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony.” – Cornelius Hunter http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/06/heres-that-algae-study-that-decouples.ht
bornagain77
.
A signal that is clearly not produced by unguided processes. I didn’t say ‘semiosis’.
Good grief. We've been here before. The obfuscation is deliberate and never ceases:
UB: If you do indeed drop the rhetoric, then you’ll be left with the fact that Howard Pattee’s physical analysis of the gene system demonstrates that a symbol system, a language structure, and semantic closure are all required for the origin of life, JVL: I don’t think he said that. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Symbol systems first controlled material construction at the origin of life. At this molecular level it is only in the context of open-ended evolvability that symbol-matter systems and their functions can be objectively defined. Symbols are energy-degenerate structures not determined by laws that act locally as special boundary conditions or constraints on law-based energy-dependent matter in living systems. Physical and functional conditions for symbols, codes, and languages – Howard Pattee Evolution requires the genotype-phenotype distinction, a primeval epistemic cut that separates energy-degenerate, rate-independent genetic symbols from the rate-dependent dynamics of construction that they control. This symbol-matter or subject-object distinction occurs at all higher levels where symbols are related to a referent by an arbitrary code. The Physics of Symbol Systems , Howard Pattee Life originated with symbolic memory, and symbols originated with life. I find it gratuitous to use the concept of symbol, even metaphorically, in physical systems where no function exists. Symbols do not exist in isolation but are part of a semiotic or linguistic system (Pattee, 1969a). The necessary but not sufficient conditions for biological informational concepts like signs, symbols, memories, instructions, and messages are (1) an object or referent that the information is about, (2) a physical embodiment or vehicle that stands for what the information is about (the object), and (3) an interpreter or agent that separates the referent information from the vehicle’s material structure, and that establishes the stands-for relation. – Epistemic, Evolutionary, and Physical Conditions for Biological Information – Howard Pattee This additional self-referent condition for being the subject-part of an epistemic cut I have called semantic (or semiotic) closure (Pattee, 1982, 1995). This is the molecular chicken-egg closure that makes the origin of life problem so difficult. The Physics of Symbol Systems, – Howard Pattee Biosemiotics distinguishes life from inanimate matter by its dependence on material construction controlled by coded symbolic information. This irreducible primitive distinction between matter and symbol is necessary for open-ended evolvability and the origin of life. The Necessity of Biosemiotics: Matter-Symbol Complementarity, – Howard Pattee This second freedom is the freedom of interpretation of the symbols. This requires an arbitrary code, a condition necessary for a general-purpose language, a concept that I will discuss in Sec.5. The implementation of a code requires a subtle but essential physical condition. The code’s arbitrariness means that the constraint of the coding process must have freedom that is not completely under the control of the dynamics, but at the same time it must depend on the dynamics for execution of the coding rules. This requires that the constraint must have more degrees of freedom in its structural configurations than the laws allow in its energy-based dynamic behavior. (Pattee, 1968, 1972). – Physical and functional conditions for symbols, codes, and languages – Howard Pattee These are the physical conditions required to implement von Neumann’s logical closure. I have called this semantic closure, but Luis Rocha (2001) has more accurately called it semiotic closure because its realization also includes the syntax and pragmatic physical control processes. The Necessity of Biosemiotics: Matter-Symbol Complementarity, – Howard Pattee etc. etc. etc. etc.
You accept semiosis as an unambiguous inference to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence in one domain, but immediately deny it in another. Question: Why the double standard? Answer: ”Because there is no plausible designer available” - JVL You apply the double standard in order to deny the existence of the very thing that you otherwise accept without the double standard in place. Your double standard is plain for all to see. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EDIT
We’re not going to change each other’s minds
This is not about changing your mind, JVL. You stand by your statement that there is no evidence of design in biology, even though you now clearly know that this is false. This confrontation is about exposing the way in which you arrive at and maintain that false statement. You ignore the science and history, then apply a double standard to what is left. Upright BiPed
BA77, just for one Lakatos pointed out that we hardly ever test just an explanatory hypothesis or theory, there are always auxiliary hypotheses and so ability to empirically falsify is blunted. Next, there are many things we can transparently warrant but which would be at least very hard to falsify. And more. KF kairosfocus
ET: As usual, you put the onus onto those you disagree with without providing clear criteria that you would be willing to accept. You dismiss design implementation out of hand but surely that is the crux of the matter. What good is design without implementation? How do you even know design has occurred if it wasn't implemented? But implementation is a mechanistic process. That requires energy at the very least and quite possibly tools and personnel, etc. You think some biological systems were designed. That means a design was implemented. When? How? Without answering those questions you are just pontificating. Where's the beef? What are saying actually happened? Answering that is what's going to win over your critics. Avoiding that makes you look like a science stopper, someone who can't get to the heart of the matter. You can on and on and on trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory but until you shore up your own case you aren't going to be taken seriously. JVL
Upright BiPed: As shown here, you clearly accept the finding of semiosis as a valid inference to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence in one instance, but immediately deny that exact same finding in another instance. A signal that is clearly not produced by unguided processes. I didn't say 'semiosis'. I am willing to let the experts in the field determine the case. Why are you so fixated on trying to catch me out in a contradiction? What does it get you? The criteria “It must be proven that X did not come about by an unknown/unspecified process” is a non-falsifiable criteria, and as you are well aware, it is therefore non-scientific and illogical. Did I say proven? If I did then, yes, that was incorrect. I would rephrase that. But did I actually say that? Look, you are making a mountain out of a very small pile of dirt. We all agree that any kind of interstellar signal that seems to be intelligently designed should be subject to intense scrutiny. No one should jump the gun and claim that aliens have been found without very, very careful examination. The same as with the genetic code. No one wants to come to a 'designed' conclusion without clear and unambiguous evidence. At the same time I think there is lots and lots of evidence building up for the genetic code being non-designed. You, personally, have chosen the criteria of semiotic to be your line in the sand. But clearly others disagree, including, I think, Dr Pattee. Why don't you just let it go? We're not getting anywhere. We're not going to change each other's minds so why continue to have the argument? I understand: you have a deep and personal experience of a greater, loving being in your life. I'm not trying to dissuade you from that heart-felt and defining situation. But that doesn't make it science nor does it mean that when you think you've found some academic justification for your beliefs that the rest of us have to accept it. I'm not going to try and impose my beliefs on you; that would be insulting and, at its base, controlling. I'm happy to compare and contrast our views because I find that interesting and it means I'm better able to understand you which I think is good. I'm interested in finding the best middle ground when dealing with contentious societal issues. I think we should just let it go don't you? JVL
JVL:
I’ve seen loads!
Nonsense.
Now, in your particular case . . . you think that most if not all beneficial mutations are guided.
More nonsense.
So . . . if I was able to point to a situation where a series of mutations led to a new binding point you just might say: but how do you know the mutations were random?
"Waiting for TWO Mutations" goes over that.
How would someone show that unguided mutations and processes ‘did it’?
That is up to the people making the claim.
Where exactly?
Everywhere that you deny the science and the design inference.
Are any of them biologic?
Yes.
But that doesn’t apply to design implementation which obvious would have had to happen.
ID is not about design implementation. Grow up, already.
My point is that your explanatory is not the same as it was 150 years ago. So, how do you know it won’t change again?
The design inference is stronger today, thanks to science. It is only going to get stronger.
No designer means it’s all down to unguided processes!
No evidence for that claim means it can be dismissed. No methodology to test that claim means it is outside of science. The evidence for an Intelligent Designer comes from several different scientific venues. It is a consilience of evidence that leads to ID. OTOH there isn't any evidence that blind and mindless processes could do it and there still isn't any way to test it. That is why no one uses it for anything beyond promoting their biased worldview. ET
. #81 Here [again] are your own words in applying your double standard: JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As shown here, you clearly accept the finding of semiosis as a valid inference to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence in one instance, but immediately deny that exact same finding in another instance. That is a double standard. You have been asked: ”Why the double standard?” Your answer: ”Because there is no plausible designer available” You thereby confirm that you apply the double standard in order to deny the existence of the very thing that you otherwise accept without the double standard in place. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - And now, more obfuscation:
In both cases I would expect experts in the field to smoke test the signal or phenomena to make sure that what was being scrutinised could not have been created or produced by natural, unguided processes.
No narrow-band radio signal has ever been detected from space, and therefore no semiotic content has ever been detected from space. On the other hand, a genuine semiotic system was predicted as the primary physical requirement for the gene system, and that prediction was famously confirmed via experimental result in the 1950s and 1960s. These facts are not in dispute.
So far no detected interstellar signal has met that criteria and neither has the genetic code.
The criteria “It must be proven that X did not come about by an unknown/unspecified process” is a non-falsifiable criteria, and as you are well aware, it is therefore non-scientific and illogical. Allow me to repeat this point so that you have to fully step over it the next time you bring this up: You are using a non-falsifiable (non-scientific) criteria as your back-up rationalization for applying a double standard to documented physical evidence. I realize that you don’t have the ideological sovereignty to actually acknowledge this glaring failure in your reasoning, but it remains just the same.
I don’t have a double standard.
I refer you back to your own statements, cut and pasted at the beginning of this comment. Your double-standard cannot be made more obvious than in your own words. Upright BiPed
Truthfreedom: Donald Hoffman’s Evolutionary Argument Against Reality contradicts your “realist” position: So, who knows if he's right? Why do you think he's right? By the way, no where in that interview does Dr Hoffman argue for design or a designer. Just sayin'. AND, actually, he doesn't contradict my view. He is saying that we have to be aware that our perception of reality is skewed. BUT that doesn't imply that those with a better perception of reality won't have an advantage. JVL
ET: Unbelievable. JVL hasn’t seen any evidence that nature did it. I've seen loads! But it's not evidence you accept. Which is why I'm asking: what would it take to falsify your view? Now, in your particular case . . . you think that most if not all beneficial mutations are guided. So . . . if I was able to point to a situation where a series of mutations led to a new binding point you just might say: but how do you know the mutations were random? So, again, what is your criteria? How would someone show that unguided mutations and processes 'did it'? All JVL has is the denial of reality. Where exactly? Wrong. We have plenty of experience with blind and mindless processes Are any of them biologic? And we don’t have to know the how in order to determine design exists But that doesn't apply to design implementation which obvious would have had to happen. Again, the science of today relies on the knowledge of today. Only a fool would think that we have to wait for something the future may or may not uncover. My point is that your explanatory is not the same as it was 150 years ago. So, how do you know it won't change again? No one is researching blind watchmaker evolution. No one uses it for anything. It is worse than uselessNo one is researching blind watchmaker evolution. No one uses it for anything. It is worse than useless No designer means it's all down to unguided processes! So, where is your designer? JVL
95 JVL
why wouldn’t it be the case that a variation which facilitated better analysis and understanding of the world around it be an advantage and therefore more likely to be passed on to the next generation?
Donald Hoffman's Evolutionary Argument Against Reality contradicts your "realist" position:
"As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions — sights, sounds, textures, tastes — are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it — or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion — we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like. Not so, says Donald D. Hoffman, a professor of cognitive science at the University of California, Irvine. Hoffman has spent the past three decades studying perception, artificial intelligence, evolutionary game theory and the brain, and his conclusion is a dramatic one: The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality."
Truthfreedom
On the Problem of Biological Form Thanks to evolutionary biology that most basic of biological questions remains unanswered. ET
JVL:
So, your position is unfalsifiable?
We have said how to falsify it. It isn't our fault that no one can.
Our “experience” is limited to non-living systems devised by human beings. I’d say we still have a lot to learn.
Wrong. We have plenty of experience with blind and mindless processes. That is why we can exclude them when it comes to coded information processing systems. They don't have the tools nor the capability.
But design is not the same as design implementation which would have to be a mechanistic process.
And we don't have to know the how in order to determine design exists
And I don’t see any evidence of that. Or other evidence of a designer or designers.
Your ignorance still isn't an argument. ID is evidenced by several different scientific venues. Your side still has nothing.
Well except that your explanatory filter is not really mathematically robust, it’s not been shown to have a known success rate, i.e. what are the chances of getting a false positive or false negative?
The EF is more robust than anything your side has. Again, the science of today relies on the knowledge of today. Only a fool would think that we have to wait for something the future may or may not uncover.
I’m not sure that is true but a lot of research is going on!
It is true. No one is researching blind watchmaker evolution. No one uses it for anything. It is worse than useless ET
JVL, whatever. My post is unambiguous.
Dan S. Tawfik Group - The New View of Proteins - Tyler Hampton - 2016 Excerpt: one of the most favorable and liberal estimates is by Jack Szostak: 1 in 10^11. 42 He ascertained this figure by looking to see how random sequences—about eighty amino acids in length, long enough to fold—could cling to the biologically crucial molecule adenosine triphosphate, or ATP. At first glance, this is an improvement over Salisbury’s calculations by 489 powers of ten. But while an issue has been addressed, the problem has only been deferred. ,,, ,,, nucleotide synthesis, requires several steps. If five enzyme functions were needed (ten are needed in modern adenine synthesis), 43 then the probability would be 1 in (10^11)5, or 1 in 10^55. If all the operations needed for a small autonomous biology were ten functions—this is before evolution can even start to help—the probability is 1 in (10^11)10, or 1 in 10^110. This is more than the number of seconds since the Big Bang, more protons than there are in the universe. In considering a similar figure derived in a different context, Tawfik concedes that if true, this would make “the emergence of sequences with function a highly improbable event, despite considerable redundancy (many sequences giving the same structure and function).”44 In other words, these odds are impossible.,,, Tawfik soberly recognizes the problem. The appearance of early protein families, he has remarked, is “something like close to a miracle.”45,,, “In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations ... that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69 The emerging picture, once luminous, has settled to gray. It is not clear how natural selection can operate in the origin of folds or active site architecture (of proteins). It is equally unclear how either micromutations or macromutations could repeatedly and reliably lead to large evolutionary transitions. What remains is a deep, tantalizing, perhaps immovable mystery. http://inference-review.com/article/the-new-view-of-proteins Here Are Those Two Protein Evolution Falsifications That Have Evolutionists Rewriting Their Script - Cornelius Hunter - March 2012 Excerpt: Several different studies indicate that, at a minimum, about 10^70 (a one followed by 70 zeros) evolutionary experiments would be needed to get close enough to a workable protein design before evolutionary mechanisms could take over and establish the protein in a population. For instance, one study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein. And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required, and another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. This requirement for 10^70 evolutionary experiments is far greater than what evolution could accomplish. Even evolutionists have had to admit that evolution could only have a maximum of 10^43 such experiments. It is important to understand how tiny this number is compared to 10^70. 10^43 is not more than half of 10^70. It is not even close to half. 10^43 is an astronomically tiny sliver of 10^70. Furthermore, the estimate of 10^43 is, itself, entirely unrealistic. For instance, it assumes the entire history of the Earth is available, rather than the limited time window that evolution actually would have had. Even more importantly, it assumes the pre existence of bacteria and, yes, proteins. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/03/here-are-those-two-protein-evolution.html Claim: New Proteins Evolve Very Easily - Cornelius Hunter - April 25, 2017 Excerpt:  It is now clear that for a given protein, only a few changes to its amino acid sequence can be sustained before the protein function is all but eliminated. Here is how one paper explained it: “The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability—the ability of proteins to acquire changes in sequence and function.” In other words, protein function precipitously drops off with only a tiny fraction of its amino acids altered. It is not a gradual fitness landscape. Another paper described the protein fitness landscape as rugged. Therefore it is not surprising that various studies on evolving proteins have failed to show a viable mechanism. One study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required to evolve a relatively short protein. And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required, and another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. So something like 10^70 attempts are required yet evolutionists estimate that only 10^43 attempts are possible. In other words, there is a shortfall of 27 orders of magnitude. But it gets worse. The estimate that 10^43 attempts are possible is utterly unrealistic. For it assumes billions of years are available, and that for that entire time the Earth is covered with bacteria, constantly churning out mutations and new protein experiments. Aside from the fact that these assumptions are entirely unrealistic, the estimate also suffers from the rather inconvenient fact that those bacteria are, err, full of proteins. In other word, for evolution to evolve proteins, they must already exist in the first place. This is absurd. And yet, even with these overly optimistic assumptions, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude. https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/04/claim-new-proteins-evolve-very-easily/
bornagain77
Unbelievable. JVL hasn't seen any evidence that nature did it. JVL doesn't know of any evidence that nature can produce something like ATP synthase. All JVL has is the denial of reality. ET
ET: We can exclude blind and mindless processes. That is because 1) there isn’t any evidence to support it and @) there isn’t even a way to test the claim. So, your position is unfalsifiable? If there's no possible way to show unguided processes in action? Everything we know, observed and experience with coded information processing systems demonstrates they only arise via intelligent agencies. 100% of our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships confirms that fact. Our "experience" is limited to non-living systems devised by human beings. I'd say we still have a lot to learn. ID’s science is in the determination and study of design in nature. We have to support that methodology whereas yours doesn’t even have a methodology to test its claims. But design is not the same as design implementation which would have to be a mechanistic process. Some being has to be exerting some kind of energy to affect physical structures so that their design gets made. And I don't see any evidence of that. Or other evidence of a designer or designers. JVL thinks that ID has to have all of the answers when his position has nothing. At least ID has a methodology that allows us to test its claims. Well except that your explanatory filter is not really mathematically robust, it's not been shown to have a known success rate, i.e. what are the chances of getting a false positive or false negative? In fact, the whole idea of ruling out natural causes only extends to what we know now; a thousand years ago most people thought every natural phenomena was 'designed' because they didn't understand the laws of nature. That means that your filter would have to shift slightly every time some new discovery was made. It does sound a lot like a 'God of the gaps' argument to be honest. Evolutionary biologists still don’t even know what determines biological form! The most basic question in biology remains unanswered. I'm not sure that is true but a lot of research is going on! People are asking questions and looking for answers. I"m never quite sure what ID research is happening . .. JVL
Truthfreedom: That it’s impossible for brains that were never designed to understand/ apprehend “truth” to have been able to gain such an amount of very abstract knowledge about their environment and to have the conviction that that knowledge is certain (a good approximation I’d say, not absolute certainty of course). I don't understand why that would HAVE to be the case. IF you had a living object with a elementary neuronal system that was passed on to its offspring with variation then why wouldn't it be the case that a variation which facilitated better analysis and understanding of the world around it be an advantage and therefore more likely to be passed on to the next generation? In other words: why wouldn't it be the case that the natural environment honed and "rewarded" life forms with better skills of understanding and prediction? Also, I'd like to note, that it's not that I completely trust any single individual's perception or analysis; it seems to me that mankind has made many, many scientific advancements because we have pooled our experiences, compared and contrasted them, and then arrived at some conclusions. We have had a few individuals like Newton or Einstein but even their work was based on that which had been done before. In other words, as individuals we would never have achieved the understand we have now. See above. I am saying that under strict materialism, gaining that knowledge is not possible. I don't see why. I am asking: how can you be sure that your “reasoning” regarding “design” can be trusted? That your cognitive processes are valid ALTHOUGH according to the “atheistic evolutionary” paradigm you follow you can not trust your brain? I tend not to, not when it's scientific question. I believe it's because all scientific knowledge is provisional (i.e. it can be overturned) and subject to confirmation by others that makes it strong and a valid reflection of the 'real' world. Of behaving like rational creatures that can ground their rational faculties in an immutable and trustable source instead of in a willy nilly stupid process that undermines credibility. Again, I think we gain knowledge and form moral codes as groups not individuals. Show me that the Universe came about by itself without any external source and I will convert to the “naturalist” religion. Well, I personally haven't seen any compelling evidence to the contrary. I will do my best to stay open to the possibility however. Anyway, I'm not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking. JVL
ET, that is my point about Darwinists refusing to accept falsifying evidence. The fossil record and genetic evidence both strongly contradict universal common descent (G. Bechly, W. Ewert, etc..), yet universal common descent is treated, by Darwinists and also by a few ID proponents, as though it has been established as being scientifically true. That simply is not the case. So agoin, Darwinian evolution, unlike other sciences, is simply impervious to observational evidence that contradicts it, (i.e. it is impervious to falsification), and therefore It is NOT a empirical science in any meaningful sense of the term of being a 'empirical science'!
Bechly: In the Fossil Record, “Abrupt Appearances Are the Rule” - February 20, 2018, Excerpt: , you might think that the Cambrian explosion some 530 million years is a singularity, a freak of nature: the sudden appearance of phyla, major categories of life,,,, Yet Dr. Bechly points out that the problem posed by the Cambrian event is not singular but in fact has been repeated numerous times in the long history of life — sudden explosions, abrupt appearances, followed by diversification. Each should multiply the distress of Darwin’s defenders, if they are honest with themselves about it. In a chapter co-authored with philosopher of science Stephen Meyer in the recent book Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (pg. 340-352), Bechly details 19 such “explosions.” As he observes, in the fossil record, “Abrupt appearances are the rule.” Each such event poses the same challenge to Darwinian thinking that the Cambrian explosion does. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/bechly-in-the-fossil-record-abrupt-appearances-are-the-rule/ Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head - July 30, 2013?Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.?Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.?,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: "This pattern, known as 'early high disparity', turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn't a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.",,,?Author Martin Hughes, continued: "Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.?Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: "A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,? http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html? Reviewing The Evolution Revolution, the NCSE Offers Uninformed Criticism that Misses the Point - Lee M. Spetner - January 13, 2016 Excerpt: Some researchers in the life sciences, who are not necessarily knowledgeable about evolution (including Levin), think that the various trees based on different biological systems or on protein- and DNA-sequence data yield the same tree. Life scientists once thought that trees based on anatomy and on the molecular sequences of proteins and DNA would be the same, but they were wrong (Nichols 2001; Degnan and Rosenberg 2006; Degnan and Rosenberg 2009; Heled and Drummond 2010; Rosenberg and Degnan 2010). They thought at least there would be consistency among the trees based on the DNA sequences of different genes, but again they were wrong. They then hoped that if they used the whole genome instead of individual genes, the data might average out and things would be better. In fact, it only made matters worse (Jeffroy et al. 2006; Dávalos et al. 2012). All this is discussed in my book. Levin is mistaken about what he calls the "cornerstone" of the evidence for common descent. He criticizes my rejection of common descent. I reject common descent because it is based on only circumstantial evidence. The drawback to circumstantial evidence is that it needs a valid theory to connect the evidence with the conclusion, and evolutionary theory is invalid, as I explain at length in my first chapter. There is thus no valid evidence for common descent -- and certainly not what Levin calls its "cornerstone." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/01/reviewing_the_e102281.html New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model - Cornelius Hunter - July 20, 2018 Excerpt: Ewert’s three types of data are: (i) sample computer software, (ii) simulated species data generated from evolutionary/common descent computer algorithms, and (iii) actual, real species data.,,, Where It Counts Let me repeat that in case the point did not sink in. Where it counted, common descent failed compared to the dependency graph model. The other data types served as useful checks, but for the data that mattered — the actual, real, biological species data — the results were unambiguous. Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph model surpassed common descent. Darwin could never have even dreamt of a test on such a massive scale. Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory. Because you see, Ewert’s results do not reveal two competitive models with one model edging out the other. We are not talking about a few decimal points difference. For one of the data sets (HomoloGene), the dependency graph model was superior to common descent by a factor of 10,064. The comparison of the two models yielded a preference for the dependency graph model of greater than ten thousand. Ten thousand is a big number. But it gets worse, much worse. Ewert used Bayesian model selection which compares the probability of the data set given the hypothetical models. In other words, given the model (dependency graph or common descent), what is the probability of this particular data set? Bayesian model selection compares the two models by dividing these two conditional probabilities. The so-called Bayes factor is the quotient yielded by this division. The problem is that the common descent model is so incredibly inferior to the dependency graph model that the Bayes factor cannot be typed out. In other words, the probability of the data set, given the dependency graph model, is so much greater than the probability of the data set given the common descent model, that we cannot type the quotient of their division. Instead, Ewert reports the logarithm of the number. Remember logarithms? Remember how 2 really means 100, 3 means 1,000, and so forth? Unbelievably, the 10,064 value is the logarithm (base value of 2) of the quotient! In other words, the probability of the data on the dependency graph model is so much greater than that given the common descent model, we need logarithms even to type it out. If you tried to type out the plain number, you would have to type a 1 followed by more than 3,000 zeros. That’s the ratio of how probable the data are on these two models! By using a base value of 2 in the logarithm we express the Bayes factor in bits. So the conditional probability for the dependency graph model has a 10,064 advantage over that of common descent. 10,064 bits is far, far from the range in which one might actually consider the lesser model. See, for example, the Bayes factor Wikipedia page, which explains that a Bayes factor of 3.3 bits provides “substantial” evidence for a model, 5.0 bits provides “strong” evidence, and 6.6 bits provides “decisive” evidence. This is ridiculous. 6.6 bits is considered to provide “decisive” evidence, and when the dependency graph model case is compared to comment descent case, we get 10,064 bits. But It Gets Worse The problem with all of this is that the Bayes factor of 10,064 bits for the HomoloGene data set is the very best case for common descent. For the other eight data sets, the Bayes factors range from 40,967 to 515,450. In other words, while 6.6 bits would be considered to provide “decisive” evidence for the dependency graph model, the actual, real, biological data provide Bayes factors of 10,064 on up to 515,450. We have known for a long time that common descent has failed hard. In Ewert’s new paper, we now have detailed, quantitative results demonstrating this. And Ewert provides a new model, with a far superior fit to the data. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/
bornagain77
Bornagain77: (As I stated and as you apparently ignored), personally, I would accept any evidence that a mixture of amino acids spontaneously formed just one single functional protein. Or I would even accept any evidence that a existing protein, via mutation and selection, had been transformed into a brand new functional protein. I do apologise. Now that you mention it I do remember. Gosh, I get I am not perfect! So, just to be clear: an unguided assemblage of amino acids forming a protein . . . without any influence of DNA or RNA. OR (I'm going to paraphrase here in hopes I get it a bit closer to what you're thinking) a sequence of DNA that codes for one protein is modified via mutation and unguided selection to code for a different protein? Is that about right? I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying. JVL
88 Kairosfocus
For sure, the gold standard fallacy fails yet again. KF
This paper explains why RCTs (the "gold standard") ought to be carefully addressed (and not fanatically cling on to them). Although the paper is aimed primarily at ortodoncists, the logic underlying it may be applied to any scientific epistemological inquiry:
"While some claim that only evidence for RCTs should be considered, others maintain that the study design should be determined by the research method question to be addressed. RCTs may be expensive and time-consuming and can sometimes be inappropriate for ethical reasons, especially when the control subjects remain untreated."
Truthfreedom
bornagain77- what experiment would refute universal common descent over 4.5x billion years? Do tell or jump through hoops... ;) ET
JVL still is ignorant of how science works.
No one knows how the genetic code was formed or implemented.
We can exclude blind and mindless processes. That is because 1) there isn't any evidence to support it and @) there isn't even a way to test the claim. So the Hitchen's Gambit is invoked- that which can be asseted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Everything we know, observed and experience with coded information processing systems demonstrates they only arise via intelligent agencies. 100% of our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships confirms that fact. JVL proves he is ignorant:
Gosh, does that mean that most ID proponents are hypocritical when they insist that evolutionary biologists have to supply every dot and dash to show their ideas are correct whereas ID does not have to address when and how design was implemented?
Again, yours is the mechanistic position, NOT ID. ID's science is in the determination and study of design in nature. We have to support that methodology whereas yours doesn't even have a methodology to test its claims. You have nothing. No one uses blind watchmaker evolution to guide their research. At least ID's concepts are used and proven useful in science. JVL thinks that ID has to have all of the answers when his position has nothing. At least ID has a methodology that allows us to test its claims. JVL can't even muster that. His alleged majority of scientists can't do it, either. So why should anyone listen to them? Evolutionary biologists still don't even know what determines biological form! The most basic question in biology remains unanswered. ET
Kairosfocus,,,
"JVL, Popperian falsifiability is a flawed, inadequate criterion.,,,"
Hmm. really?? Though you may have a point on periphery issues, as to the main overall point, Feynman, of QED fame, disagrees with your overall sentiment.
"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.” - Richard Feynman - On the Scientific Method https://www.presentationzen.com/presentationzen/2014/04/richard-feynman-on-the-scientific-method-in-1-minute.html
I agree completely with that statement by Feynman. And I see no way for you to contradict that statement by Feynman save by you jumping through hoops trying to contradict it. bornagain77
JVL, Popperian falsifiability is a flawed, inadequate criterion. More reasonable, is that its warrant is accessible and if the degree of certainty or reliability is as that attaching to scientific theories or much common sense thought, that is acknowledged. For example, as scientific theorising effectively affirms the consequent, explanatory constructs are provisional and offered on a best explanation so far, responsibly reliable basis. This does not amount to even moral certainty and usually cannot be given a probability of actual truth. Prudence rules the roost, therefore, and a better question would have been whether warrant was transparent and open to further test. There are other things that are self-evident, such as that error exists or the like. For sure, the gold standard fallacy fails yet again. KF kairosfocus
83 JVL
Show me the designer and I’ll have a think about it. No designer = no design.
Show me that the Universe came about by itself without any external source and I will convert to the "naturalist" religion. No proof of self-generating Universe = no allowed to say life "has no purpose/ is not the result of a creative mind". Let me remind you that the combination materialism + the physiology of vision leads to subjective idealism, meaning that if you accept the findings of natural sciences, you are implicitly acknowledging that minds exist and are primary (before "matter"). And God = "mind". (Explained in link below). Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). Truthfreedom
83 JVL
I think there is no conclusive evidence of a mysterious, undefined and undetected designer. There are other opinions available.
I am asking: how can you be sure that your "reasoning" regarding "design" can be trusted? That your cognitive processes are valid ALTHOUGH according to the "atheistic evolutionary" paradigm you follow you can not trust your brain?
A chance of what exactly?
Of behaving like rational creatures that can ground their rational faculties in an immutable and trustable source instead of in a willy nilly stupid process that undermines credibility. Truthfreedom
83 JVL
I think we’re pretty sure about the second law of thermodynamics. And mathematics. The theory of gravity (as in what its effect is) seems to be pretty solid. Chemistry works pretty well it seems. And physics.
I am not disagreeing. And, in fact, this only reinforces my position. That it's impossible for brains that were never designed to understand/ apprehend "truth" to have been able to gain such an amount of very abstract knowledge about their environment and to have the conviction that that knowledge is certain (a good approximation I'd say, not absolute certainty of course).
Or are you saying those too are illusions in the materialist mindset?
See above. I am saying that under strict materialism, gaining that knowledge is not possible. Therefore, "all that exists is material" is a false premise (materialism is self-refuting). We do gain knowledge although according to "atheistic evolution" that was never meant to happen. Truthfreedom
JVL in response to,
All a Darwinist has to do to falsify ID is to show the origin of a non-trivial amount of brand new functional information, say the origin of a brand new functional protein, by unguided material processes.
in response to that JVL asks,
How would you accept that being established?
(As I stated and as you apparently ignored), personally, I would accept any evidence that a mixture of amino acids spontaneously formed just one single functional protein. Or I would even accept any evidence that a existing protein, via mutation and selection, had been transformed into a brand new functional protein. No evidence exists for that, and there is much evidence against such scenarios even being remotely feasible,
Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance - animated video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA Dan S. Tawfik Group - The New View of Proteins - Tyler Hampton - 2016 Excerpt: To the extent that Tawfik’s selection experiments were successful, it is because mutations were localized and contextualized. Mutation had a key but confined role. If evolution proceeded, the prevailing architecture of the active sites and protein shapes nonetheless remains intact. Changes were not to central structures, but to peripheral loops. ,,, “In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations ... that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69 http://inference-review.com/article/the-new-view-of-proteins Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne - September 29, 2019 by Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski Excerpt: David Gelernter observed that amino acid sequences that correspond to functional proteins are remarkably rare among the “space” of all possible combinations of amino acid sequences of a given length. Protein scientists call this set of all possible amino acid sequences or combinations “amino acid sequence space” or “combinatorial sequence space.” Gelernter made reference to this concept in his review of Meyer and Berlinski’s books. He also referenced the careful experimental work by Douglas Axe who used a technique known as site-directed mutagenesis to assess the rarity of protein folds in sequence space while he was working at Cambridge University from 1990-2003. Axe showed that the ratio of sequences in sequence space that will produce protein folds to sequences that won’t is prohibitively and vanishingly small. Indeed, in an authoritative paper published in the Journal of Molecular Biology Axe estimated that ratio at 1 in 10^74. From that information about the rarity of protein folds in sequence space, Gelernter—like Axe, Meyer and Berlinski—has drawn the rational conclusion: finding a novel protein fold by a random search is implausible in the extreme. Not so, Coyne argued. Proteins do not evolve from random sequences. They evolve by means of gene duplication. By starting from an established protein structure, protein evolution had a head start. This is not an irrational position, but it is anachronistic. Indeed, Harvard mathematical biologist Martin Nowak has shown that random searches in sequence space that start from known functional sequences are no more likely to enter regions in sequence space with new protein folds than searches that start from random sequences. The reason for this is clear: random searches are overwhelmingly more likely to go off into a non-folding, non-functional abyss than they are to find a novel protein fold. Why? Because such novel folds are so extraordinarily rare in sequence space. Moreover, as Meyer explained in Darwin’s Doubt, as mutations accumulate in functional sequences, they will inevitably destroy function long before they stumble across a new protein fold. Again, this follows from the extreme rarity (as well as the isolation) of protein folds in sequence space. Recent work by Weizmann Institute protein scientist Dan Tawfik has reinforced this conclusion. Tawfik’s work shows that as mutations to functional protein sequences accumulate, the folds of those proteins become progressively more thermodynamically and structurally unstable. Typically, 15 or fewer mutations will completely destroy the stability of known protein folds of average size. Yet, generating (or finding) a new protein fold requires far more amino acid sequence changes than that. Finally, calculations based on Tawfik’s work confirm and extend the applicability of Axe’s original measure of the rarity of protein folds. These calculations confirm that the measure of rarity that Axe determined for the protein he studied is actually representative of the rarity for large classes of other globular proteins. Not surprisingly, Dan Tawfik has described the origination of a truly novel protein or fold as “something like close to a miracle.” Tawfik is on Coyne’s side: He is mainstream. https://quillette.com/2019/09/29/right-of-reply-our-response-to-jerry-coyne/
Perry Marshall, who is behind the group offering a 10 million dollar prize, is a little more stringent than I am in my falsification criteria. In order to collect the prize, a Darwinist would have to demonstrate the origin of a 'digital communication system' without cheating,,,
What You Must Do to Win The (10 million dollar) Prize You must arrange for a digital communication system to emerge or self-evolve without "cheating." https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
And the 10 million dollar prize is certainly no deceptive gimmick by ID proponents. As you can see on the preceding site, the judges for the prize include none other than George Church, Denis Noble, and Michael Ruse. So that is the falsification criteria that Darwinists must meet in order to falsify ID. And again there is no evidence that it has been met, and there is much evidence supporting the claim that it is not even remotely feasible to ever meet that falsification criteria. Whereas again, on the other hand, as I pointed out in post 79, although central tenets of Darwinian theory have been falsified time and again by observational evidence, there simply is no falsification that Darwinists will ever accept of their theory. And that refusal by Darwinists to adhere to the criteria of falsification is one of the main reasons that Darwinian evolution is to be classified as a pseudo-science, even as a religion for atheists, rather than ever being classified as a real, and testable, hard science.
"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
As to JVL comments on 'directed mutations'. The fact that mutations are now found to not be random, but to be 'directed', is yet another falsification of a central tenet of Darwin's theory that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as a direct falsification of their theory.
New Research Elucidates Directed Mutation Mechanisms - Cornelius Hunter - January 7, 2013 Excerpt: mutations don’t occur randomly in the genome, but rather in the genes where they can help to address the challenge. But there is more. The gene’s single stranded DNA has certain coils and loops which expose only some of the gene’s nucleotides to mutation. So not only are certain genes targeted for mutation, but certain nucleotides within those genes are targeted in what is referred to as directed mutations.,,,?These findings contradict evolution’s prediction that mutations are random with respect to need and sometimes just happen to occur in the right place at the right time.,,, http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/01/news-research-elucidates-directed.html WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Fully Random Mutations - Kevin Kelly - 2014 Excerpt: What is commonly called "random mutation" does not in fact occur in a mathematically random pattern. The process of genetic mutation is extremely complex, with multiple pathways, involving more than one system. Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur. Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it. On the contrary, there's much evidence that genetic mutation vary in patterns. For instance it is pretty much accepted that mutation rates increase or decrease as stress on the cells increases or decreases. These variable rates of mutation include mutations induced by stress from an organism's predators and competition, and as well as increased mutations brought on by environmental and epigenetic factors. Mutations have also been shown to have a higher chance of occurring near a place in DNA where mutations have already occurred, creating mutation hotspot clusters—a non-random pattern. http://edge.org/response-detail/25264 PLOS Paper Admits To Nonrandom Mutation In Evolution - May 31, 2019 Abstract: “Mutations drive evolution and were assumed to occur by chance: constantly, gradually, roughly uniformly in genomes, and without regard to environmental inputs, but this view is being revised by discoveries of molecular mechanisms of mutation in bacteria, now translated across the tree of life. These mechanisms reveal a picture of highly regulated mutagenesis, up-regulated temporally by stress responses and activated when cells/organisms are maladapted to their environments—when stressed—potentially accelerating adaptation. Mutation is also nonrandom in genomic space, with multiple simultaneous mutations falling in local clusters,,,, – Fitzgerald DM, Rosenberg SM (2019) What is mutation? A chapter in the series: How microbes “jeopardize”the modern synthesis. PloS Genet 15(4): e1007995. - per uncommon descent Probability of change in life: Amino acid changes in single nucleotide substitutions - June 2020 Excerpt of Abstract: mutations are assumed to be random in the bereft of selection pressures,,,, (Yet) Our calculations reveal an enigmatic in-built self-preserving organization of the genetic code that averts disruptive changes at the physicochemical properties level.,,, Discussion We found in-built intrinsic biases and barriers to drastic changes within the genetic code. Within single mutational events, there are fixed probabilities for the type of change in selection pressure-free conditions that are far from random. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303264720300393 How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. - 2013 Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611
As Jonathan Wells states, “It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.”
Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism – Jonathan Wells – February 23, 2015 Excerpt: I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism. - per evolution news etc.. etc..
Since these findings which falsified a central tenet of Darwinian theory, i.e. 'random mutations', apparently did not actually falsify Darwinian theory, well so much for the claim from Darwinists that Darwinian evolution is a testable science that is open to falsification. As Berlinski stated,
“I disagree [with Paul R. Gross’ assertion] that Darwin’s theory is as “solid as any explanation in science.” Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - David Berlinski - A Scientific Scandal
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77
Truthfreedom: 1) If atheistic evolution is true, we can not be sure about anything. I think we're pretty sure about the second law of thermodynamics. And mathematics. The theory of gravity (as in what its effect is) seems to be pretty solid. Chemistry works pretty well it seems. And physics. Or are you saying those too are illusions in the materialist mindset? Nor can you be sure that your conclusions about “lack of design” have any merit. I think there is no conclusive evidence of a mysterious, undefined and undetected designer. There are other opinions available. 2) But if there is a supreme intelligence and we are made in His image, we stand a chance. A chance of what exactly? But then you can not say that nature is “random and with no purpose/ mindless”. Show me the designer and I'll have a think about it. No designer = no design. JVL
Bornagain77: As has been explained to JVL before, ID is easily falsifiable. All a Darwinist has to do to falsify ID is to show the origin of a non-trivial amount of brand new functional information, say the origin of a brand new functional protein, by unguided material processes. Okay. How would you accept that being established? I think someone like ET, for example, might say: ah, but how do you know the various mutations and modifications along the path weren't guided? So . . . What do you accept as evidence of unguided material processes? Do you think mutations are guided? Are some guided and some not? How do you know? If you think they are guided then is it still possible to falsify your position? JVL
Upright BiPed: As shown, you clearly accept the finding of semiosis as a valid inference to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence in one instance, but immediately deny that exact same finding in another instance. In both cases I would expect experts in the field to smoke test the signal or phenomena to make sure that what was being scrutinised could not have been created or produced by natural, unguided processes. So far no detected interstellar signal has met that criteria and neither has the genetic code. I can envision or imagine cases which would pass the test but first I would let the experts take a crack at it. No one knows how the genetic code was formed or implemented. You've looked at the evidence and made a call. Most scientists and researchers, and I would add Dr Pattee to that last, think it's still an open question. I don't have a double standard. You've already made up your mind about the genetic code but most scientists with experience in the field have not. I have not. That doesn't mean I am duplicitous or manipulative or delusional. I just disagree with you. I definitely lean towards the genetic code being produced via unguided and natural processes because there is no other evidence of a designer around with the necessary capacities and technology. That part doesn't bother you (because you already have a designer in mind?) but it weighs heavily in my mind: where are the mystery designers? How did they implement their design? When did they implement their design? How has the design been propagated throughout billions of years of biological development? OR how is design being undetectably implemented throughout billions of years of biological development? Where does the energy required to implement the design come from? How is it stored and focused? IF some of those issues were resolved that would add a lot of weight to your design inference for me at least. JVL
77 JVL
Sometime not all the scientists or results agree.
Hmmm. Look, that makes sense under the "evolutionary paradigm".
"Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know. And that’s pretty much all of reality, whatever reality might be". https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/
According to this, we can not know reality, so how can we decide which side is right? 1) If atheistic evolution is true, we can not be sure about anything. Nor can you be sure that your conclusions about "lack of design" have any merit. 2) But if there is a supreme intelligence and we are made in His image, we stand a chance. But then you can not say that nature is "random and with no purpose/ mindless". Either way, you lose. Truthfreedom
JVL asks me and Upright Biped,
"is your position falsifiable?"
LOL, :) now a Darwinist (JVL) asking an ID proponent if his position is falsifiable is a brand new height of hypocrisy for JVL. As has been explained to JVL before, ID is easily falsifiable. All a Darwinist has to do to falsify ID is to show the origin of a non-trivial amount of brand new functional information, say the origin of a brand new functional protein, by unguided material processes.
The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.” If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness
In fact there is currently up to a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person that can “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”
The Origin of Information: How to Solve It - Perry Marshall Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community: “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer. A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 10 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research. http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/
So ID is easily falsifiable,,,, Whereas, on the other hand, Darwinian evolution is notorious for not having a rigid falsification criteria. In 1967 Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich stated that the Theory of Evolution 'cannot be refuted by any possible observations' and is thus “outside empirical science.”
“Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.” Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), “Evolutionary History and Population Biology,” Nature, 214:349-352, April 22, p. 352 https://afdave.wordpress.com/more-useful-quotes-for-creationists/
And as Denis Noble, President of International Union of Physiological Sciences, stated in 2015, “it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.”
Central tenets of neo-Darwinism broken. Response to ‘Neo-Darwinism is just fine’ – 2015 Excerpt: “If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.” – Denis Noble https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/16/2659
There simply is no observation that Darwinists will ever accept as a falsification of their theory. As Dr Cornelius Hunter noted, Darwin’s pseudo-theory is forever plastic and is able to explain completely contradictory results with equal ease.
“Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.” ~ Cornelius Hunter - Arsenic-Based Biochemistry: Turning Poison Into Wine - December 2, 2010 http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-based-biochemistry-turning.html
Here are a few observations that falsify Darwinian evolution. Falsifications that Darwinists themselves simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:
Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinist’s, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Besides Darwinists refusing to adhere to the criteria of falsification for their supposedly scientific theory, by any other reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science or not, and as is shown in the following video, Darwinian evolution fails to meet those criteria as well:
“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
There is simply nothing that Darwinists can point to within their theory and say, ‘and this is what makes Darwinian evolution a hard science and not a pseudoscience’. As Dr. Robert Marks explains “Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. ,,, there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”
“There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” – Dr. Robert J. Marks II – Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – June 12, 2017 https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/
Simply put, Darwinian evolution is more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than ever being classified as a real, and testable, hard science. Moreover, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on presumption of methodological naturalism as is falsely presupposed by Darwinian atheists.
From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (i.e. namely, that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
In fact, (as I have pointed out several times now), assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. 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 (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM
Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77
. As expected … Here are your own words in applying your double standard:
JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data.
As shown, you clearly accept the finding of semiosis as a valid inference to the presence of a previously unknown intelligence in one instance, but immediately deny that exact same finding in another instance. That is a double standard. You have been asked: ”Why the double standard?” Your answer: ”Because there is no plausible designer available” You thereby confirm that you apply the double standard in order to deny the existence of the very thing that you otherwise accept without the double standard in place. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JVL your application of a double standard could not be more clear or more egregious. All you can do now is pound words on top of it in the hope that you might hide what is going on (your #77 and several previous responses are perfect examples of this). Upright BiPed
Upright BiPed: 1) Your appeal to ideological consensus is meaningless in science. Sometime not all the scientists or results agree. When that happens it's a good idea to consider all the opinions and research and results. All of them. 2) It is a recorded historical fact that a high-capacity symbol system (semiosis) was predicted as the critical physical requirement of an autonomous open-ended self-replicator. It is a recorded historical fact that this prediction was confirmed by experiment. And where is it established that that kind of biological system could only come about via intelligent design? Which experiments? 3) You immediately apply a double standard to that confirmation – accepting the finding of semiosis as an unambiguous inference to intelligent activity in one domain while denying it in another. If you're referring to the SETI criteria you'll have to take that up with them. I have only thought about that issue in a very light-hearted fashion. I have never read any research or work arguing for their choice of criteria for an intelligently designed signal. So, in conclusion, I cannot say if the situations are comparable. 4) Applying a double standard is hypocritical. Gosh, does that mean that most ID proponents are hypocritical when they insist that evolutionary biologists have to supply every dot and dash to show their ideas are correct whereas ID does not have to address when and how design was implemented? Again: is your position falsifiable? Is it possible you are wrong? JVL
.
I am not alone in thinking that your evidence is not conclusive.
1) Your appeal to ideological consensus is meaningless in science. 2) It is a recorded historical fact that a high-capacity symbol system (semiosis) was predicted as the critical physical requirement of an autonomous open-ended self-replicator. It is a recorded historical fact that this prediction was confirmed by experiment. 3) You immediately apply a double standard to that confirmation – accepting the finding of semiosis as an unambiguous inference to intelligent activity in one domain while denying it in another. 4) Applying a double standard is hypocritical. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EDIT: I can easily provide your own words to back up your application of a double-standard -- if that is what is necessary. I suppose I can assume it will indeed be necessary in your case. Upright BiPed
Bornagain77: JVL, denial does not clean up your mess, Disagreeing with you does not make me deceitful or manipulative. It just means I have come to a different conclusion. Which, truth be told, is true for quite a few other people. So, again, is your position falsifiable and can someone disagree with you and not be considered intellectually and morally suspect? JVL
JVL, denial does not clean up your mess,
http://omgfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/1518811504.png
bornagain77
Upright BiPed: JVL you have been on this ID blog for months on end, flying under the flag that there is no physical evidence of design in biology Correct. In that time you have come face to face with that evidence, which you are completely unable to address and refute. You have attempted every underhanded means known to mankind in an effort to dismiss, avoid, and ignore that physical evidence. I am not alone in thinking that your evidence is not conclusive. I haven't denied your evidence; I have found it to be insufficient to establish your position. You disagree. I haven't been underhanded; I have just disagreed with you. It's a common reaction. After being forced to acknowledge that the gene system is indeed a system of symbols, you’ve tried to brush it aside. discount it, jump threads, change subjects, paint me as a wild-eyed believer who can’t be reasoned with, all ending in a blatant double-standard that not even you (as clearly motivated as you are) can even begin to explain the basis of, so you jump threads yet again and carry on with the same “no evidence” pattern you started with. I brushed nothing aside; I merely pointed out that one of the people whose work you found foundational to your views and stance seems to disagree with you about the conclusions you draw. Again, I brushed nothing aside, I merely pointed out that someone else disagreed with you. You talk about evidence, honesty, integrity, falsification, science, reason, on so on – but you display absolutely none of it. I have been very straight and honest with you about my opinions. But because I disagree with you you choose to paint me as some kind of manipulative agent when, in fact, all I have done is disagree with you. You may be (or may not be) a fine neighbor, co-worker, acquaintance, taxpayer, or otherwise, but on the subject matter of this blog — a blog that you freely come to each day to engage — you are a complete and total hypocrite JVL Umm, that's not what being a hypocrite means. I have not pretended to believe one thing and then supported something completely contrary. By your own string of deceptions you have forfeited your right to lecture anyone about having an honest conversation. I wasn't lecturing anyone, I was just asking why certain queries were not being responded to. I find this whole stance of being in opposition means I am deceptive and deceitful rather weird. It's almost as if you cannot condone anyone coming to a different conclusion than you when they look at the same data. Which is why I asked, on another thread, if people felt their positions were falsifiable. You know, I got only one considered response. Why do you think that is? JVL
Getting back to the topic of the OP... How much do want to bet that those who are so vehemently opposed to the physician guided compassionate use of HCQ have absolutely no problem with the so-called medical use of marijuana? It has been approved in many U.S. states. By state medical boards? Has marijuana gone through all the rigorous studies and testing that the critics are demanding for HCQ? The answer to both questions is no. In most of the states where medical marijuana has been approved it has been done by referendum placed on state election ballots by non-government groups who coincidentally also favor the legalized recreational use of marijuana. Are the HCQ critics concerned about this? Again I doubt it. Here is some more info about the medical use of marijuana from Web MD.
Is medical marijuana FDA approved? ANSWER The cannabidiol drug Epidiolex was approved in 2018 for treating seizures associated with two rare and severe forms of epilepsy, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome.The FDA has approved two man-made cannabinoid medicines -- dronabinol (Marinol. Syndros) and nabilone (Cesamet) -- to treat nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy. https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/qa/is-medical-marijuana-fda-approved [That doesn’t sound like people are smoking joints to me.] Is medical marijuana a legal form of treatment? ANSWER While every state has laws dictating the use of medical marijuana, more than two thirds of the states in the U.S. and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana in some form; more are considering bills to do the same. Yet while many people are using marijuana, the FDA has only approved it for treatment of two rare and severe forms of epilepsy, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome. https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/qa/is-medical-marijuana-a-legal-form-of-treatment Why hasn't more research been done? One reason is that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) considers marijuana a Schedule I drug, the same as heroin, LSD, and ecstasy, and likely to be abused and lacking in medical value. Because of that, researchers need a special license to study it. That may not change anytime soon; the DEA considered reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule II drug like Ritalin or oxycodone, but ultimately kept it as a Schedule I drug. The agency did, however, agree to support additional research on marijuana and make the process easier for researchers. https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/qa/why-isnt-there-more-research-on-medical-marijuana
john_a_designer
. #67 JVL you have been on this ID blog for months on end, flying under the flag that there is no physical evidence of design in biology. In that time you have come face to face with that evidence, which you are completely unable to address and refute. You have attempted every underhanded means known to mankind in an effort to dismiss, avoid, and ignore that physical evidence. After being forced to acknowledge that the gene system is indeed a system of symbols, you've tried to brush it aside. discount it, jump threads, change subjects, paint me as a wild-eyed believer who can't be reasoned with, all ending in a blatant double-standard that not even you (as clearly motivated as you are) can even begin to explain the basis of, so you jump threads yet again and carry on with the same "no evidence" pattern you started with. You talk about evidence, honesty, integrity, falsification, science, reason, on so on - but you display absolutely none of it. You may be (or may not be) a fine neighbor, co-worker, acquaintance, taxpayer, or otherwise, but on the subject matter of this blog -- a blog that you freely come to each day to engage -- you are a complete and total hypocrite JVL. By your own string of deceptions you have forfeited your right to lecture anyone about having an honest conversation. Upright BiPed
69 Bornagain77
If they were, in any way, being logically consistent in their arguments
Then they would not be "darwinists". :) Logical consistency and "darwinism" are sworn enemies. Truthfreedom
'Height of Hypocrisy' nails it Upright Biped, they (Bob and JVL) jump up and down at what they (falsely) imagine to be a moral inconsistency on my part, but they care not one iota that their own atheistic worldview denies the very existence of the very thing they are demanding consistency in. i.e. morality itself. If they were, in any way, being logically consistent in their arguments for moral consistency, they would first, as Jesus illustrated, take the plank out of their own eye before they tried to remove the speck from mine.
Matthew 7:5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
But alas, they are not really concerned with the truth, nor the morality, of the situation. They, apparently, just want to try to score cheap points for their atheism and/or Darwinism by any fashion they can, even if it takes outright deception and, yes, even blatant hypocrisy on their part, for them to do it. The catastrophic logical failure of their argument for morality is, apparently, just something else for them to ignore, (elephant in the living room style), whilst they waste away their lives in their pointless, and false, atheistic worldview, all the while awaiting their ultimate and impending nihilistic doom. How they could possibly find such insanity desirable, I have no earthly idea. bornagain77
66 Upright BiPed Thanks for the link. I am copying Kairosfocus' #67 (excellent comment):
JVL, you obviously believe in something — complex, digitally coded, alphanumeric, string data structure algorithmic information and associated molecular nanotech (so, language and goal-directed process) — from nothing; molecular noise. You do so, not because empirical evidence warrants this, but because a domineering lab coat clad ideology demands it as part of its origins narrative. The patent absurdity in the teeth of abundant evidence tells us just where the true balance lies on the merits. Not just regarding an anonymous Internet objector, but about the desperation of the guardians of that ideology as the full weight of the evidence begins to sink home. KF
JVL, your non-sensical "materialist" worldview is dead. The tide is turning. It may take some time to go full mainstream, but intelligent people have moved on from what is now an outdated, ridiculous paradigm. But we know that most materialists are ardent fideists, emotionally attached to their kindergarten philosophy. Dr. Dennis Bonnette has something for you. "Materialism" is no longer a thing, it's just bad metaphysics trying to hide themselves behind a scientific facade. How much do you like idealism?
Naturalism's Epistemological Nightmare "Empirical verification presupposes epistemological realism—meaning that through sensation we know directly the exterior physical world around us. Natural science proclaims that it discovers the nature of the real physical cosmos, external to our brains or subjective selves. Yet, when we trace the optics and physiology of the sense of sight, we find ourselves entrapped in epistemological idealism -- meaning that we do not know external reality, but rather merely some change within our brains that we hope to be an accurate representation of the external world." Dr. Dennis Bonnette
Truthfreedom
Upright BiPed: The absolute height of hypocrisy coming from you JVL. Why don't you actually address Bob O'H's query instead of sliding off every time? JVL
.
They don’t actually want a dialogue on the issues; they just want to make people they disagree with look bad. You won’t get an apology or a concession that you might be right in this matter.
The absolute height of hypocrisy coming from you JVL. Upright BiPed
Bob O'H: Yes, thank you, ba77. I think that settles the debate over how monstrous you are. If we posted such a video Kairosfocus would threaten us with all kinds of sanctions but I predict he will just brush this aside because he agrees with Bornagain77 They don't actually want a dialogue on the issues; they just want to make people they disagree with look bad. You won't get an apology or a concession that you might be right in this matter. A while ago you would definitely have gotten banned. JVL
Yes, thank you, ba77. I think that settles the debate over how monstrous you are. Bob O'H
,,, HMMM Bob, I know how we can settle this debate once and for all,,,, do you want to come over to my basement for some one on one debating so as to settle the matter once and for all?
Cruel Logic – (Darwinian ‘morality’ put to the test) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83BdmoimH0M
bornagain77
ba77 -
I pointed out that IF Bob’s suffering with Covid in the proposed test eventually brought about the relief for thousands of others (which is not out of the realm of possibility), then it would obviously be considered a very moral thing to do under Christianity.
That might be true if (a) I had consented, and (b) if the proposed test had any chance of providing more information (hint: we already know that, even if HCQ is effective, some people treated with it will still die, so a single trial will tell us nothing). But (a) is false - you were advocated giving me Covid-19 without any reference to whether I wanted to be infected or not. I don't think what you were advocating that you would do would be regarded as heroic: your description of it as a “Josef Mengele type experiment” seems rather closer to the mark than I'd hope you would be comfortable with. But apparently I'm wrong. Bob O'H
Bob (and weave) O'Hara says he is OK with using the Christian's moral standard. Golly gee whiz, how magnanimous of him to be willing to do that. Translation, "I (Bob) have no standard of morality that I can use to say that you are being immoral in demanding that I (Bob) hold myself to same standards as I demand for others. (Namely, forsaking HCQ use if sick with Covid)." I pointed out that IF Bob's suffering with Covid in the proposed test eventually brought about the relief for thousands of others (which is not out of the realm of possibility), then it would obviously be considered a very moral thing to do under Christianity. (More so if he consented, less so if he was forced into the experiment against his will). After all Jesus Christ himself suffered a excruciating death so that others could have eternal life. That is the main 'moral' point of Christianity for crying out loud! And as I also pointed out, the Medal of Honor, the highest medal one can possibly receive, is also based on the same exact moral principle of one suffering for the greater good of others. But the main point is that, as I have been pointing out all along (for the last three days), is that Bob has no moral basis within his atheistic worldview (whatever flavor of atheism he endorses). to make a moral argument against me. In his charitable 'willingness' to use the morality of Christianity to argue against my position, he is, in reality, conceding my main point that I have been making all along that he has no moral basis within his atheistic worldview in order to provide a foundation for morality and to therefore be able to make a logically coherent moral argument against me. But Bob's failure to find a foundation for ethics within his atheistic worldview is much more than just an esoteric point in a debate on the web. It is, in fact, powerful evidence that Bob's worldview must be a false worldview. Namely, (as Bob himself has demonstrated in his argument on this thread) it is impossible for Bob to consistently live his life as if morality did not actually exist. Yet, Bob's atheism cannot possibly ground morality. Therefore it necessarily follows that Bob's atheism is a delusional view of reality that is, by definition, a false view of reality.
Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
Supplemental note:
The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt: Neo-Darwinism insists that every phenomenon, every species, every trait of every species, is the consequence of random chance, as natural selection requires. And yet, Nagel says, “certain things are so remarkable that they have to be explained as non-accidental if we are to pretend to (have) a real understanding of the world.” ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3
bornagain77
Bob O'H: He has spent 3 days trying to avoid doing so. Don't hold your breath, you'll just turn blue. JVL
Tf @ 58 - yes, and I'm happy for ba77 to use his own standard to defend advocating "Josef Mengele type experiments" (his words, not mine!). He has spent 3 days trying to avoid doing so. Bob O'H
55 Bob O'H
Huh? But whether I am a moral monster or not.
To judge that, you need a standard (for reference). Darwinism provides 0 moral basis. And 0 is a pretty bad reference (because it does not exist). Truthfreedom
ba77 - Huh? But whether I am a moral monster or not (and finding this out what the reason your gave @ 11 for this experiment) isn't going to affect whether other people are suffering. It looks like you've forgotten why you suggested this experiment 3 days ago. Bob O'H
Living is dangerous, Bob. Yet I don't see you opting out of that ET
53 John_a_designer
Who’s telling the truth?
According to atheistic evolutionism, we will never know, because we can not "understand truth".
"The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality. What’s more, he says, we have evolution itself to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction." Donald Hoffmann
Which is paradoxical (I tend to translate it to retarded ), because it invalidates the whole darwinian foundation, leading "naturalists" to total skepticism. Why would an intelligent person want to be a "materialist"? Truthfreedom
Bob O'H Thank you for showing UD members and onlookers that you can't defend your worldview ("darwinism"/ materialism), because it leads to a dead-end and to non-sensical contradictions. And that no sane person takes it seriously. We already knew that materialism is a false, mediocre worldview. :) Truthfreedom
A Chinese whistleblower, who is a PhD. virologist, claims to have evidence that the Covid-19 is bio-engineered (not natural) and was intentionally released by the Chinese government. However, other experts claim there is no evidence of bio-engineering. Who’s telling the truth? https://www.foxnews.com/media/chinese-virologist-government-intentionally-coronavirus john_a_designer
I did defend the morality of my position, i.e. "your suffering, if it ended up helping many others who are currently suffering, or who will suffer, from Covid, would rightly be seen as being downright moral, even downright heroic." Whereas you, as you yourself basically admitted, are stuck being a intellectual moral thief, in that you are forced to presuppose Christianity to be true in order to try to make your moral argument, that I am somehow being immoral, work, since you have no foundation for ethics that you yourself can appeal to. I seriously don't see how anyone would hire such a person as yourself as a teacher. You don't even have the intellectual capacity of a teenager, much less the capacity of a professor, (at least the intellectual capacity of the professors that I had to study under when I went to college to get my degree.) bornagain77
ba77 @ 49 -
No, I am not desperate at all. In fact, I am more than happy to talk about my own morality and/or lack thereof and to talk about my ‘desperate’ need for Christ’s atonement to be a propitiation for my sins before an infinitely just and Holy God.
So go on then, defend the morality of advocating giving someone a potentially fatal disease as an experiment. Explain how you think this would be ethical, and why you are not a monster for suggesting this.
So, contrary to what you claim Bob, it is certainly not that I am ‘desperate’ to not talk about my own morality and/or lack thereof, I just want to know exactly which worldview you, an atheist, are trying to use to try to judge me as being immoral for me suggesting that we conduct a ‘scientific test’ of your morality to see if you will take HCQ or not when faced with the dire straits.of your own mortality.
I'm happy for you to use your own moral compass to judge you "wanting to conduct Josef Mengele type experiments" on me. I would hope you can justify your actions, and I don't see the need for you to use any other moral code than your own to do that: they are your actions, after all. Bob O'H
Christians can live according to their worldview. Darwinists can not. Guess which one is false. Truthfreedom
Bob (and weave) O'Hara, instead of answering my simple question of exactly what worldview he holds that does not deny the reality of his free will or conscious experience,
Before we get into the details of the ‘Darwinian’ morality of whether or not it is proper to conduct Josef Mengele type experiments on you, just exactly what worldview are you (Bob) claiming does not deny the reality of your free will and of your conscious experience (?) It sure as hell ain’t the Darwinian worldview!
Instead of answering that 'simple' question of exactly what his worldview is, Bob instead deflects from that simple question and claims that,,,
-you really are desperate not to defend yourself from the suggestion that you’re immoral,,
No, I am not desperate at all. In fact, I am more than happy to talk about my own morality and/or lack thereof and to talk about my 'desperate' need for Christ's atonement to be a propitiation for my sins before an infinitely just and Holy God.
G.O.S.P.E.L. (God Our Sins Paying Everyone Life) – (the grace of propitiation) poetry slam – video https://vimeo.com/20960385? 2 Corinthians 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Falling Plates (the grace of propitiation) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGlx11BxF24?
So, contrary to what you claim Bob, it is certainly not that I am 'desperate' to not talk about my own morality and/or lack thereof, I just want to know exactly which worldview you, an atheist, are trying to use to try to judge me as being immoral for me suggesting that we conduct a 'scientific test' of your morality to see if you will take HCQ or not when faced with the dire straits.of your own mortality. (As you and your ilk insist on not letting others, (who are in the dire straits of facing Covid), take the drug if they so choose to take it. Which, again, as Dr. Harvey Risch pointed out, is a morally reprehensible position for you to be in in that your position could potentially lead to an additional 100 thousand deaths in America from Covid)
Dr. Harvey Risch on the (political) war against hydroxychloroquine https://video.foxnews.com/v/6173447838001#sp=show-clips Dr. Harvey Risch, epidemiology professor at the Yale School of Public Health, joins Laura Ingraham with insight
You see Bob, the insurmountable problem for you, an atheist, trying to get all moral on me in my proposed scientific test of your morality, is that you, as an atheist, simply have no foundation for ethics to begin with. Much like your inability to ground free will and conscious experience within the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution, you simply have no way to ground ethics within the Darwinian worldview either, (which is the worldview I am assuming that you believe in until you answer my simple question and clarify exactly what worldview you believe in that allows you to believe that you have free will and that you are not a mindless zombie). You see Bob, you simply have no way to ground morality within Darwinian atheism. As Jordan Peterson pointed out, when it comes to ethics, Darwinian atheists, such as Dawkins and Harris, implicitly assume that the supposed 'mythology' of Theism is true.
Insisting on the truth in times of chaos — Jordan Peterson - David Fuller - May 19, 2017 Excerpt: "Why the hell not every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost? It’s a perfectly coherent philosophy and it’s actually one that you can institute in the world with a fair bit of material success if you want to do it. To me I think that the universe that people like Dawkins and Harris inhabit is so intensely conditioned by mythological (Theistic) presuppositions that they take for granted the ethic that emerges out of that as if it’s just a rational given. And this of course was precisely Nietzsche’s observation as well as Dostoyevsky’s observation. I’m not arguing for the existence of God. I’m arguing that the ethic that drives our culture is predicated on the idea of God and that you can’t just take that idea away and expect the thing to remain intact midair without any foundational support.” - Jordan Peterson - clinical psychologist and professor at the University of Toronto. https://medium.com/perspectiva-institute/the-man-for-the-times-of-chaos-jordan-peterson-2df43c24672f Of note: If Theism is truly a 'mythological presupposition', as Jordan Peterson holds in the preceding quote, then morality must necessarily also be subjective and illusory, not objective and real. That is to say, in order for Peterson to not contradict himself in the preceding quote, he himself must necessarily hold Theism to be true and not merely mythological.)
So Bob, under atheism, ""Why the hell not every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost?" In other words, exactly where are you getting your morality from? You complain that I am being immoral for wanting to conduct Josef Mengele type experiments on you to test your morality, but I simply don't see how it can possibly be immoral under Darwinian presuppositions,
Cruel Logic - (Darwinian ‘morality’ put to the test) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83BdmoimH0M
So again Bob, "Why the hell not every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost?" Materialism and/or naturalism, when taken by themselves, without Darwinian evolution thrown into the mix, are simply amoral. As Richard Dawkins put it, straight up materialism is simply a world of “pitiless indifference.”
“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” – Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
And while the apathetic amorality of materialism and/or naturalism is certainly bad enough for atheists who, like Bob, want to be able to make moral judgements on others, when you throw Darwinian evolution into the mix, the apathetic amorality inherent within materialism and/or naturalism becomes downright anti-morality. As Darwin himself stated, “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
As should be obvious to everyone who is not a psychopath, not only is “let the strongest live and the weakest die” amoral, but it is completely ANTI-moral. Specifically. it is a direct violation of the golden rule of Christianity, i.e. love your neighbor as you love yourself. Namely, "let the strongest live and the weakest die” is in direct contradiction to the Christian ethos of looking out for those who are less fortunate and/or ‘weaker’ than you are.
Matthew 25:34-40 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
In fact, Darwin himself bemoaned the fact that “the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind.”
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” – Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
Thus, clearly there is an inherent “ANTI-morality” that is inherent within Darwinian theory that is completely at odds with the Christian ethos of looking after those who are less fortunate and/or ‘weaker’ than yourself. As Sir Arthur Keith, wrote in his book Evolution and Ethics, “the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”
“for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy.,,, Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.” Sir Arthur Keith, (1866 — 1955) Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons – Evolution and Ethics (1947) p.15 (Note the year that this was written was shortly after the German ‘master race’ was defeated in World War II)
Thus again Bob, exactly where are you getting your morality from to try to claim that I am being immoral for suggesting that you put yourself in the same situation as you demand of millions of others? Namely, being faced with death from Covid with no option for taking the drug HCQ? Under atheism, you have only amorality to appeal to, and under Darwinism you have only psychopathic 'let the weak die' ANTI-morality to appeal to. So again Bob, exactly which worldview are you getting your morality from in order to try to condemn me as somehow being immoral for suggesting that you put yourself in the same exact position as you are demanding of others? The way I see it, in order for you to try make your argument that I am being immoral work, you, an atheist, are forced to reach over into Christianity and 'borrow' the ethos of the golden rule. But even then, since your suffering in my proposed scientific test of your morality could bring about relief for thousands of others, (thousands who are currently suffering from Covid with no option for taking the drug HCQ), I fail to see how you can make a watertight case that I am being immoral in my insisting that you put yourself in the same exact place as you demand of thousands of others. After all, in Christian morality, Jesus died so that countless others could live.
John 11:49-51 But one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish. Caiaphas did not say this on his own. Instead, as high priest that year, he was prophesying that Jesus would die for the nation,…
As well, the Medal of Honor is routinely 'posthumously' given to those whom have sacrificed their own life so that the lives of others might be saved. So again Bob, I fail to see how you can make a watertight case that I am being immoral for insisting that you put yourself in the same exact place as you demand of others since your suffering could potentially save many others.. Indeed, your suffering, if it ended up helping many others who are currently suffering, or who will suffer, from Covid would rightly be seen as being downright moral, even downright heroic. bornagain77
47 Bob O'H
ba77 -you really are desperate not to defend yourself from the suggestion that you’re immoral.
Bob O'H, are we darwinian meat-puppets or not? If not (according to your worldview): what are we? Truthfreedom
ba77 -you really are desperate not to defend yourself from the suggestion that you're immoral (or at least your suggestions can be). It looks like JVL was right @ 23. ET - I'm going to go for a prophylactic treatment, i.e. not tasking part in some thing that could be very dangerous to me. Bob O'H
Bob O'H:
wait, hang on, what exactly are you suggesting? That I deliberately get myself infected with Covid-19, which may kill me (although the probability of that is low), and then try a drug for which the most recent summary of the evidence says it has no beneficial effect, but does have side effects?
You choose your own treatment. The test is to see what you will do. If you were on top of things you would have been preparing yourself by taking the recommended vitamins and minerals in the recommended dosages. Do you know your blood type? It could be that type O is more resistant to infection. Then ask for funding. How much is bornagain77, et al., willing to ante up to see this through? It's the new "swallow the goldfish" challenge. Get them to start a gofundme page and set your limit. :cool: ET
seversky:
A moral monster is a God who orders a man to sacrifice his child as a demonstration of his faith when the God, being omniscient, is already fully aware of the strength of that man’s faith.
But was the man fully aware? ET
Bob, in response to this question,
‘Is it ethical to conduct experiments on someone, such as yourself, who believes in a worldview that holds he is nothing but a mindless zombie with no free will of his own?”
answers,
I (Bob) do not (believe in a worldview that holds that I am a mindless zombie with no free will of my own).
Then, (before specifying exactly what worldview he does believe in), Bob quickly adds,
Now we’ve cleared that up, will you defend advocating that I should be given a potentially fatal disease?
Not so quick there Bob. Before we get into the details of the 'Darwinian' morality of whether or not it is proper to conduct Josef Mengele type experiments on you, just exactly what worldview are you claiming does not deny the reality of your free will and of your conscious experience. It sure as hell ain't the Darwinian worldview!
THE ILLUSION OF FREE WILL - Sam Harris - 2012 Excerpt: "Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it." - Jerry Coyne https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/ Free Will: Weighing Truth and Experience - Do our beliefs matter? - Mar 22, 2012 Excerpt: If we acknowledge just how much we don’t know about the conscious mind, perhaps we would be a bit more humble. We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-brain-social-mind/201203/free-will-weighing-truth-and-experience Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?mcubz=3 The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness - STEVEN PINKER - Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. http://www.academia.edu/2794859/The_Brain_The_Mystery_of_Consciousness At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: “consciousness is an illusion” A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s
So Bob, since you said that you believe in the reality of your free will and of your conscious experience, (i.e. that you are NOT a mindless zombie), are you claiming that you do not believe the Darwinian worldview to be true? And if not Darwinism, exactly what worldview do you believe to be true? bornagain77
ba77 @40 - Yes "Is it ethical to conduct experiments on someone, such as yourself, who believes in a worldview that holds he is nothing but a mindless zombie with no free will of his own?” means that you said that I believe "in a worldview that holds [I am] nothing but a mindless zombie with no free will of [my] own". Which I do not. Now we've cleared that up, will you defend advocating that I should be given a potentially fatal disease? Bob O'H
Is Bob O’H an atheist? When asked a question a few months ago, he answered “only God knows.” jerry
36 Bornagain77
Atheist Philosopher Thinks “We Never Have Direct Access To Our Thoughts” Michael Egnor – July 20, 2016
It is patently obvious that materialism is a failed worldview. That's why every time a materialist tries to explain the mind, it becomes an embarrassing spectacle. From the same Egnor's article:
Like so many bizarre materialist claims about the mind, Rosenberg’s assertion is self-refuting. If we have no direct access to our thoughts, why would we assume that what Rosenberg has written has any relationship to what he actually thinks? If Rosenberg has no direct access to his own thoughts, there is no way to ascertain what he actually thinks. Even he doesn’t know what he actually thinks. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/atheist_philoso/
Materialism does not even exist as a worldview. When coupled with the findings of natural sciences, it leads to subjective idealism. It's a massive failure.
Naturalism's Epistemological Nightmare "Empirical verification presupposes epistemological realism—meaning that through sensation we know directly the exterior physical world around us. Natural science proclaims that it discovers the nature of the real physical cosmos, external to our brains or subjective selves. Yet, when we trace the optics and physiology of the sense of sight, we find ourselves entrapped in epistemological idealism -- meaning that we do not know external reality, but rather merely some change within our brains that we hope to be an accurate representation of the external world. Dr. Dennis Bonnette https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/
Truthfreedom
Bob (and weave) O'Hara, quoted me out of context, right after he was corrected on the context. Pathetic!
‘Is it ethical to conduct experiments on someone, such as yourself, who believes in a worldview that holds he is nothing but a mindless zombie with no free will of his own?”
I am more than satisfied that unbiased readers can clearly see that you are completely disingenuous. bornagain77
I didn’t say that you personally believed it.
Yes you did, when you wrote "... someone, such as yourself, who believes...". And once more, you're deflecting and not defending your own position. It's quite amusing how you repeatedly decline to show that you're not immoral in suggesting that I be infected with a potentially fatal disease. Bob O'H
I didn't say that you personally believed it. It is an insane position, of course you are going to deny believing it. I said that you believe in a worldview, i.e. Darwinian Atheism, that holds that you are nothing but a mindless zombie with no free will of your own. Whether you truthfully acknowledge the direct implications of your Darwinian worldview, I do not care. I only care what your worldview actually entails.
"But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God;" - Charles Darwin
So again, ‘Is it ethical to conduct experiments on someone, such as yourself, who believes in a worldview that holds he is nothing but a mindless zombie with no free will of his own?”
Philosophical Zombies – cartoon http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 David Chalmers on Consciousness (Descartes, Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo
bornagain77
Ethical question for you Bob, ‘Is it ethical to conduct experiments on someone, such as yourself, who believes in a worldview that holds he is nothing but a mindless zombie with no free will of his own?”
Seeing as I don't believe that, I don't see any point in replying. You're still avoiding defending your advocating infecting people with potentially lethal diseases, I see. Do you actually have a defence? Bob O'H
Tf at 34, Nothing quite as humorously self refuting as a meat puppet, (advocating a position to could potentially cost 100 thousand lives), trying to lecture others on the importance of ethics in one's science. But then again, only a mindless 'undead' Zombie could possibly find such a blatantly self-refuting position to be, in any way, coherent.
“(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 Atheist Philosopher Thinks “We Never Have Direct Access To Our Thoughts” Michael Egnor - July 20, 2016 Excerpt: Materialist theories of the mind border on the insane. If a man walks into a doctor’s office and says “I never have direct access to my thoughts and I have no first person point of view,” the man will be referred to a psychiatrist and may be involuntarily hospitalized until it is established that he is not a danger to himself or others. If the same guy walks into the philosophy department at Duke University, he gets tenure. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/atheist_philoso/
Ethical question for you Bob, 'Is it ethical to conduct experiments on someone, such as yourself, who believes in a worldview that holds he is nothing but a mindless zombie with no free will of his own?"
Philosophical Zombies - cartoon http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 David Chalmers on Consciousness (Descartes, Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo
bornagain77
I am starting to question Bob O'H's reading comprehension ability ET
33 Bob O'H
No, I’m suggesting it’s immoral to want to experiment on humans without their permission.
Too funny, because according to atheism/ materialism, "permission" does not exist (we are all meat-puppets). Truthfreedom
And that I, of all things, is the one who is being immoral for insisting that he hold himself to the same standards that he demands of others, (namely trying to deny people who are sick access to HCQ treatment)
No, I'm suggesting it's immoral to want to experiment on humans without their permission.
Of course Bob’s claim that ’empiricists value ethics too’ brings to mind the ultimate ’empiricist’ who was devoid of any ethics,,, i.e. Joseph Mengel, i.e. ‘the angel of death’,
I'm not sure it's a wise idea to mention Mengele when you're been advocating giving someone a disease that could be fatal without their permission. Bob O'H
Bob, an atheist, insist that he is reasonable and 'ethical' in his opposition to treatment by HCQ. And that I, of all things, is the one who is being immoral for insisting that he hold himself to the same standards that he demands of others, (namely trying to deny people who are sick access to HCQ treatment) I strongly disagree with Bob. Bob is being very unreasonable in that he is willfully blind to any and all countervailing evidence to his position (of which there is much evidence), and he is being highly unethical in that he insist on tossing his hat in the ring with those who have tried, with a fair amount of success, to prohibited the use of HCQ in America, thus leading to the needless death of perhaps up to 100,000 people in America. Again, Dr Harvey Risch says that if the unscientific ‘political’ war against hydoxychloroquine were removed right now, and all restrictions lifted from the drug, the drug could still potentially save upwards to 100 thousand lives in the USA.
Dr. Harvey Risch on the (political) war against hydroxychloroquine https://video.foxnews.com/v/6173447838001#sp=show-clips Dr. Harvey Risch, epidemiology professor at the Yale School of Public Health, joins Laura Ingraham with insight
More problematic for Bob, an atheist, in his insistence that he is being reasonable and ethical in his opposition to HCQ, (other than the fact that he is obviously being highly unreasonable and highly unethical), is that neither reason nor ethics can possibly be grounded within his atheistic worldview. In fact, via his forced denial of his own free will, Bob, an atheist, has forsaken any claim that he is being, or can possibly be, rational
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/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts. (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain. (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2) (4) no effect can control its cause. Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality. per Box UD “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God” — C.S. Lewis (from, The Case for Christianity)
Likewise, via his denial of objective morality, Bob, an atheist, has also forsaken any claim that he is being, or can possibly be, truly ethical.
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: - Peter Kreeft - Prager University - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM The Moral Argument (for God) - Dr. Craig - animated video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU
Thus Bob, as an atheist, simply fas no foundation for reason or morality within his atheism, and thus his atheism directly undermines any further claim that Bob may make in regards to being reasonable or ethical in regards to HCQ, or in regards to anything else for that matter. Without a hint of self awareness that he is making a patently false claim, Bob falsely claimed that,
No, empiricists value ethics too.
Really? So you think that the 'empiricists' who insisted on the unfettered ability to do stem cell research on human embryos were being ethical in their research? You really believe that? Funny, Nobelist Shinya Yamanaka didn't see it that way. He, and most normal people, saw such a abhorent practice by 'empiricists' as being highly unethical.
Embryonic stem cells: Where are the cures? - June 5, 2013 Excerpt: There is one bright spot. Japanese researcher, Shinya Yamanaka, who had rejected embryonic stem cell research as unethical, and who won last year’s Nobel Prize for Medicine, has pioneered the creation of stem cell lines from skin cells without destroying embryos. Consequently, with hardly a whisper and certainly no apologies, most stem cell scientists have now turned their backs on embryonic stem cell research to follow Shinya’s lead. Ten years on. Thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of lives killed under microscopes. Not one cure. Not one apology. http://headhearthand.org/blog/2013/06/05/embryonic-stem-cells-where-are-the-cures/ 150 human animal hybrids grown in UK labs: Embryos have been produced secretively for the past three years - July 2011 Excerpt: ‘At every stage the justification from scientists has been: if only you allow us to do this, we will find cures for every illness known to mankind. This is emotional blackmail. ‘Of the 80 treatments and cures which have come about from stem cells, all have come from adult stem cells – not embryonic ones. ‘On moral and ethical grounds this fails; and on scientific and medical ones too.’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2017818/Embryos-involving-genes-animals-mixed-humans-produced-secretively-past-years.html
Of course Bob's claim that 'empiricists value ethics too' brings to mind the ultimate 'empiricist' who was devoid of any ethics,,, i.e. Joseph Mengel, i.e. 'the angel of death',
Auschwitz gets a new doctor: “the Angel of Death” Excerpt: Upon arriving at Auschwitz, and eager to advance his medical career by publishing “groundbreaking” work, he (Josef Mengele) began experimenting on live Jewish prisoners. In the guise of medical “treatment,” he injected, or ordered others to inject, thousands of inmates with everything from petrol to chloroform. He also had a penchant for studying twins, whom he used to dissect. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/auschwitz-gets-a-new-doctor-the-angel-of-death
Thus Bob, an atheist, may claim that "empiricists value ethics too', and indeed I'm sure that many scientists who believe in God are highly ethical, (shoot, I'm sure that many atheistic scientists are highly ethical too although they have no basis in their worldview for being so), but the fact of the matter is that only people who believe in God can objectively ground their morality, and that science, by its lonesome self, simply has no way to ground morality and therefore science, by its lonesome self, is completely amoral. i.e. It is incumbent of the 'empiricist' himself to infuse his own 'religious' standards of morality onto whatever science he may practice. Again, science, by its lonesome, is completely amoral. As the following article states, "One reason for such hostility, (of many scientists to Christianity), is that religion often purifies science by insisting on the primacy of ethics. "
Are Science and Religion Really Enemies? FATHER TADEUSZ PACHOLCZYK, PH.D. Excerpt: One reason for such hostility, (of many scientists to Christianity), is that religion often purifies science by insisting on the primacy of ethics. Yet many scientists are clearly unwilling to acknowledge that the interests of humanity are authentically served only when scientific knowledge is joined to a truthful conscience, and the pursuit of science is attenuated through the filter of ethics. https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/are-science-and-religion-really-enemies.html
So again, Bob, an atheist, believes he is being reasonable and ethical in his opposition to treatment by HCQ, a treatment that could potentially save up to 100 thousand lives in America, but the fact of the matter is that Bob, an atheist, and in his rejection of God, has forsaken reason and morality altogether. And thus Bob, by default, is morally bankrupt in regards to any claims he may make about ethics.. bornagain77
ba77 @ 28 -
Again, you cannot possibly know for sure that until you take the ‘scientific’ test and are faced with the grim reality of your own mortality. That is the beauty of empirical science. Talk is cheap. Results are all that matter in empirical science.
No, empiricists value ethics too. You know, not proposing experiments that make you look like a monster. A charge you've still failed to defend yourself against: I'm afraid repeated deflections don't count (after all, we both could be monsters. Grrrrr). Bob O'H
Then, there is Ivermectin, too. kairosfocus
Cross-thread note https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/medicine/the-frontline-doctors-put-some-plausible-mechanisms-for-hydroxychloroquine-on-the-table/#comment-712072 --> BTW, the mechanisms are still on the table from the OP . . . this is not simply argument from correlation. Given that much pivots on pH effects and known takeup of quinine family chemicals by cells, kindly explain why these mechanisms would fail, and/or why something manageable enough to be OTC in many countries for years should suddenly be so suspect kairosfocus
Me: My bet Bob is that you will take the drug when it is your own life on the line and not someone else’s life on the line. Bob: Sorry, you’ll lose that bet.,,,
Again, you cannot possibly know for sure that until you take the 'scientific' test and are faced with the grim reality of your own mortality. That is the beauty of empirical science. Talk is cheap. Results are all that matter in empirical science. If you appreciated that little beautiful fact, then you would not be a Darwinist since there is no real time empirical evidence that supports Darwinism and much real time evidence that contradicts it. Again, my bet is that you will fail the real world test of your morality when faced with grim reality of your own impending demise. Call it a death bed conversion experience if you will. But my bet is that you will sing a very different tune then. You, (an atheist who, by definition of being an atheist, can not believe objective morality to be real), complain that my morality is lacking for suggesting that you put yourself in the same situation that you yourself are demanding of others. But I disagree completely. I say your morality is laking, indeed it is completely absent, in that you refuse put yourself in the same situation that you are demanding of others. All based purely on your own, (very fallible and biased), interpretation of the data. Over the last several months, I've witnessed as Jerry (and Kf, etc,,), have, time and time again, faithfully and patiently, shown to you, and other Darwinists here on UD, that there is more than enough reason to believe that "HCQ is effective as a treatment" To quote from post 24
Bob: You also seem to be unable to grasp the idea that I don*t think HCQ is effective as a treatment. So if I caught Covid-19, why would I want to be treated with HCQ? I don’t think it works. Jerry: You (Darwinists) are entitled to your beliefs but this is a position that is almost impossible to argue to. From study above "11 of the studies found in our review examined HCQ efficacy on patients in the outpatient or “day hospital” and all reported positive results" Nobody is claiming is a miracle cure in every instance but seems to have a higher efficacy rate than most other treatments that directly works on the virus especially when used with zinc and used early.
With such consistent evidence as that Bob, again, you and your Darwinian ilk here on UD are, in fact, moral monsters for demanding of others what you refuse to put yourself through. Your position is morally reprehensible. bornagain77
ba77 -
My bet Bob is that you will take the drug when it is your own life on the line and not someone else’s life on the line.
Sorry, you'll lose that bet. Why would I take a drug when, as far as I can see, it won't benefit me but will have side effects? This still doesn't change the problem with your morality that you have no problems with suggesting doing experiments on people that might kill them. Seriously, take a step back and think about it. Bob O'H
Bob, the test is not a test for hydrocloriquine. The proposed test is a test of YOUR morality. Will you, or won't you, be willing to try the drug when it is your own life on the line and not someone else's life? YOUR morality in the situation demands that you forsake the drug as you presently insist on trying to forsake it for thousands of others that it could potentially keep from dying. Dr Harvey Risch says that if the 'political' war against hydoxychloroquine were removed right now, and all restrictions lifted, the drug could still potentially save upwards to 100 thousand lives in the USA.
Dr. Harvey Risch on the (political) war against hydroxychloroquine https://video.foxnews.com/v/6173447838001#sp=show-clips Dr. Harvey Risch, epidemiology professor at the Yale School of Public Health, joins Laura Ingraham with insight
My bet Bob is that you will take the drug when it is your own life on the line and not someone else's life on the line. But again, we can't know for sure until we run the test. Using your morality of only being concerned for myself, I say you take one for the team of science Bob and infect yourself with the most virulent form of Covid that you can possibly find so as to see how YOUR morality will hold up. :) Shoot, to make the test of YOUR morality all the more interesting Bob, we could enroll you in a double blind study of the drug, the type of study that you are so keen on, where you only have 50% chance of receiving the drug that could potentially save your life, and see how you react then. :) Again, my bet is that you will sing a very different tune when the situation is not nearly as, let's say, academic as it is for you now where you are basically indifferent to the life and death plight of thousands of other people. bornagain77
Thankfully Bob O'H is not a medical doctor. He can't even understand the science. ET
The link gives a 404 error
The link is https://bit.ly/2FB2qU5 Somehow a "z" got put on the end of it. This one works. I just checked it.
You also seem to be unable to grasp the idea that I don*t think HCQ is effective as a treatment. So if I caught Covid-19, why would I want to be treated with HCQ? I don’t think it works.
You are entitled to your beliefs but this is a position that is almost impossible to argue to. From study above
11 of the studies found in our review examined HCQ efficacy on patients in the outpatient or “day hospital” and all reported positive results
Nobody is claiming is a miracle cure in every instance but seems to have a higher efficacy rate than most other treatments that directly works on the virus especially when used with zinc and used early. jerry
Bob O'H: How about trying to argue that advocating infecting me with a potentially fatal disease isn’t immoral? He'd have to admit he was mistaken or wrong and that is something Bornagain77 never does. JVL
LOL Bob, the amoral atheist, tries to lecture me on morality,
And your answer is to ignore the point I'm making, make false statements about my morality, and then try to change the subject to abortion? How about trying to argue that advocating infecting me with a potentially fatal disease isn't immoral? Bob O'H
LOL Bob, the amoral atheist, tries to lecture me on morality,
Bob: "You might want to think about what you’re advocating here. At worst it would be murder."
Hmm, Bob, the amoral atheist, who supports abortion by the way, is lecturing me on being concerned for another human's well being??? Not just concerned for any human mind you, but being concerned for Bob's well being in particular,, LOL!!! :) How quaint. Funny how Bob's concern for human life only works one way and only when it is his own life on the line and not when another life, say a unborn baby's life, is on the line. Bob, I suggest you apply the Christian's golden rule, i.e. love others as you love yourself, more consistently so that you do not come off as a blatant hypocrite. Your very selective, and selfish, use of morality, only when your own life is on the line, is, as far as I can tell, no different than the self-interested and egotistical morality of the nihilistic philosophers of academia who preceded and ended up ultimately enabling the rise of Hitler in German culture.
If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instincts, heredity, and environment, we feed the despair to which man is, in any case, already prone. I became acquainted with the last stages of corruption in my second concentration camp in Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment—or, as the Nazis liked to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers. —Viktor E. Frankl, Holocaust survivor and Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry, University of Vienna Medical School; from his book, The Doctor and the Soul: Introduction to Logotherapy, 1982, p. xxi).
bornagain77
Jerry @ 18 - The link gives a 404 error. Can you find a stable one? The best one to use is the DOI, as that has a greater guarantee of stability. ba77 @ 19 - OK, you're saying you want me infected with a potentially fatal disease, and given a treatment that may not work, and may also have fatal side effects. Who exactly is the monster here? You also seem to be unable to grasp the idea that I don*t think HCQ is effective as a treatment. So if I caught Covid-19, why would I want to be treated with HCQ? I don't think it works.
But I can’t be sure until we run the test. So I say we run the ‘real world’ test on Bob and see how Bob reacts when he puts his money where his mouth is!
You might want to think about what you're advocating here. At worst it would be murder. Bob O'H
Yeah Bob, that is exactly what I am saying. I say that there is more than enough evidence supporting the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine to AT LEAST give some hope where there is none otherwise. It is all fine and well for you to be falsely confident in your highly questionable conclusion when it is another person's life on the line. (Which is exactly where the moral monster part comes in), But how will you act when it is your own life on the line? And it is not just with atheists fighting against the use of hydroxychloroquine in people who are sick, atheists not living according to the consequences of their own beliefs is an overarching problem with Darwinists/Atheists in general. That is to say, atheists, such as Bob, never live out their lives as if the consequences of their atheistic/amoral worldview are actually true.
The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3
Richard Dawkins himself admitted that it would be ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if the amorality inherent in his atheism were actually true
Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html
Thus, the very lives that atheists themselves lead, (i.e. proclaiming that the amorality of atheism is true and yet living out their lives as if the morality of Theism were true), is powerful testimony against their atheistic worldviews actually being true. Again, the overarching point being, that atheists, such as Bob, never put their money where their mouth is. As long as it is another person's life on the line, Bob is perfectly happy to tout highly questionable evidence and ignore compelling evidence to the contrary. So again, how would Bob act if it was his own life on the line instead of another person's life? My bet is that he will sing a very different tune then. But I can't be sure until we run the test. So I say we run the 'real world' test on Bob and see how Bob reacts when he puts his money where his mouth is!
Dr. Harvey Risch on the (political) war against hydroxychloroquine https://video.foxnews.com/v/6173447838001#sp=show-clips Dr. Harvey Risch, epidemiology professor at the Yale School of Public Health, joins Laura Ingraham with insight
bornagain77
Here's the latest meta analysis I could find based on 46 studies. Most of the studies included in the meta analysis by Chacko cited above are in this study. However, Chacko's study only included 23 studies while the most recent one includes 46 studies. https://bit.ly/2FB2qU5z
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown efficacy against COVID-19 in some but not all studies. We hypothesized that systematic review would show HCQ to be: effective against COVID-19, more effective used earlier, not associated with worsening, and safe. CONCLUSIONS HCQ is consistently effective against COVID-19 when used early in the outpatient setting, it is overall effective against COVID-19, it has not produced worsening, it is safe.
Interesting thing about this study was that I saw in on Tuesday night but was traveling and I copied the link to it. When I got back, the link to it on Researchgate was then invalid so it was taken down in the last few days. But in the mean time it is still in other places on the internet. One of which is above. There are others. This study includes all but four studies included in the Chacko meta analysis. jerry
ba77 @ 13 -
I say Bob, for the sake of real empirical science, ought to step up to the plate and take one for his team.
wait, hang on, what exactly are you suggesting? That I deliberately get myself infected with Covid-19, which may kill me (although the probability of that is low), and then try a drug for which the most recent summary of the evidence says it has no beneficial effect, but does have side effects? Why would I want to do that, especially as people who have survived Covid-19 are saying that there are long-term effects? Bob O'H
Bornagain77: Will he or won’t he at least consider the possibility that he may have been mistaken? It seems to me that he has stated that he would gladly change his opinion when the preponderance of the evidence indicates he should. My question was directed at you however: why is it so difficult for you to consider that you might be wrong? JVL
ba77 @ 11 - Really? I'm a monster just because I have reached a different conclusion about the evidence? Bob O'H
Bornagain77/11
I still say we ought to use Bob as guinea pig and see if he remains the moral monster that he is after his own life is on the line.
A moral monster is a God who orders a man to sacrifice his child as a demonstration of his faith when the God, being omniscient, is already fully aware of the strength of that man's faith. Would you be prepared to sacrifice a child if your God asked it of you? Seversky
JVL, practice hypocrisy much? That is exactly the point of the proposed test on Bob as a guinea pig. Will he or won't he at least consider the possibility that he may have been mistaken? My bet is that he will become much more open to the fact that he may be mistaken in his beliefs when it is his own life on the line. But we won't know until we run the empirical test on Bob. You gotta love real empirical science as opposed to imaginary Darwinian science, i.e. as opposed to the imaginary 'just so story' telling of Darwinists. Real empirical science has a way of bringing clarity to an issue that would otherwise be absent. I say Bob, for the sake of real empirical science, ought to step up to the plate and take one for his team.
Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530
bornagain77
Bornagain77: I still say we ought to use Bob as guinea pig and see if he remains the moral monster that he is after his own life is on the line. Why is it so difficult to at least consider the possibility that you may have been mistaken? JVL
I still say we ought to use Bob as guinea pig and see if he remains the moral monster that he is after his own life is on the line. bornagain77
Just to help the fog clear, here's the latest meta-analysis I could find on MedRXiv, looking at 23 studies (RCTs and observational studies). This is their conclusion from the abstract:
Our meta analysis does not suggest improvement in mortality, clinical progression, or negative conversion by RT PCR among patients with COVID-19 infection who are treated with hydroxychloroquine. There was a significantly higher incidence of adverse events with hydroxychloroquine use.
Bob O'H
The argument for why HCQ should be used as a Covid-19 treatment is really pretty basic. *1. Studies show that it is at least somewhat effective. *2. It is widely available. *3. It is safe. Therefore, in the absence of other therapeutics it should be available to doctors and patients for off label use. john_a_designer
For those interested, here is a database of all studies involving HCQ. Both positive and negative or inconclusive. https://c19study.com/ jerry
Jerry, the old one on Frontline Docs is still going strong and they have some serious stuff to chew on from Tablet. When I get time I intend to do some clipping. KF kairosfocus
I surprised the purveyors of smog haven’t descended on this OP. Will they come? jerry
3 Kairosfocus
It confirms Dr Raoult’s deserved eminence,
Didier Raoult Trashing Darwin
“Charles Darwin’s vision of the world deeply influenced biology in the twentieth century. Today, however, his theory of evolution is more a hindrance than a help, because it has become a quasi-theological creed that is preventing the benefits of improved research from being fully realized." Didier Raoult, Life After Darwin
Truthfreedom
I always follow old Billy Ockham. When people get deeply involved in arguments about finer and finer details of an ENTITY, you should stand back and ask a bigger question. Does this ENTITY exist, or was it created as a device to cause arguments and dissension and distraction and mental chaos? At first I went along with the assumption that the Branded Virus exists. Now I'm no longer convinced, to put it mildly. When you pare down the actions attributed to this ENTITY, you find that it supposedly kills people who were already dying. That's not an action or a result. It's a constant. When people are already dying, it doesn't matter what "cause" you assign to the last piece of the process. Especially when we never cared about the exact cause before. The virus "causes" these deaths in the same way that witches or CO2 cause bad weather. That's a highly suspicious ENTITY. polistra
News, refreshing reading and food for thought on many of the hot controversies here at UD over several months. It confirms Dr Raoult's deserved eminence, brings to bear his inclination to matters epistemological, the ethical dilemmas of placebo controls, incrementalism on results due to cumulative evidence, the prudence challenge posed by epidemic and more. KF kairosfocus
News, there is a definition of debate that roughly runs: that wicked art of making the better look like the worse case and the worse the better with equal facility, being aided in so doing by rhetoric, the art of persuasion (not proof). KF kairosfocus
What is unique about the hydroxychloroquine discussion is that it is a story of “unwishful thinking”—to coin a term for the perverse hope that some good outcome that most sane people would earnestly desire, will never come to pass.
The deceitfulness of opponents to hydroxychloroquine, a deceitfulness that led to the needless deaths of perhaps thousands of Americans, was something that shocked me, even after years of debating Darwinists with all their lies. bornagain77

Leave a Reply