WJM is on a Roll

_{Barry Arrington

October 22, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

In response to this post rich says:

It’s a bit like looking at a clock for a tenth of a second and lamenting you’ve witnessed no hours. Did you expect to?

To which WJM responds:

what I’m lamenting is not that we do not see hours pass on the clock, but rather, I’m lamenting the faith-based, infinite credulity and certitude expressed by those that have looked at “the clock” for a 10th of a second (as you say) and have extrapolated that into virtual certainty that “the clock”, over time, came into being by chance and natural forces and through those processes developed all the different kinds of functional, accurate time pieces found on Earth.

Even when there is no evidence obtained in that 10th of a second to believe that chance and natural forces are capable of creating a single clock.

And yet, that which is known to regularly create a wide variety of functioning clock-like mechanisms is dismissed out of hand.

That is what we call “selective hyper-skepticism” combined with “selective hyper-credulity”

Comments

@12 Barry Tamara (or should I call you Elizabeth?): I have absolutely no idea why you should want to! @12 Barry Thank you very much for providing yet another example of “the faith-based, infinite credulity and certitude” of which WJM was speaking. How you can see such an example in a post essentially stating my indifference to competing points of view is beyond me. I see no merit in debating the "limits of evolution" without establishing what is already known first. Perhaps you are a total science denier? A quick google search for your name topped out with a site called "Rationalwiki" which I concede does not sound like an impartial source, but has comment "Arrington has claimed that using the fossil record to argue for evolution is cheating since the fossil record is based on science". Is this a misrepresentation?Tamara Knight_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

You could measure a tenth of a second with a sundial if it were tall enough and cast a long enough shadow. EdEdward_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

bob tintinnid @13 – Didn’t know it was possible to measure a 10th of a second with a naturally occurring sundial, William" Even when there is no evidence obtained in that 10th of a second to believe that chance and natural forces are capable of creating a single clock." William did not specify a particular clock which is of course useless to tell even minutes and hours without the purposeful markings added by an intelligent agent. The fact remains it measures timevelikovskys_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

bb "tintinnid @13 – Didn’t know it was possible to measure a 10th of a second with a naturally occurring sundial, which is of course useless to tell even minutes and hours without the purposeful markings added by an intelligent agent." Never underestimate the power of blind faith from an ideologically driven Evo-JihadistDavidD_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

tintinnid @13 - Didn't know it was possible to measure a 10th of a second with a naturally occurring sundial, which is of course useless to tell even minutes and hours without the purposeful markings added by an intelligent agent.bb_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

Barry A "Tamara (or should I call you Elizabeth?)" I have the feeling that the UD Amnesty program is like taking a computer and uninstalling all the security and virus software and allow yourself to cruise the Internet and see what happens. Should be interesting. BTW, don't forget this in dealing with some http://img.allw.mn/content/inspiration/2013/06/6_dont-waste-words-on-people-who-deserve-your-silence-sometimes-the-most-powerful-thing-you-can-say-is.jpgDavidD_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

Tamara Knight:
hose you choose to call “Darwinists” think descent with modification is sufficient,
Nope, Darwinism and neo-darwinism entail more than just mere descent with modification. The neo-darwinian mechanism can't even be modeled. Just how can one model differential accumulations of genetic accidents, errors and mistakes? There are evolutionary and genetic algorithms but they model intelligent design evolution, so they are of no help to NDE. So once again the whole problem is your misunderstanding of what is being debated.Joe_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

Tamara Knight:
Rich says “Don’t expect to see anything”. WJM says “We don’t see anything”. Their positions are not mutually exclusive, maybe not even mutually inconsistent, so how is anything “laid bare”?
Thick as a brick. Originally William said we haven't observed macro evolution. Rich responded by saying we haven't been looking long enough as if time fixes it. William came back with the response that is now the OP of this thread. The OP of this thread lays bare rich's claim.Joe_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

So if you are in the middle of a thick forest you could tell the time from the shadow which encompasses everything around you? Really?Joe_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

Joe G.:
So chance and natural forces produce sundials?
Yes. Every shadow is effectively a sundial.tintinnid_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

Tamara (or should I call you Elizabeth?): Thank you very much for providing yet another example of "the faith-based, infinite credulity and certitude" of which WJM was speaking.Barry Arrington_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

Our previous posts crossed Barry, but I still don't see the point. Science documents the timeline for the development of life on Earth. Those you choose to call "Darwinists" think descent with modification is sufficient, WJM clearly thinks it is not. I have nothing vested in either camp. If WJM or anybody else feels the need to allow their god (or aliens, or sentient beings from another dimension) the space to tinker with the direction of development of life, I have nothing to debate with them until we are agreed on the timeline of that development.Tamara Knight_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

@Joe "William lays that claim bare" Really? I had not read the original post, but having looked, nothing changes. Rich says "Don't expect to see anything". WJM says "We don't see anything". Their positions are not mutually exclusive, maybe not even mutually inconsistent, so how is anything "laid bare"?Tamara Knight_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Tamera, I will elucidate the point. Darwinists insist that we cannot observe Darwinism on a macro scale in action because the amount of time we have observed the data is infinitesimal in comparison to the time that has elapsed. Fair enough. The irony to which WJM is pointing is that those same Darwinists insist that that same infinitesimal amount of time is sufficient to give them near certitude that their proposed mechanism is correct. WJM is highlighting the irony of saying “insufficient time” and “more than enough time” at the same time.Barry Arrington_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Joe,
LoL! I misspelled irrationalities and clicked on “nationalities” to correct it
Well, not to make it less funny, but I've been there, done that. :) BTW, I wouldn't be so concerned about the exact wording these days. Just go out there and read what is written everywhere. You'll notice words don't mean much anymore. :( For example, check this out: Slovenia or Slovakia? http://www.drweevil.org/archives/000586.htmlDionisio_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Tamara Knight- You need the entire context so you would have to read the OP that rich was responding to. It pertains to large evolutionary changes and rich says the reason we don't see any is because of the time period in which we have been observing. William lays that claim bare.Joe_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

So chance and natural forces produce sundials?Joe_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

‘Even when there is no evidence obtained in that 10th of a second to believe that chance and natural forces are capable of creating a single clock.’ A sundialvelikovskys_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

What exactly is your point Barry? It seems to have been obscured by your conflation of the creation/evolution of a clock with the history of the movement of its hands. Regardless of any subsequent extrapolation, I think rich's quoted point is a very good one. We may well have only seen the hands move for a tenth of a second, but the evidence that the hands appear to have moved over many many hours in the past is beyond reasonable dispute. Discussion as to whether “Something” had to wind up the clock, or if and how “It” moved the hands from time to time is fine. Debate whether the extrapolation is justified by all means, but don't expect to see events postulated to take tens of thousands of years happening in a human lifetime. And Querius, I did post again on the Where does the water come from thread if you are still interestedTamara Knight_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

LoL! I misspelled irrationalities and clicked on "nationalities" to correct itJoe_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

WJM is on a roll? Does that come with mayo? :) William has always been good at exposing others' nationalities.Joe_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

'Even when there is no evidence obtained in that 10th of a second to believe that chance and natural forces are capable of creating a single clock.' A single cog, William. Indeed, a single tooth of a cog. But I'm just being picky, aren't I.Axel_{October 22, 2014
October
10
Oct
22
22
2014
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 13 14 15

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply