…and this is a 
Unbelievable. Dembski is bragging about getting a peer-reviewed paper published — in IEEE Transactions, so not a biology journal, and it's a paper about search algorithms — and he misrepresents Dawkins again. He just had to toss in his garbled version of the "Methinks it is a weasel" program in which Dembski has consistently gotten the algorithm stupidly wrong, and he does it again. The man really doesn't understand selection at all.
To make it even more amusing and even more like a standard creationist on the web, people pointed out to him in the comments that he was still getting it wrong, and what does he say?
I'm growing weary of these quibblings and thus shutting the comments off.
Of course, Bill, of course. We expect you to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LALALALALA" all the time. Why not just get rid of the troublesome comments at your site altogether?
Comments
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 20, 2009 12:22 PM
DEMBSKI SAID, HE PUBLISHED IT, THAT SETTLES IT!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 20, 2009 12:25 PM
BAH
dembski said IT
fail fail fail
Posted by: Peter G | August 20, 2009 12:25 PM
Methinks he is a weasel.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 20, 2009 12:27 PM
Peter G:
WIN.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 20, 2009 12:28 PM
Yes, since he doesn't care to use anything like evidence for his calculations regarding evolution, it's about time such "quibbles" are censored out.
Expel, expel, Billy boy. Let's make your fellow IDiots' movie the truth, only as the projection it is.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Derek | August 20, 2009 12:31 PM
If this guy can't handle people critiquing his paper, how did he pass any Ph.D. review/defense process?
Posted by: Sarah Trachtenberg | August 20, 2009 12:32 PM
It's scary that an academic (or so-called academic) isn't open to questions about his research... isn't that the point?
Posted by: Dustin | August 20, 2009 12:33 PM
I'm sure he didn't use the clout Robert J. Marks has in IEEE to make this happen, no sir.
Posted by: Jack | August 20, 2009 12:35 PM
Why not just get rid of the troublesome comments at your site altogether?
Releasing all of the ignorance in the echo chamber of UD at once could destroy the interwebs!
Posted by: Medievalist Jon | August 20, 2009 12:35 PM
Dembski says at one point, getting frustrated quickly, that the big idea is that
I'm neither a math nor a biology person, but a humanities wonk. WTH does Demsbski mean and what's it supported by?Posted by: raven | August 20, 2009 12:36 PM
Dembski is just a kook. His goal is to destroy Western civilization and science. He hasn't gotten very far. Few people want to return to the Dark Ages.
He and the other fundies are well on the way to destroying xianity in the USA though. Who wants to be ignorant, crazy, morons?
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | August 20, 2009 12:39 PM
Hey, Billy-boy, when your counter-argument boils down to "STFU," you lose. And we get to point and laugh.
Chowderhead.
Posted by: AL Jeremy | August 20, 2009 12:40 PM
If Dembski did that then he wouldn't get all the instant gratification from his mewlers. Without that he would have to turn to pudding and we all know what happens then.
Posted by: Peter G | August 20, 2009 12:43 PM
Oh dear. If comments are closed behind an endlessly recursive tautological event horizon this means a logical "bleak hole" will form from which no coherent thought can escape.
Posted by: Curious Wavefunction | August 20, 2009 12:43 PM
Publishing pseudoscientific tripe like this is the only way Dembski can make a living, so he will continue doing it. He probably knows that with his record there would probably be no other place in the world that would hire him except the DI. No wonder he has to work hard at continuing to be on their payroll.
Posted by: Ray Moscow | August 20, 2009 12:46 PM
Well, it is pretty ironic in that he assigns his students homework to troll "unbelieving" sites and yet can't handle a few questions himself.
One does wonder how the hell he got his degrees.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
August 20, 2009 12:46 PM
People are still paying attention to Dembski? Why?
Posted by: Dinosaur Teacher | August 20, 2009 12:46 PM
You know PZ, YOU haven't shut down comments completely, and look who you let run loose around here. He's a wimp.
Posted by: Mixter | August 20, 2009 12:46 PM
Quibblings. Heh.
Mixter
Posted by: Curious Wavefunction | August 20, 2009 12:47 PM
Sorry, I meant Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Posted by: garth | August 20, 2009 12:49 PM
peter g. is on fire today
Posted by: Jack
|
August 20, 2009 12:50 PM
Let's not lose sight of what the likes of Dembski are actually doing with this behaviour. It isn't denial. It isn't a refusal to listen. It is lying for Jesus. Dembski knows damned well that his bullshit has been called before. The reason he's still peddling it is because he is the type of "Christian" who is fully prepared to disobey his Lord's command and bear false witness. Creationists are, almost without exception, this type of corrupt Christian. They are liars and hypocrites, and Jesus - if he were real - would be profoundly ashamed of them.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 20, 2009 12:57 PM
If Dembski can't handle questions about his paper on his website, what does it say about the peer review process that passed his paper?
Posted by: littlejohn | August 20, 2009 12:58 PM
Methinks HE is a weasel.
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 20, 2009 12:59 PM
PZ, perhaps some sort of re-post/rehash of his weasel failure is in order. It'll get the spider's attention and bring to the fore yet again the idiocy and stubborn ignorance of BD. I know Panda's did a write up last time showing the weasel script and how it works and how it applies to selection.
Posted by: Paul Hands | August 20, 2009 1:00 PM
So, just another piece of nonsense from Dumbski.
In fairness, he *did* say that it was PEER reviewed. I haven't seen the paper or who the reviewers were, but if they are truly peers of Dembski, then they are as deluded as he is, and there is nothing surprising here ta all.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | August 20, 2009 1:02 PM
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Dembski's father an evolutionary biologist? I'm exremely skeptical of Sigmund Freud's work, but I think there may be some truth in this case.
Posted by: Newfie | August 20, 2009 1:07 PM
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 20, 2009 1:09 PM
Medievalist Jon (#10):
Dembski's schtick has been to claim that evolution is a search algorithm which requires some input of information to converge on its "target" (and therefore Jesus died for our sins). His claims are supported by nothing except his own misunderstanding of evolution and of computer science. Mark Chu-Carroll has written on this at length.
Posted by: truthspeaker | August 20, 2009 1:09 PM
Yeah it sure is tiresome when people point out your mistakes.
Posted by: Carlie | August 20, 2009 1:10 PM
But, but... if people can't make comments about evolution on his blog, then they won't be able to complete the course requirements at the Southwest Darwinian Evolutionist Seminary!
Posted by: Newfie | August 20, 2009 1:11 PM
Dembski's Peer Review Panel
/html fail
Posted by: Brian D | August 20, 2009 1:11 PM
Wonderful. By complete coincidence, I recently had a paper published in IEEE Transactions as well, after an arduous peer-review process (the joys of writing interdisciplinary work: everyone wants it to be more relevant to THEIR field...). Now I feel somewhat sullied.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 20, 2009 1:11 PM
I linked to Ian Musgrave's excellent debunking in the post itself.
Posted by: Carlie | August 20, 2009 1:12 PM
Wow, Newfie. Seriously bad taste.
Posted by: Doc Bill | August 20, 2009 1:12 PM
So, how many hundreds, thousands or millions of quibbling comments did Dembski have to suffer through before he closed commenting to prevent his server from melting?
Let's see: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. OK, comments closed.
What?
Seven comments? 7? 4 + 3?
Yes, the Alfred E. Newman of Information Theory could only tolerate seven comments pointing out that that his paper was seriously flawed.
Srsly, Dmbski, people pointing out that your thesis is WRONG is quibbling?
Posted by: cypressgreen | August 20, 2009 1:17 PM
"I'm growing weary of these quibblings and thus shutting the comments off."
Why not just get rid of the whole troublesome site altogether?
Posted by: Kermit | August 20, 2009 1:20 PM
Peter G.'s thread-winning post has been replaced by Peter G.'s subsequent post FTW.
****
We may have a tendency to see Dembski as irrelevant, but he represents tens of millions of Americans. These are also the birthers and the pool from which the angry shouters at the town hall meetings derive. While some are pleasant enough, they all are enemies of civilization. Civil society and working technology depend on a critical mass of the reality-based culture making decisions. Someone who can so easily and persistently misunderstand or misrepresent the weasel program can do the same for the constitution. They are trying to do to science and history what they have partially succeeded in doing to the political and legal processes.
Posted by: Hank Fox | August 20, 2009 1:21 PM
Just had a possible insight into Dembski and his ilk. Someone tell me if this sounds anywhere close to the truth.
Because he knows and understands little about biology, if he lived in the real world and accepted honest evaluations by people who know the subject, he'd be Nobody.
He can only be Somebody by continuing to evade, lie, obfuscate and ignore both the facts and the people who know them.
Without lies, he's nobody and nothing.
Unlike anyone else ignorant of the subject, he can't even just start from zero and learn the material. There would be that uncomfortable period when he'd have to drop out of the public eye, and his addiction to adulation prevents that.
Plus, given his age, even if he learned the subject, he might never really be able to do original, cutting-edge work, and attract attention that way.
So his choice is between being a liar and a fool, which is easy, and appealing to an audience of even more ignorant religious known-nothings ... OR of educating himself, which is difficult, so that he could talk in real terms about the subject. Understanding all the while that he'd be one of many discussing the subject, many of whom would always be more knowledgeable than he.
Poor guy. In his fantasies, he's a King, but in the real world he's trapped in the role of creepy court jester.
Worse, he doesn't even get to be jester to the king. He has to be a fool for other fools ... because nobody more sensible will even listen.
Posted by: not a gator | August 20, 2009 1:23 PM
@22
No, no, no, don't let the non-fundies off the hook so easily. The RCC has a LOOOOOOOONG history of lying for Jesus (though they call it lying for Mother Church) that continues to this day. Condoms spread AIDS, anyone?
The earliest support for lying for Jebus is in the writings of the early Church fathers (including Paul). Back then the age of the Earth wasn't the issue, rather, it was pushing their ridiculous god-man story (despite some rabbis running around saying it wasn't true and promulgating counter-narratives, ie Jesus ben Pantera) and also their giant lie (soon to be backed up by legal assistance in the library burning and hierophant-killing business) that Christianity was absolutely not, we mean it, ripped off from other religions.
Posted by: James | August 20, 2009 1:23 PM
I'm published in the IEEE Transactions. Keep trying to stuff your nonsense in the biology journals, Dembski! I don't want to read a paper on machine learning and have to worry about reading a pro-creationist paper on machine learning.
Posted by: Newfie | August 20, 2009 1:25 PM
sorry that my humour offended you.... do yourself a favour and avoid any material by the late Bill Hicks... especially his rant on Rush Limbaugh.
Posted by: Michael Russell | August 20, 2009 1:28 PM
There are a lot of problems with this paper as applied to genetics, but two jump out at me right off the bat.
First, the paper is about searching a truly-random search space and genetics is not random. Second, if you consider natural selection as the "search algorithm," then problem-specific information has been successfully incorporated into the search.
He comes at evolution like a math guy. Function X takes inputs A and B and returns C and therefore information is destroyed because a function by definition destroys information. He isn't looking at it like an algorithm guy.
The algorithm for natural selection is pretty simple.
If Survives(Entity1, Environment) And Survives(Entity2, Environment) And Mates(Entity1, Entity2) Then Child = CreateNewEntity(Entity1, Entity2, MutationFactor), Repeat
There's no goal here, just constant entity hybrid creation.
The closest he comes is in Section III-F3 where he is determining fitness based on how close the result is to the target.
Posted by: uncle frogy | August 20, 2009 1:31 PM
>" that the big idea is that
the information needed to drive evolution does not derive from evolution."
I have no advanced degree though I do have some education and try to use reason and the "Scientific Method" in thinking about what is reality.
My impression is that believers have spent so much time and energy into compartmentalizing thought there understanding of reality, of not connecting "the dots" that they can not see that reality is one thing complete and can not be separated into discrete realms or entities. There is no other reality only this one which includes the reality of the mind the place where "spirits and gods" exist. That the mind is an expression of all of this reality, these "laws of nature" and not something separate from it. So they can not answer that question of where does the information come from any more than they can see where the energy for life on earth comes from. They live in boxes inside of boxes I doubt that "we" can help all of them out of their boxes some perhaps.
but that they are dangerous fools is unfortunately also true.
Posted by: rc_moore@cvaas.org | August 20, 2009 1:34 PM
"The closest he comes is in Section III-F3 where he is determining fitness based on how close the result is to the target."
Where he continues the mistake of assuming that evolution has a target.
Posted by: Hank Fox | August 20, 2009 1:35 PM
Newfie #42, I read your comment quickly and saw "the late Rush Limbaugh" until I took a second look.
What was that momentary flash of light shining out across America?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 20, 2009 1:37 PM
Hank Fox (#39):
That has the ring of plausibility to it. In a sufficiently small pool, he can play at being Leviathan.
Anyone going to write up a reply to IEEE Transactions? You know, "Dembski and Marks seriously mangle their description of Dawkins' WEASEL program, and whatever the Hell they're modelling, it ain't biological evolution." Or is it worth the bother?
Posted by: formosus
|
August 20, 2009 1:39 PM
Aww. I'm a member of IEEE. He's giving us a bad name. :(
Posted by: Newfie | August 20, 2009 1:40 PM
Ha! Sorry for getting your hopes up there, Hank. I listened to Hick's bit about Rush on youtube last night.. after the not so subtle hint about it from Olbermann at the end of his show. It's very disgusting, but highly entertaining, if you like that type of humour, which I apparently do. :)
Posted by: raven | August 20, 2009 1:49 PM
Dembski isn't just a Nihilistic kook. He is also wrong.
There are many computer programs that simulate evolution. They work.
Ev shows that one can increase information with just RM + NS. Anyone can download and run the program. It is well known and quite popular in relevant circles.
Posted by: bric | August 20, 2009 1:52 PM
#39 you just described the life of a theologian
Posted by: not a gator | August 20, 2009 1:55 PM
@44
If you look at what he's saying without getting to involved in his delusions, one need look no further than chemistry and physics, which are the constraints in the system that Dembski seems to be excluding from his model.
Anyway, we have the fossils. We win.
Posted by: raven | August 20, 2009 2:04 PM
More on Ev. This paper is open source, available to anyone with an internet connection. Rather than babbling on about "information", they actually measure Shannon information content before and after. Information increases by evolution.
Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 July 15; 28(14): 2794–2799. PMCID: PMC102656
Copyright © 2000 Oxford University Press
Evolution of biological information
Thomas D. Schneidera
National Cancer Institute, Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center, Laboratory of Experimental and Computational Biology, PO Box B, Frederick, MD 21702-1201, USA
Received March 7, 2000; Revised May 25, 2000; Accepted May 25, 2000.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
AbstractHow do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information. Fortunately, 50 years ago Claude Shannon defined information as a decrease in the uncertainty of a receiver. For molecular systems, uncertainty is closely related to entropy and hence has clear connections to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These aspects of information theory have allowed the development of a straightforward and practical method of measuring information in genetic control systems. Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial ‘protein’ in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium.
Posted by: Richard Eis | August 20, 2009 2:07 PM
As far as i can tell from the first page i read, it is impossible for a search algorithm to do better than chance in all cases. Therefore it will never do better than chance in a particular case unless it has certain pieces of information.
A lot of irrelevant information, then totally missing the point.
Posted by: Raiko | August 20, 2009 2:12 PM
If my income and living depended on constant lies and insulting more honest people, I'd probably shoot myself. I mean, grasp it - Bill Dembsky is making a living from willingly and consciously being at the bottom of the scale of morality. My conscience couldn't take it.
You have to be seriously rotten to not doubt yourself in his place.
Posted by: bobxxxx | August 20, 2009 2:12 PM
I noticed when I google "Dembski - stupid dishonest piece of shit", google returns 925 results.
Posted by: Raiko | August 20, 2009 2:16 PM
If my income and living depended on constant lies and insulting more honest people, I'd probably shoot myself. I mean, grasp it - Bill Dembsky is making a living from willingly and consciously being at the bottom of the scale of morality. My conscience couldn't take it.
You have to be seriously rotten to not doubt yourself in his place.
Posted by: Ben S | August 20, 2009 2:24 PM
I'm curious about the rigor of this journal's review process. We should all submit some of these and see what gets through:
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/
Posted by: s.k.graham | August 20, 2009 2:33 PM
Dembski makes a valid, but trivial, point in the paper (but which has no bearing on evolution, nor any bearing on the point Dawkins made with the weasel example).
Dembski's point boils down to this bit of common sense: if you are looking for something, it helps if you know something about what you are looking for and use that information in your search, otherwise you are searching blindly (randomly).
The paper itself might even provide some useful concepts toward characterizing and quantifying the above statement in a formal mathematical sense, useful to mathematicians and computer scientists.
The problem with trying to apply this to evolution is that... EVOLUTION IS NOT SEARCH!! Thinking of evolution as a "search" process is the same fallacy as thinking of evolution as "goal directed".
The fact that computer scientists like to call a certain class of search methods "evolutionary algorithms" is irrelevant to biological evolution. Those search methods would more accurately be described as "breeding algorithms". All such algorithms include information about the desired goal within the "selection" component. This is true of Dawkin's weasel example -- whether or not you "fix" correct letters into place once they are found.
Dembski says somewhere that the question of "fixing" letters in place is irrelevant to the point he is trying to make, and in this he is also correct, but it sure does muddy the waters. Even without "fixing" the selection component of the weasel program of course has knowledge of the desired sentence as well as knowledge of a useful measure of how close any given sequence of letters is to the desired outcome.
Of course, Dawkins never claimed that the weasel program was an example of natural selection, but only that the process of random variation coupled with selection can produce a highly non-random result.
Evolution has no goal -- not even a "blind" goal of optimizing for reproductive success. The environment for any given replicator is in constant flux, due to the co-evolution of countless competing replicators, so optimization is impossible (though sometimes nearly achievable in the short term).
Posted by: Hurin | August 20, 2009 2:50 PM
#39
Unlike anyone else ignorant of the subject, he can't even just start from zero and learn the material. There would be that uncomfortable period when he'd have to drop out of the public eye, and his addiction to adulation prevents that.
------------------------------------
I don't buy that he really doesn't understand evolution, because really it isn't that difficult to understand. Its possible to derive a better understanding than the discovery shitheads demonstrate from an average high school bio class. I think Dembski hates evolution because of what it says about the universe, and he consequently spends all of his time and energy pretending to have discredited it.
He clearly has plenty of intellectual ability, but his defective personality compels him to use it constructing new and improved "tornado in the junkyard" theorems from which to misrepresent evolution and launch circular arguments that "prove" god.
You are right about him being a self important jester though. "Isaac Newton of information theory" my ass.
Posted by: marcus
|
August 20, 2009 2:54 PM
Thanks for the apology newfie, the point is not just political correctness, as someone who has developmentally challenged folks in my family I feel it is unfair to compare people who are doing the best they can to despicable dumbasses like Dembski who choose to be ignorant and stupid.
Posted by: Steve | August 20, 2009 3:01 PM
Did anyone notice he joine IEEE last year and sits on the Computational Intelligence board?
Posted by: Brian | August 20, 2009 3:29 PM
Steve @62. Please tell me that's a joke.
Brian
Posted by: ferridder | August 20, 2009 3:32 PM
If you squint a bit and look at evolution as a search problem, then Dembski's point boils down to:
Since the mechanisms of evolution is more successful than random search, they must be taking advantage of features of the search/fitness space.
D'oh.
(One such feature is that children have similar fitness to their parents...)
Oh, and his math does not generalize to the case when there are several valid answers to a search, which is the case in real life. Fail.
Posted by: schnoxl | August 20, 2009 3:51 PM
Long term lurker, first time commenter.
I recently reviewed a paper for IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (there are several dozen journals that are IEEE Transactions on some topic or another) and I was advised by a colleague not to have too high standards as the journal has become kind of a dumping ground for articles that just don't fit in any of the other engineering journals. During the 1960s and 1970s, it was one of the better journals in the areas of systems engineering and human/machine interaction but its quality has declined as other journals have risen up to take its place. I would say that right now, SMC is a "not-very-good" journal, but not a fraudulent or meaningless one.
Having skimmed through the paper, Dembski's claim that the paper is pro-ID is obviously deceitful because a pro-ID paper would include the words "intelligent design" somewhere in its text. I imagine it passed peer review because the results seem to pass scrutiny (as s.k. graham notes above in #59); the reason they seem to pass scrutiny as there is no claim in the paper that they are even remotely applicable to the natural process of evolution. The reviewers may have had no idea who Dembski is (lucky them) as the biographical information for papers submitted to IEEE journals is often not included in the version sent out for review.
I can see how this paper would have been accepted if taken at face value. As an IEEE member, I hope that the IEEE and the SMC society take steps to distance themselves from the bullshit claim that Dembski wrote anything in this paper that in any way makes an argument against evolution.
Posted by: schnoxl | August 20, 2009 3:55 PM
@62: I looked at the Computational Intelligence Society website and it only says the he is a senior member, which I believe means nothing more than 1) he's a member, and 2) he's no longer young. What's your source that says he's on the board?
Posted by: James F | August 20, 2009 4:26 PM
Blake #47,
I nominate Ian Musgrave and Mark Chu-Carroll.
WTF, IEEE?
Posted by: Eddie Janssen | August 20, 2009 4:39 PM
Newfie at 32: Would you care to explain why it is funny that a number of people with Down syndrom dressed in military clothes fit your purpose of ridiculing Dembsky's peer-reviewers?
Posted by: a lurker | August 20, 2009 4:57 PM
I simply don't understand the obsession with the Weasel program other than it is easy to misrepresent. Oh wait that's it.
In the end it was a few pages in his book that discussed a narrow point and ended with a discussion of how the program is not a good stimulation of evolution and thus a far more sophisticated stimulation was needed. Thus far more space in the book was to discuss the more sophisticated program. Funny thing how the creationists like Dembski & co. usually don't bother discussing the Blind Watchmaker program. Maybe one would have to actually discuss what real points of Dawkins' book in order to "debunk" the biomorphs.
Posted by: Tom | August 20, 2009 5:03 PM
1. If I understand Dembski's main point, it's basically this: Search algorithms need to be compared to some sort of baseline. A possible baseline is random search. The difference between a random search and a different search strategy can be quantified.
These points are trivial, as are the "theorems" he derives. Search comparison is present in many computational papers, and these ideas are present in courses in computer science.
2. Behind a lot of math-hooey, his 'critique' of Dawkins is basically that his method of searching for a particular sentence is better than a random search.
Um...Yes? I think that was the point all along?
Dembski is trying to say that since Dawkins' program is better than random search, it 'injects' information into the system, therefore that information is somehow coming from the outside. This is both trivial and missing the point at the same time, which is a remarkable feat. Dawkins' claim to begin with is that his algorithm is better than a random search, so you can't critique it by saying that's what it does. Yes, it would have failed if the point of it was to find the sentence 'DEMBSKI*IS*A*FAILURE*', but that was never the issue it was supposed to show. These points have already been dealt with without the math jibberish before.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 20, 2009 5:09 PM
Hrrmph! Between Donohue and Dembski, I'm getting mighty tired of folks giving other folks good reasons to call "Bill D." an idiot! I can get called an idiot fair and square on my own, without having to share a name with these bozos!
Posted by: Albatrossity | August 20, 2009 5:22 PM
More amusing, as documented by the watchful eyes of the folks at After The Bar Closes, starting about here (http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5735;st=14220#entry151457), DrDrD. originally wrote "I’m growing weary of these quibbling (sic) and thus shutting the comments off." He later changed the spelling to quibblings, and deleted one (of the original ten) comments on that aborted thread.
Can't do science. Can't spell. Can't run an honest blog. Not much left for him to do except teach bible students how to troll...
Posted by: Quidam | August 20, 2009 5:38 PM
I think what Dembski is saying that to be successful a search has to know something about what it's looking for.
Or have I tried too hard to get his jello to set?
It also rather amusing to hear that it is a pro-ID paper only because he knowingly misrepresents a toy example in a 30 year old book on evolution.
Posted by: Felipe Campelo | August 20, 2009 5:44 PM
As an IEEE member, all I have to say is: shame on the editorial board of the IEEE TSMC.
As a researcher working on evolutionary optimization, all I have to say is: Dembski misrepresents not only a fundamental concept on optimization theory, known as the No Free Lunch-theorems [1-3], but many other aspects of evolutionary optimizers. This should have been detected by the SMC, if not the reviewers, at least the editor.
Well, I guess all I can do now is write to the editorial board and let them know the amount of credibility they just lost. In any case I'm expecting a few response papers in ne coming issues of the IEEE TSMC.
[1] http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?isnumber=12703&arnumber=585893&count=8&index=6
[2] http://www.springerlink.com/content/jr76u074082g74ut/)
[3] http://www.no-free-lunch.org/
Posted by: MadScientist | August 20, 2009 5:55 PM
How does he get rubbish like that published in IEEE Transactions? I know they try to rush the review time but even then I get through stuff, check on facts and claims, and write my professional opinion ("this should be printed on toilet paper, not in a professional journal.") Dumbski's practice reminds me of certain colleagues who similarly publish malarkey in other journals; it gets their publication rates up and they think they have something to brag about but it's funny how they avoid me, try to discredit me, and also avoid all international colleagues; that's certainly not the scientific approach.
Posted by: a lurker | August 20, 2009 6:18 PM
"Dumbski's practice reminds me of certain colleagues who similarly publish malarkey in other journals; it gets their publication rates up..."
Heck even if we grant him this publication, his publication rate in the professional literature is still pretty much nonexistent.
Can anyone mention any real academics, scholars, or researchers, besides ones that are just starting out, that brag that they managed to get a single publication?
Go to almost any legit university in the country and they will have numerous scholars with more publications than everything that the Discovery Institute people crow about combined.
Posted by: flawedprefect | August 20, 2009 7:05 PM
Has anyone else here seen Eric the Viking? There's a bit where this king of a sinking Island convinces all his minions to sing as his island is quite clearly sinking. As he goes under, he spews forth some drivel about how life is all a matter of how you choose to see the world. In a brilliant piece of visual cinema, all he and his idiotic minions die singing in the middle of the sea.
Aside from Demsky's clear misunderstanding of "peer review" meaning you have to actually LISTEN to the voices which call you out on errors, he reminds me very much of this Island King.
Great, so does this mean now, that "teach the controversy" is now going to morph into the latest ID/Creationist tactic: "Ignore voices of dissent"?
Posted by: Akiko | August 20, 2009 7:21 PM
What a dandy! Weary of quibblings? Thus? Are quibblings a snack food or a skin condition? Methinks he speaketh in the Queens Olde English to maketh him selfth soundith less idioticalish.
Posted by: Lee Picton | August 20, 2009 7:36 PM
I have only a layman's understanding of science (and am ever so grateful for the education I am getting from all of you here), but I must have missed something, somewhere. The AIG people and the DI people and assorted evolution deniers and science bashers talk constantly about their scientific approach to proving god, disproving evolution, disproving atheism (whatever that means), etc., but it seems as though none of them has ever actually DONE any science. Can someone point me to some contribution, any contribution, that any of them have produced?
Posted by: travc | August 20, 2009 8:15 PM
@10, @44:
Biting my tongue regarding the fuzzy use of 'information', the fact that evolution requires an outside source of 'information' is utterly trivial. Not at all new or controversial.
What is that outside source? It is the environment the population is evolving in (adapting to) of course!
Evolutionarily speaking, information (and complexity) is all about making successful replicating entities. That is what the information is "with respect to"... and as I've noted many times before, talking about information without specifying what it is with respect to is meaningless (random lines on a piece of paper vs a road map.)
Viewing evolution as a particular type of search algo (auto-adaptive) is really routine.
@53: Tom Schneider is a superstar IMO. Google him and peruse the info and tutorials he has up online (including a good intro on info theory for molecular biologists to latex styles and formatting for various bio journals). He also has the left-handed DNA hall of fame (or shame as the case may be).
Posted by: thalarctos | August 20, 2009 8:53 PM
That's awesome.
My dissertation is currently in its third round of reviews before publication; why didn't I think of that reply *before* I wrote my latest point-by-point response for the reviewers?
Posted by: mcrotk
|
August 20, 2009 9:04 PM
All IEEE Transactions are not alike; let's at least distinguish between the IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, which, for all its flaws, is still the best journal in my field of systems and control theory, or similarly the Transactions on Information Theory, and this rubbish, which is apparently the Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans.
Posted by: mcrotk
|
August 20, 2009 9:54 PM
David Wolpert, one of the people cited in the paper, has his take on this work here
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/jello.cfm
The title is "William Dembski's treatment of the No Free Lunch theorems is written in jello".
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 20, 2009 10:29 PM
Not to sound too agreeable with Dembski (and I'm sure I'll get shot down by any biologist here), but to me evolution by natural selection is a form of search algorithm. That is, the environment itself selects particular traits. What we see happens to be the peak of the sun's black body radiation filtered through our atmosphere, that to me suggets there are particular "goals" that evolution over many generations arrives at.
Posted by: Religion™ Brand Brain Staples | August 21, 2009 12:03 AM
As a qualified computer scientist with a bit of training in machine learning I wanted to bitch about Dembski's total misrepresentation of his own publication and that IEEE Transactions journals are all about... but it's all ready been done by more qualified people who are much closer to the actual journal. So feel free to skip this comment if you already read the other people bitching about this part. :P
(I had no idea so many other comp sci folks hung out in a biology blog. Yay!)
I want to chime in on the No Free Lunch theorem, for any interested biologists. Here's one way you can boil it down:
You can think of them kind of like the laws of thermodynamics... they usually mean something quite different from what crackpots think they mean because they don't understand the terms.
All that this means is that any gains you make in one area must be paid for somewhere else.
It does NOT mean that all search algorithms behave EXACTLY like a random walk on ALL problems, and this is where Dembski fails, and fails hard. In order to support his " information injection" conclusion, he must conclusively show that this kind of learning algorithm is superior on average to random search across the space of all possible problems. I suspect he doesn't have any idea clue whatsoever as to the magnitude of the problem he's trying to take on here.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 21, 2009 12:20 AM
Mark Chu-Carroll has his post up now.
Posted by: RBH | August 21, 2009 12:23 AM
Michael Russell wrote
Which is why (as as several commenters have mentioned) the search metaphor for evolution by natural selection sucks bigtime: There is no forking target!!eleven11!. Dembski, like all creationists, is seduced by the look-back fallacy: whatever is, was intended, and therefore is a target and we can use search metaphors. That's a snare and a deception.Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 21, 2009 12:28 AM
OK.
But evolution was not "aimed" at the "goal" of vision. A visual apparatus which works in the frequency range to which our atmosphere is transparent may be one way to get genes passed on to the next generation, but it's not the only way, and nothing "had it in mind" beforehand.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 21, 2009 12:35 AM
To put it another way, a local optimum in a fitness landscape is only a "goal" in the loosest sense of the word. I tend to think, anyway, that purging language which can be misinterpreted to imply teleology is a salutary exercise when discussing evolution.
But it's late here, and I'm probably not explaining myself very well by this point. . . .
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 21, 2009 12:36 AM
Biology is much much much much much more interesting than computer science. Programming is fun and rewarding, but the natural world has a particular appeal to it.Posted by: Kel, OM | August 21, 2009 1:19 AM
Completely agree with this. There's no aim or goal with vision. There's only what helps survival. My contention is that certain environmental factors in effect give "goals", and over time those goals are reached through mutation and selection. That seeing slightly better could give certain organisms better survival abilities. That in effect natural selection gives what would appear to the outsider as a best-first search. Again, I completely agree with you. It's language that can easily be misinterpreted, and I by no means want to imply any form of heuristic in the process itself. This might be my lack of education on the matter (and my education in computer science), but I just can't find a better way to describe the process other than in algorithmic terms.I certainly don't mean to imply teteology, and in the future I'll try to avoid such language.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | August 21, 2009 1:23 AM
Yeah, Newfie, it's mean to retarded people to compare them to slime like Dembski. They were born like that, while Dumbski has deliberately made himself stupid. I like to suggest the term "auto-retard", but it's not catching on.
Posted by: Raiko | August 21, 2009 2:37 AM
I think the problem with injecting a goal into evolution is basically that you have way too much of the outcome in mind. In reality, you don't know beforehand what a goal will look like and which goals would be reached. For example, it would be a great goal to have a pain receptor for radioactivity, since that is damaging to us. But it could as well be useful to perceive dangerous radioactive waves as a loud, unpleasant tone, or a penetrant smell - or as a physical sensation that we cannot even imagine, since the sensory organs we have aren't quite suited to detect radioactivity, anyway.
This makes two points. 1. Not every goal is necessarily reached (my body can not detect radioactivity) 2. The exact form of the goal is unknown (what could a sensory radioactive detector 'feel' like?)
This is why speaking about a goal is misleading. Also, there are many possible goals (UV-light-anti-sunburn warning sensors? Under water breathing for dolphins? Animal wheels?) at the same time and endless outcome combinations to solve several similar problems.
Posted by: palockha | August 21, 2009 2:51 AM
Kel @ #90
Bah, computer science and programming are only tangentially related. ;)
Posted by: palochka | August 21, 2009 2:54 AM
It's not everyone who can misspell their own handle.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 21, 2009 4:11 AM
Yet for some reason, they made me do a lot of programming in order to get my computer science degree... though what annoyed me was that I had to do other things that weren't programming-related too ;)Posted by: Carlie | August 21, 2009 4:12 AM
palochka, once I not only misspelled my handle on a comment, I then misspelled it again in the next post in which I apologized for misspelling my own name. In my defense, there was a sticky key on the keyboard, but still.
Posted by: Epistaxis | August 21, 2009 4:13 AM
PZ, if Dembski can't afford the time and energy of allowing comments on his blog, maybe you should just donate an open discussion thread every time he pulls the plug.
Posted by: BillB | August 21, 2009 5:14 AM
Although Dembski has shut off comments, UD's moderator-in-chief Clive Hayden has kindly opened a new thread called PZ Myers Does It Again where people can go to point out where Dembski is wrong and why PZ's criticism is correct.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 21, 2009 5:21 AM
My dissertation is currently in its third round of reviews before publication; why didn't I think of that reply *before* I wrote my latest point-by-point response for the reviewers?
you mock, but I actually once was only able to get a paper published by basically doing just that:
telling the damn statisticians to STFU, that their concerns were noted, and dealt with, and I would not do yet a third re-analysis to fit someone elses idea of a best fit model.
as soon as I phrased my reaction to the latest round of critiques like that, the paper was published without further revision.
Posted by: Coryat | August 21, 2009 5:26 AM
Dembski doesn't want quibblings, he wants quislings.
Posted by: Heraclides | August 21, 2009 8:30 AM
Note the implied logical leap in the final sentence of the abstract for the paper, which he'll no doubt try use to argue against actual evolution (as opposed to his grossly simplified and incorrect model of it)...
@14: Nice! :-)
@43 (Michael Russell): Same general thing I'm thinking, working on one thing, then using a logical leap to imply it has meaning elsewhere. Guess it might fool some ID followers who don't know better?
@54 (Richard Eis): This is only true if you have nothing measuring if one search result is better than another, in which case you're randomly blundering around looking for the answer by chance alone. In the case of selection, you're selecting some answers as being better than others, and you get convergence, which I believe was Dawkins key point. Note the process generating the variation doesn't know what the "best" answer is, just that some interim results seemed to be better than others (i.e. some results are "fitter" and survive to the next round).
@59 (s.k.graham): I agree, evolution isn't a search, hence the implied logical leap I was referring to.
@89 (Religion™ Brand Brain Staples): There is this field called computational biology and it's close cousin, bioinformatics.
@99 (BillB): Oh dear :-) Starting the post with a lengthy attack on someone isn't exactly setting a scientific tone, either... (The writer seems to have missed that PZ linked to an existing explanation of why Dembski's approach is wrong.)
Posted by: Heraclides | August 21, 2009 8:39 AM
Just to correct a misperception in what I wrote: Note the process generating the variation doesn't know what the "best" answer is, just that some interim results seemed to be better than others
-- the process introducing the variation itself doesn't know that some outcomes are better than others; the selection of the next "generation" does.
What I get for trying to explain something in condensed fashion, only to find I've condensed it a bit too much! I merged a few steps in my effort to be concise... sorry.
Posted by: Religion™ Brand Brain Staples | August 21, 2009 9:28 AM
@90: Are you saying that comp sci is Unnnnnatural? You'd better not be saying supernatural. :P
@96: Being able to program in comp sci is like being able to do a lab experiment in most other sciences... it's an incredibly useful tool to actually do research in your field. However, it's a far cry from that to saying that (for example) biology is only about how to do lab experiments.
@102: Yes, I know. Perhaps I should have said THIS biology blog. PZ is many things, but a blogger on computational biology he is not.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 21, 2009 9:56 AM
Me, Supernatural? Hells no. I be a naturalist, and computer science is no more unnatural than mathematics. You've got to admire evolution though, it's the most ingenious concept one could come up with. I mean, the process is indifferent and pitiless, selection happens without mercy or justice, and even the most elegant specimen can be lost under a simple change of environment. Yet such a process is able to produce all life we see around us, the magnificence and grandeur of life and our ability to comprehend it stems purely from a blind force by which paradoxically we have been able to find meaning and order in what is a meaningless and chaotic universe.The words "evolution is smarter than you are" hold sway, no intelligence guides it yet it is able to produce what we consider ingenious solutions to surviving in otherwise inhospitable environments. It tells a beautiful story, even if it is hidden behind a process red in tooth and claw. And although I have a comp sci background, I make no apologies for considering this dance of danger far more compelling and grand than anything produced by a human mind. Alan Turing is one of my heroes, but I'd take looking at the natural world any day over understanding a deeper level of computer science.
Posted by: thalarctos | August 21, 2009 2:10 PM
I love that story, Ichthyic!
Next time, I'm going to try that, and see if it works for me, too.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 22, 2009 2:49 AM
Four "Dumbski" in the comments. I love you, guys!
I believe he is doing that on purpose, misrepresenting Methinks. It is something they do the Lying For Jesus tactic.
Posted by: Jim | August 23, 2009 8:32 AM
This blog is such a hoot! There are few things I find more hilarious than watching the Darwinian faithful discredit themselves with the kind of childish "argumentation" that characterizes Pharyngula. Regrettably, however, science is shamed by the level of discourse here. Darwin - a decent, reasonable man who treated his critics as intelligent men to be argued with, not condescended to - would no doubt be appalled by the polemical tactics of his modern disciples.
Keep up the good work, kiddies! Your efforts ensure that the Church of Darwin will never count more than a tiny minority (around 10%, according to most surveys) of the public among the worshipers. Few people will be converted by the sneers, jeers, and ridicule that are the main weapons in your polemical arsenal.
By the way, lest you accuse me of being a "concern troll," I should point out that I'm not the least bit concerned that you choose to marginalize yourselves in the marketplace of ideas. While the lot of you no doubt want to be (and think you are) persuasive, I dare say that the first thing that comes to the mind of any reader who is not already among the Darwinian faithful is not "My, what a powerful argument!", but "My, what an insufferable ass!". Led by the master (PZ Myers), you've adopted a polemical strategy that ensures you won't be taken seriously by anyone outside of the Church of Darwin. As I said, keep up the good work. But give me a moment to strap myself to my chair before you reply. I don't want to risk falling out of it from laughter.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 8:39 AM
Don't worry Jim, your feeble efforts to call us the Church of Darwin just shows us what delusional fools you ignorant godbots are. After all, if there was any truth to us being members of a church, there would be god (no, we don't believe in gods), a holy book (no, there is no atheist handbook, just the disbelief in gods), a regular meeting place (no), a preacher (none), tithes (none). Massive failure that any intelligent person could analyze for themselves. So, Jim, what is your problem?
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 23, 2009 8:41 AM
A concern troll is someone who supports the position you do, but vocally disapproves of the way you are relaying that position. You are not a concern troll, you're just another creationist hack. Learn the difference, and while you are at it learn what evolution actually is. The sheer fact that you say: "Church of Darwin" shows that you don't understand what evolution is or why it is supported.The least you could do is work to understand what you are arguing against, but no. You so the propensity of every other creationist out there and completely not understand what you are talking about. Surely at one point you would feel at least a bit of guilt towards displaying such intellectual dishonesty and staggering ignorance, but no. Let's see you argue against evolution on the one place where it matters: evidence. What evidence do you have that life didn't descent from a common ancestor and how do you counter all the evidence that clearly demonstrates common ancestry?
Posted by: Jim | August 23, 2009 9:12 AM
Nerd: "Don't worry Jim, your feeble efforts to call us the Church of Darwin just shows us what delusional fools you ignorant godbots are."
Kel: "You are not a concern troll, you're just another creationist hack."
Thanks, guys. I was confident that the Pharyngula choir would provide independent corroboration of the point I was making, and you didn't disappoint.
By the way, Nerd, there's some irony in your referring to me as a "godbot." You cling to the view that man is the product of chance (primarily, random genetic mutations) and necessity (primarily, natural selection), a view that makes all human beings - including you - mere meat robots whose every thought and action is determined by undirected material causes. As Darwinist historian of science William Provine of Cornell has aptly observed, if the Darwinian tale of human existence is true, there can be no such thing as free will, which is the necessary prerequisite for independent, rational thought. You embrace a worldview (atheism) where free will and independent thought can't exist, while I embrace a worldview (Christianity) that holds that God endowed men with free will and rationality. Yet you refer to me as the robot. Go figure.
Kel: "What evidence do you have that life didn't descent (sic) from a common ancestor and how do you counter all the evidence that clearly demonstrates common ancestry?"
It may surprise you to learn, Kel, that evidence for common ancestry does not constitute evidence that evolution is caused by Darwinian mechanisms (primarily, random genetic mutations and natural selection). Indeed, common descent is quite compatible with intelligent design theory, and some ID theorists (e.g., Michael Behe) think that the evidence for common descent is quite compelling. You say that I don't understand what I'm arguing against (others might have noticed that I didn't actually make an argument against the theory that is the object of your devotion), but it appears that you don't understand what you're arguing for.
Posted by: aratina cage | August 23, 2009 9:37 AM
LMAO, Jim, at how you quote a "Darwinist" (and atheist) as an authority figure. He's right, too—there is no such thing as free will. However, I highly doubt he said that free will (whatever that is) is a "necessary prerequisite for independent, rational thought." I think you are trying to put words in his mouth like any good little godbot would.Posted by: Kel, OM | August 23, 2009 9:41 AM
It may surprise you, but I actually know that. So what's your beef exactly? That Darwinian mechansims (along with other non-Darwinian mechansims that altogether make up what we call neo-Darwinian synthesis) are inadequate to explain the diversity and complexity of life? If so, bring your evidence to the table. I know what exactly what I'm arguing for. That all life shares a common ancestor, and that mechanisms such as natural selection, genetic drift, lateral gene transfer and gene flow contribute towards this diversification. That beyond artificial selection by intelligent agents in the last 15,000 years or so, that there's no reason to assume any form of intelligent causality to the structures seen in nature, be them morphological or genetic. That currently as it stands, the mechanisms of change over time have been observed, and that although we don't know every path of evolution for every phenotype, that the general pattern of a random and unguided process of life fits the pattern.Hell, I've even devised two questions regarding the validity of intelligent design, because as you are no doubt aware that the absence of validity of neo-Darwinian synthesis doesn't mean that intelligent design is the default. So perhaps you could answer them, or at least point a qualified IDist towards it so they could answer them for me.
I'm well aware of the controversy and the scientific position of both sides. Currently evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. This isn't taking Darwin's work as gospel, but a modified theory that has been shaped by evidence gathered by millions of scientists working over the last 150 years. Intelligent Design on the other hand is rebranded creationism, stemming from the 1987 United States Supreme Court ruing in Edwards v. Aguillard whereby creation science was ruled as infringing on the constituion. I'm also aware that the term is used as a blanket term, covering everything from young earth creation to theistic evolution. That people like Michael Behe give it a semblance of sanity by supporting the age of things as determined by geology and cosmology (among others).
So what do you have? If you can, please answer my questions. I'll be glad to answer in whatever capacity I can the reasons I support evolution, and I hope you aren't surprised when those reasons are scientific and logical than anything to do with Darwin. The fact that Darwin was wrong about genetics (hence neo-Darwinian synthesis) should clue you in as to this not being anything to do with a "Church of Darwin", rather an honest assessment of the scientific evidence working towards as close a truth as we can ascertain from the environment around us.
So please, show some intellectual honesty in all of this and don't dismiss your opponents on an appeal to ridicule. Surely you can take down evolution without referring to it as a religion...
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 23, 2009 9:48 AM
*yawn* appeal to consequences. Atheism is not a worldview, it is the negation of theism. Nothing more, nothing less. An atheist can believe in free will as much as a non-astrologer can, after all, you don't define a worldview by what it is not - rather by what it is.As for whether there is free will, check out Dan Dennett's Freedom Evolves. Or if you want it condensed into a lecture, youtube delivers.
Isn't it great being in an age of science?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 9:58 AM
Yawn, Jim, you are a boring idjit. You presented no scientific evidence to back up your claims. You just tried to make yourself sound rational. We scientists know better, and laugh at your feeble efforts.
In the 150 years since Darwin first presented his idea, several hundred thousand scientific papers have directly an indirectly supported the main idea presented by Darwin, filled in areas where he was wrong, and areas he never imagined, like DNA, genes, and genomes, all of which back up the revised Darwin idea, now called modern synthesis. Your calling it Darwinism is a lie, since the original Darwin idea is only a small part of modern synthesis. It also shows you think in terms of authoritarianism. So you need a deity. Science and evolution has no need of your imaginary deity.
Try showing hard physical evidence for your imaginary deity, like an eternally burning bush. I'll be waiting for the evidence...
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 23, 2009 10:10 AM
The temptation to dismiss under the notion of a cult of personality is always a present one. It really does show an element of the human psyche whereby authority figures are recognised.The braver and more intellectually among us would try to ignore such temptation and tackle ideas on their own merits as opposed to taking the easier path. After all, they wouldn't like it if we dismissed their beliefs on the merit that other people believe it. Even if there was a "Church of Darwin", does it make any difference at all to the validity of the claims of evolution? Surely there being a Church around Jesus is quite irrelevant to the question "was Jesus God-incarnate?" or that there are 1.5 billion Muslims is quite irrelevant to the question of whether the Koran is God's final word on earth transcribed by the prophet Muhammad.
The idea of evolution (or Nicene Christianity) should be taken on its own merits. External to how and why people believe in it, but wholly on how its claims of truth match up with reality as we observe it. How did the idea begin? How has it changed? Why? What evidence is there to support it? Surely these are the questions to ask, not appeals to ridicule or appealing to consequences.
By the way, evolution being true doesn't mean that Christianity is false. This is not atheism versus religion, evolution's truth is a scientific question. To frame it as Christianity versus atheism is downright dishonest, trying to play the argument upon religious lines as opposed to the scientific domain where evolution wholly resides.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 23, 2009 11:02 AM
Jim, to me you have two options here.
Option 1: you continue down the path you alluded to with Michael Behe. That is, as astrophysics / cosmology shows, the universe is around 13 billion years old, and as geology / nuclear physics / astronomy shows, the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. That life emerged some time in the first billion years and that it diversified and forms the basis of all life we see today. That your contention is with the ability of natural selection (among other mechanisms) to explain what we see in nature today, and that you are positing an intelligent agent to resolve that. In this option, your focus is on evolution's scientific status and intelligent design.
Opetion 2: you drop the objections to evolution and make this a discussion about the merits of religion itself. You accept that this has nothing to do with evolution per say, but a battle between the worldviews of naturalism and Christianity. By focusing on evolution, you're setting yourself up to make the teleological argument and that to you the reason to reject evolution is that it shatters such an argument. If you want to debate the merits of atheism versus Christianity, then don't drag evolution into it. Plenty of Christians accept evolution while plenty of atheists don't. In this option, your focus is on reasons to believe and this will only mean evolution if you stray near teleology.
Posted by: aratina cage | August 23, 2009 12:31 PM
Thanks for the link to Dennett's Edinburgh lecture, Kel. His conclusion has one of the best insights into theistic thinking about "free will" I have ever heard. He finishes his lecture with the concept of real magic—magic that is supernatural—which is of course not real at all! This sort of reasoning is exactly what theists like Jim mean when they talk about free will, and Dennett tells us how they are practically saying, "Consciousness has to be real magic or it isn't consciousness at all, and the same thing is true of free will."
Posted by: Jim | August 23, 2009 2:46 PM
Kel: "Jim, to me you have two options here."
Actually, there's a third option: don't get dragged into a fruitless debate with supercilious know-it-alls. On my occasional visits to this dreadful blog, I've never found any member of the Pharyngula choir (including the choirmaster) whom I respect enough to want to engage in conversation. Oh, I've tried it in the past, but I've learned from experience that this blog is primarily a place where Darwinian dogmatists congratulate themselves on how smart they are while denigrating everyone who doesn't share their dogma. (I expect that further corroboration of this point will soon be forthcoming).
Although I think Pharyngula is a blight on the scientific community, I wouldn't change it for the world. Nothing serves to discredit Darwinism (by which I mean contemporary Darwinian evolutionary theory) in the eyes of the general public than the kind of polemical antics practiced by the Pharyngula choir. You see, I think the Darwinian tale of life's developmental history - a tale with which I'm probably as well-versed as anyone here (aside from any members of the choir who are evolutionary biologists) - is a preposterous tale informed by a host of wishful speculations, but little hard evidence. For the true-believer, the tale is confirmed in its entirety if Darwinian mechanisms are shown to be capable of producing any piddling results, such as adaptive (but oscillatory) changes in the beaks of finches, or in the coloration of peppered moths. But for the skeptic, such observations do not show that Darwinian mechanisms brought finches, moths, and scientific observers into existence in the first place. As one of the skeptics, I want to see Darwinism discredited, and I'm grateful for the contributions made in that regard by the Pharyngula choir.
Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 23, 2009 2:58 PM
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 3:02 PM
Jim, you discredit godbots all over the world with your delusional prose. We laugh at your vain attempts at telling us we are wrong. And not a shred of science anywhere. That takes either delusional thinking or willful ignorance. Your god doesn't exist and your babble is fiction. Have an nice day...
Posted by: Rick R | August 23, 2009 3:08 PM
"On my occasional visits to this dreadful blog, I've never found any member of the Pharyngula choir (including the choirmaster) whom I respect enough to want to engage in conversation."
Then why in Zeus' left testicle do you bother showing up and stinking up the joint?
Go take a shit somewhere else, troll.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 23, 2009 3:14 PM
"(I expect that further corroboration of this point will soon be forthcoming)."
If I were in charge of this blog, I would consider any post that boils down to "You just proved my point, hur hur!" to be grounds for immediate banning. The theists, the god-botherers, I don't mind them near as much as the pompous windbags who blather over how uncouth we supposedly are. It's obvious from the get-go that they're not interested in any kind of discussion, and they will ignore any actual counterarguments (such as all those paragraphs Kel wrote) in favor of their rhetorical browbeating. I believe that falls under the category of "wanking", and should really be dealt with as such.
Posted by: Jim | August 23, 2009 4:15 PM
Rey Fox: "If I were in charge of this blog, I would consider any post that boils down to 'You just proved my point, hur hur!' to be grounds for immediate banning. The theists, the god-botherers, I don't mind them near as much as the pompous windbags who blather over how uncouth we supposedly are."
As you explain it, Rey, the following is acceptable by the standards of Pharyngula:
"Yeah, Newfie, it's mean to retarded people to compare them to slime like Dembski. They were born like that, while Dumbski has deliberately made himself stupid."
But the following is grounds for immediate banning:
"Regrettably, however, science is shamed by the level of discourse here."
Thanks for clarifying just how low Pharyngula has sunk. Hilariously, you use the word "supposedly" to describe its characteristically sordid level of discourse. And thanks for proving my point, hur, hur.
Oh...and keep up the good work.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 4:18 PM
Ah Jim, more nonsense by the godbot. Until you show hard physical evidence for your deity, we can't have an intelligent conversation. And you are still shaming your side with your obviously ignorant rant. They are disappointed in your lack of cogency and truth.
Posted by: Coryat | August 23, 2009 4:20 PM
Jim, since you like baiting for attention, -in order to reply with a witty 'nahnah'- I shall oblige.
You are a boorish rectal polyp, and the sheer scale of your vast, groundless smugness astounds me. You are a person who knows almost literally nothing about modern science and yet declares that even the opinions of a professional biologist are beneath him.
Now the rant is out of the way, here comes the serious bit, and I want you to pay attention.
You're ignorant.
You are ignorant by choice, and you are doing it to yourself, by choice.
And I want you to think about that.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 23, 2009 4:41 PM
Can't do science. Can't spell. Can't run an honest blog. Not much left for him to do except teach bible students how to troll...
Jim, are you one of Dembski's students?
Posted by: Jim | August 23, 2009 4:45 PM
Coryat: "You are a boorish rectal polyp, and the sheer scale of your vast, groundless smugness astounds me. You are a person who knows almost literally nothing about modern science and yet declares that even the opinions of a professional biologist are beneath him."
As I said before:
"I've learned from experience that this blog is primarily a place where Darwinian dogmatists congratulate themselves on how smart they are while denigrating everyone who doesn't share their dogma. (I expect that further corroboration of this point will soon be forthcoming)."
Thanks, Coryat, for providing that further corroboration.
Oh...and keep up the good work.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 23, 2009 4:48 PM
But the following is grounds for immediate banning:
"Regrettably, however, science is shamed by the level of discourse here."
funny, but I rather thought he mentioned THIS comment of yours:
"(I expect that further corroboration of this point will soon be forthcoming)."
followed by:
If I were in charge of this blog, I would consider any post that boils down to "You just proved my point, hur hur!" to be grounds for immediate banning.
as being the point.
you came here with inane preconceptions loaded like a net in a gun, and fired it straight up.
guess where the net fell?
You have no clue what science is, aren't at all observant of the fact that scientists criticize Darwin's ideas constantly (for proof, look to yesterday postings on Pharyngula), and only managed to shoot yourself in the head.
tell US to "keep it up"???
you're the one who is destroying your own faith, as quick as you possibly can, for yourself and for all those who witness your rambling inanity.
Posted by: Coryat | August 23, 2009 4:52 PM
Jim translated: 'I nowz what I'm lookin for, and I'm gunna find it by trollin'!'
I was just obliging, I wouldn't want one of your 'occasional visits to this dreadful blog' to prove fruitless for you.
I also think you're a pompous ass. There, does that work for you?
As far as your contribution to the blog goes: GIGO.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 4:52 PM
Ah, Jim, still not saying anything cogent. Given your distaste of Pharyngula, I'm surprised you are still posting unless you are simply trolling. Which, given your lack of intelligence by posting here in the first place, and then your series of pointless posts, it makes the only sense possible. If you aren't trolling, time to go and stay away. If you post again, we have your intentions.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 23, 2009 4:58 PM
You see, I think the Darwinian tale of life's developmental history - a tale with which I'm probably as well-versed as anyone here (aside from any members of the choir who are evolutionary biologists) - Jim
I'm sceptical; you apparently don't even know the difference between "evolutionary" and "developmental".
As Darwinist historian of science William Provine of Cornell has aptly observed, if the Darwinian tale of human existence is true, there can be no such thing as free will, which is the necessary prerequisite for independent, rational thought.
In my view, Provine is wrong. See Dennett's Freedom Evolves. However, even if he was right, this would not affect the validity of modern evolutionary theory: appeal to consequences is a logical fallacy. Surely you knew that, Jim?
You embrace a worldview (atheism) where free will and independent thought can't exist
False. I know what my worldview is, and it includes both free will and independent thought. However, I don't consider these things depend on magic, as you do.
While I embrace a worldview (Christianity) that holds that God endowed men with free will and rationality.
Oh yeah? So give us a coherent account of this magic woo that is neither chance nor deterministic. Where and how does the magic operate? What makes your choices yours, if they are not an outcome of your previous experience and earlier choices? How does your "soul" move your body? Through the pineal gland, perhaps? How is it that brain damage can cause people to lose the ability to feel compassion, or anger, or guilt, or to become hyper-religious or irreligious? Come on, Jim: here's your chance to put forward your own view, in more detail and more convincingly than "Goddidit".
It may surprise you to learn, Kel, that evidence for common ancestry does not constitute evidence that evolution is caused by Darwinian mechanisms (primarily, random genetic mutations and natural selection).
Actually, much of it does at least constitute evidence against "intelligent design" - unless we assume the purpose of that intelligence is to conceal itself - because much evidence for common descent takes the form of the existence of features that make absolutely no sense except as the result of unintelligent processes acting under historical constraints - like the vertebrate eye, the frequency with which people used to die of impacted molars because we have too many teeth, our weak backs, the risk that we will inhale food because it has to pass over the entrance to the lungs to get to the esophagus, the non-functional eyes of many cave-dwelling animals, the enormous amount of junk in the genome... Intelligent design? Pah! If you put forward the theory of cack-handed or malevolent design, you'd have a better case. Of course, modern evolutionary science is open to the possibility that other processes than random mutation and natural selection (and sexual selection, if considered a distinct process) are operating or have operated in evolution. The three most obvious cases in recent times are the discovery of neutral mutation and drift; the acceptance of the theory that eukaryotes arose by endosymbiosis - greatly strengthened by recent discoveries confirming that all known living eukaryotes contain remnants of mitochondria; and the discovery of lateral gene transfer, first in bacteria, more recently via endogenous retroviruses in eukaryotes. Modern evolutionary theory goes from strength to strength, acting as the organising principle for all signifincant research in biology; by contrast, the cdesign proponentsists have produced no research worth the name, and are simply lying, quote-mining pseudo-scientific parasites on real science.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 23, 2009 4:59 PM
Jim, are you the same Jim who engaged me, David Maranovic and several others in a lengthy debate about evolution and ID here about two years ago?
Posted by: Kseniya | August 23, 2009 5:02 PM
Oops, make that David Marjanović. Sorry, David!
I really need to learn to be more fastidious about proof-reading.
Posted by: Jim | August 23, 2009 5:13 PM
Nerd: "Given your distaste of Pharyngula, I'm surprised you are still posting unless you are simply trolling."
My posting here is rather curious, Nerd. I suppose you could attribute it to the rather perverse satisfaction I get from tweaking arrogant people who are so utterly lacking in self-awareness. I've done you all a service by pointing out that your attack rhetoric is self-defeating, yet you remain blissfully unaware of it. Quite obviously, denigrating those in the ID and the creationist camps does a lot of emotive work for you, but it does no persuasive work (except among those who are already persuaded). Keep it up, I say, with complete confidence that you will.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 5:19 PM
Ah, more nonsense by the troll Jim. Thanks for sharing your delusions Jim, including the delusion you are smarter than we are. But we win that one, since we don't believe in imaginary deities. The evidence is on our side.
Posted by: Coryat | August 23, 2009 5:20 PM
"My posting here is rather curious, Nerd. I suppose you could attribute it to the rather perverse satisfaction I get from tweaking arrogant people who are so utterly lacking in self-awareness."
"Keep up the good work, kiddies!"
"supercilious know-it-alls."
"On my occasional visits to this dreadful blog, I've never found any member of the Pharyngula choir (including the choirmaster) whom I respect enough to want to engage in conversation"
The irony, it BURNS.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 23, 2009 5:21 PM
That should win a prize for ironic comment of the month.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 23, 2009 5:29 PM
I suppose you could attribute it to the rather perverse satisfaction I get from tweaking arrogant people who are so utterly lacking in self-awareness.
funny, I can still hear you clearly even though your head is wedged so far up your ass you could probably tell us what you ate for your last meal just by looking.
remarkable.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 23, 2009 5:44 PM
"I suppose you could attribute it to the rather perverse satisfaction I get from tweaking arrogant people who are so utterly lacking in self-awareness."
In other words, wanking.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 5:50 PM
Yep, just trolling to amuse himself. And, of course, to show us just how ignorant and arrogant our opposition is.Posted by: Kel, OM | August 23, 2009 5:55 PM
So basically I give you the option to engage in conversation, and you shrug it off in order to continue to hurl insults our way? Nice work there Jim, you're really showing your true value. You can keep calling us Darwinian dogmatists, but all that shows is you can't argue by reason.So what's to be gained by coming on here and hurling insults? Your insults miss the mark because you don't understand the role evolution plays in the worldview of people here, and you add nothing of value to the conversation.
You see, people here including evolutionary biologists could talk until they are blue in the face about the evidence supporting evolution. Would you actually like to argue this point? Or does it serve you just to hurl the insult that there's no evidence?I gave you the chance to actually engage me in conversation despite your troll behaviour, to discuss ideas and have the potential to learn from one another. But instead you just hurl insults and dismiss evolution despite the opportunity to actually discuss it. If this is a blight on science in the general community, then so be it. Because while this place is crude and unrelenting, the people here are intellectually honest and willing to engage in conversation no holds barred. Can you honestly say the same for yourself?
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 23, 2009 6:06 PM
It's quite pathetic. I really wish that we'd actually get opposition on here who actually understand the issues at hand, Jim has shown that either he's ignorant or that he's trying to wind us up. Why can't we get people who are intelligent enough and well read enough to actually engage in conversation about the underlying theory of biology?To dismiss based on belief is irrelevant to the truth of beliefs. Hell, even if we were dogmatically supporting evolution, it wouldn't say anything for or against whether evolution is real. After all, Christians follow the dogma of their faith and they think it true. So even if it were dogma, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's a bad thing. It's kind of funny actually.
Posted by: Rick R | August 23, 2009 6:14 PM
"I really wish that we'd actually get opposition on here who actually understand the issues at hand"
I hear you. I've come to the conclusion they don't exist.
If they actually understood evolutionary biology, they wouldn't be in opposition.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 23, 2009 6:15 PM
I really wish that we'd actually get opposition on here who actually understand the issues at hand
at the level of basic science issues, there simply isn't any coherent opposition.
what you want does not exist.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
August 23, 2009 6:18 PM
We need a better class of troll here. Ol' Jim is good for nothing but hurling insults and showing his intellectual betters his ignorance and prejudices.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 23, 2009 6:26 PM
Okay, I'll rephrase. What I want is that those who talk a big game aren't talking out of their arse. What's the phrase? put your money where your mouth is.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 23, 2009 6:32 PM
To put it another way. This blog gets over 2 million hits a month, many atheists and supporters of evolution read the blog and the comments on it. What's Jim got to lose by putting his argument up? Even if it doesn't convert the "dogmatists", if his argument was solid then there's always the chance of getting someone off the fence.
Why won't you do it Jim?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 6:35 PM
The Pullet Patrol™ shows much more real courage, and intelligence, than Jim.Posted by: Josh
|
August 23, 2009 6:39 PM
I see that Jim doesn't appear to have any interest at all in engaging Kel in actual discourse. Color me unsurprised*.
*Oh sorry, was that too mean? Did I just shame science?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 23, 2009 6:45 PM
What I want is that those who talk a big game aren't talking out of their arse.
nnnnope.
you're still asking for the same thing.
:)
To put it another way... What's Jim got to lose by putting his argument up?
ah! Now that works.
If Jim had an argument, he either feels he put it up somewhere long ago (and it got shredded), or he has no argument TO put up.
That's my argument, anyway.
:p
as to what he has to lose?
his entire house of cards.
It's quite a scary thing, really. I understand this, but still admonish Jim to go ahead and do it anyway.
eventually, it's inevitable that it will come tumbling down anyway, and people here would actually be willing to HELP him, whereas his "peers" will just look on in befuddlement when it happens, or even become outright hostile to him.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 23, 2009 7:22 PM
Pullet Patrol standing by.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 23, 2009 7:32 PM
Dear Brother Jim,
From one Christian to another, may I call you James? I feel like we know each other as well as anyone who loves Jesus and posts with a pseudonym can.
I entreat you, Dear James. Rise to the atheist challenge! Don't shut up, put up! It is a lonely life here as a missionary among atheists, and I'd welcome the company. If you are prepared to march into battle, I promise you that my brother in Christ, Floyd Rubber, and I will be right behind you. You will have no need to fear because Floyd has a unique way of stiffening one's spine.
Advance for Jesus!
Smoggy
Posted by: Jim | August 23, 2009 8:35 PM
Kel: "...the people here are intellectually honest..."
They certainly keep that intellectual honesty hidden. When discussing intelligent design, they tend to be either relentlessly dishonest or wildly uninformed.
Josh: "I see that Jim doesn't appear to have any interest at all in engaging Kel in actual discourse."
Quite true, Josh, but not for the reason you suppose. I've actually debated (and continue to debate) proponents of contemporary evolutionary theory at some length elsewhere. I have no interest in doing it here, where "you're ignorant" passes for a telling argument.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 8:51 PM
Jim is showing his cowardice. He can't debate Kel, because he has nothing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to that out, just somebody not steeped in godwoo. He has nothing, and tacitly he says it. Win for the science side. Jim, you are a lying fraud. The Pullet Patrol™ show ten times the honesty you do...
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 23, 2009 8:54 PM
Again, all I'm seeing is your refusal to engage in argument, only to snipe at the opposition. If it's so uninformed or dishonest, show why and try to correct it. Hell, I've linked to a blog post I made asking for ID advocates to demonstrate the validity of ID. You could respond to that to correct my uninformed arguments, indeed the whole post is asking for information on what ID is and what evidence there is to support it. Why can't you actually help to correct ignorance? Again with the intellectual dishonesty. People here have tried to engage you and you've shown no interest in doing anything other than throwing insults. I've engaged you in long substancial posts directly talking about making arguments. You haven't done it, and the fact that you continue to talk without actually making arguments shows that you don't have a position.This is the most popular science / atheist blog on the internet. If you actually had something, there's no better platform in which to relay it. It's not just us commenters who read the comments, if you have a position then you have a great vehicle to get your arguments out there. Instead you squander this opportunity with a series of derogatory insults that show you either don't understand or you are trying to troll for the sake of being one.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 23, 2009 9:01 PM
Bravo Kel!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 9:09 PM
Kel, two thumbs up. Jim, time to go home, and stay there...
Posted by: Jim | August 23, 2009 9:10 PM
Nerd: "(Jim) can't debate Kel, because he has nothing."
I could debate Kel, Nerd, but I won't. If you would simply read your own postings you could figure out why this blog doesn't attract or encourage substantive debate. For the most part, Pharyngula is simply an intellectual circle jerk among the Darwinian faithful. Each time I check in I wonder if the adults have cleaned the place up, but each time I discover that they haven't. On this odious blog, "fucktard" passes for the height of wit. How can you be surprised that few (if any) skeptics of Darwinian theory want to substantively participate in this sordid spectacle?
Posted by: Josh
|
August 23, 2009 9:11 PM
Actually, no it doesn't. Insults here are the same as they are elsewhere; they're insults. They function in the same manner. They do not serve to advance arguments here anymore than they do anywhere else. But the thing is, people don't use insults here to advance arguments. They use insults here to insult you.
There are plenty of people here who will insult you, it's true. But to assert that there is simply no argument to be had here is just plain dishonest.
Posted by: Jim | August 23, 2009 9:18 PM
Josh: "...to assert that there is simply no argument to be had here is just plain dishonest."
True enough, but to assert that I made that assertion is just plain dishonest.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 23, 2009 9:21 PM
Dear Brother Jim,
I fear you misunderstand this blog.
I am sure that "Slimy-phlanged rodent munter" passes for the height of wit.
Or was it "you credulous Godlicking dollop of yak crap"?
Yours in confusion
Smoggy
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 9:22 PM
I smell the fear of a chickenshit godbot. They, the chickenshit godbots, simply have no evidence and they know it, but unlike scientists, who are honest, they can't put up or shut up. Jim can't put up, and he can't shut up, so that says all we need to know about his lack of honesty, and his inability to just stop posting here says all we need to know about his lack of integrity. Jim, you are showing yourself to be a typical ignorant delusional godbot. You think you are making a point, but you are just showing your own lack of integrity, honesty, and morals. Not proper behavior from a godbot. Keep showing us your lack of character. That is why creationism will eventually lose. The proponents are liars and bullshitters like yourself...Posted by: Jim | August 23, 2009 9:28 PM
Beautiful, Nerd (#163). Evidently you think that writing as you do demonstrates your integrity, honesty, and morals, and that your writing shows why Darwinism will eventually win. What a hoot!
I've had my fun. Adios.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 9:30 PM
Yep, amoral ignorant idiotic stupid troll with no integrity. You won nothing but contempt.Posted by: Kel, OM | August 23, 2009 9:30 PM
Again, two options come to mind:Option 1: Just ignore Nerd of Redhead. He's not the only person on here, and there are plenty of people who have the capacity and the patience to debate the issues for what they are. Owlmirror, Knockgoats, David Marjanović and Josh immediately come to mind, and they all have both the knowledge and ability to engage in substantiative debate. Debates can and do take place here, it seems you're using NoR's approach as an excuse not to actually engage those who can and do debate the issues.
Option 2: I have my own blog where you can have a debate with me without the likes of NoR around. It would just be you and me. I'm actually trying to engage you in debate despite your hostile rhetoric (which in truth partially feeds the insults you get back) so why won't you take it?
I'm putting out the olive branch, as are others here. If you truly believe that I'm just taking part in a Darwinian circle jerk and that there's not evidence for evolution, then surely you'll be able to ram me in the ground. After all, I support evolution because of the evidence for it. So bring it on, I'm more than willing to accept the possibility that I'm wrong. After all, if I didn't then I'd never learn anything.
Posted by: X-Lurker | August 23, 2009 9:45 PM
Wow. Gotta love the irony. This place is the Mother of echo chambers.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 9:50 PM
A hundred Quatloos says Jim will never appear at Kel's blog.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
August 23, 2009 9:54 PM
I don't take sucker bets.
Posted by: Josh
|
August 23, 2009 9:56 PM
True, true. Damn. I originally wrote implied and then edited it to "asserted." You did imply it, fairly strongly. But you're right--you didn't assert it. I retract that part of my comment.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 23, 2009 9:57 PM
What a coward this Jim guy is. 'Oh, I could debate you and win, but I won't because other people who post on this blog are mean.'
Translation: I'm letting my mouth write cheques my butt can't cash.
'Darwinism' has already won, dumbass; it did so more than 150 years ago. It's the foundation of the modern ToE, and no-one has presented anything (well, no-one intellectually honest has presented anything of merit) to indicate there's a better explanation for the state of life on the planet.
No doubt you'll assert that there is - without presenting it.
What else can you do, Jim? Got any other tricks? Can you turn yourself invisible, but only when no-one's looking at you?
Posted by: X-Lurker | August 23, 2009 10:08 PM
Kinda like you just did?Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 23, 2009 10:19 PM
X-lurker wrote:
Are you addressing me? You might want to be clearer on what you're asking of whom.
But I'll assume you are, so I'll answer. Jim is asserting that he has a theory that explains life on this planet - and the fact of evolution - better than the ToE. Therefore, it is up to him to present it.
Also, he claims to be familiar with evolution; therefore I need not present anything at all. If he wishes to check anything about the ToE the thousands upon on thousands of peer-reviewed articles are there for him to peruse.
Want to play some more? You'd better be sure.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 23, 2009 10:34 PM
What's the quatloo / pharyngulcred exchange rate these days?I don't think he'd turn up, not even to correct my misunderstanding of Intelligent Design. The whole point of that post I continually link to is asking ID-advocates to explain to me just what ID is and how it can be scientifically tested. That's the perfect opportunity to correct my ignorance on the matter, so I wonder if he will...
But Jim, if you want to discuss evolution in general, I'll make a new post just for you. But please if you want it to be about evolution, then leave it at evolution. That it's not about the age of the earth or universe (both have nothing to do with evolution), not a battle of Christianity vs atheism (as God's existence isn't decided by the truth of evolution), but it is about whether evolution happened and under what processes.
Can you do that?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 11:09 PM
*checks Star Trek / Pharyngula exchange rate* Boy is that hazy. Checks again. As near as I can make out, a batch of five day old grog, a chance to be chastised by either Floyd Rubber or Lady Heather, or an autographed picture of PZ on the stegosaurus. But it doesn't indicate it is PZ's autograph on the picture. I would go with the grog. Just don't plan on doing anything the next day.Posted by: Rey Fox | August 24, 2009 1:08 AM
Wanker.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 24, 2009 8:39 AM
He did show up on my blog by the way, only to tell me that because I threw insults like "creationist hack" at him, that he won't debate me. Also he's a lapsed member of Mensa and has a IQ of over 150.
Yep, still when given the opportunity he uses indignation to refrain from engaging in discussion.
Posted by: X-Lurker | August 30, 2009 12:03 AM
Well, I did quote something you posted, and then I responded to it. Do you need a few more clues, or should I just give in and spell it out for you? He is? Really? Funny, but in post #171, you state, and I quote: Now that looks like a prediction, but now you're claiming that the thing you predicted in #171 has already come to pass.Perhaps you can show us, between post #171, where you made the prediction, and post #173, where you claimed that which you predicted in #171 had come to pass, where exactly it actually did come to pass.
This echo chamber is also an excellent source of irony.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 30, 2009 12:08 AM
Wow. Gotta love the irony. This place is the Mother of echo chambers.
prove it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 30, 2009 12:14 AM
Yawn, another troll without any evidence, just inane allegations. Not even worth sniping at. Time for bed.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 30, 2009 12:26 AM
That's DaveScot.
Posted by: X-Lurker | August 30, 2009 11:38 AM
Kinda like asking me to "prove" water is wet, chief, or that the sky is blue (on a clear day). And the irony just keeps on coming. Y'all are truly amusing! Sweet dreams, punkin'.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 30, 2009 11:40 AM
X-lurker is just another troll without evidence or point. What a bore, and waste of bandwidth.
Posted by: X-Lurker | September 1, 2009 11:08 PM
Well, the logical conclusion to this fairy-tale you guys believe in is that life itself has no point, so it's irrational for you to demand I have one. And as far as "evidence" is concerned, where is your evidence that natural forces can produce the equivalent of computer software?Posted by: X-Lurker | September 1, 2009 11:12 PM
Of course, this whole blog is a waste of bandwidth, as echo-chambers tend to be.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 1, 2009 11:17 PM
The computer you are typing this on. Natural means evolution, and men evolved sufficiently and became technological capable to make computers which required software. No god needed to explain it. No need for imaginary deities. Otherwise, you question is inane, stupid, and idiotic. The echo you hear is what little logic you have bouncing around in your empty brain.Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 1, 2009 11:24 PM
A lurker, apparently, said:
Someone is oblivious. I mean we have living evidence in terms of the flu virus that evolves and becomes stronger to evade our medicines.
Not a waste, as you can see the academic community as well as Google via their adds benefits from having this blog.
No need to project just because you're defeated. ;)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 1, 2009 11:31 PM
X-Lurker do you have a point beyond doing your best Eddie Haskel impression?
I'm not sure I've found a point or anything substantive from you yet.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 1, 2009 11:37 PM
What choo talkin about X?B does not follow from A, the fact that the universe has no inherent meaning does not mean that we as humans have no meaning. The universe itself can't breathe, think or love, yet humans can. We are thinking, feeling, caring, loving sentient, sapient creatures who are wired to seek meaning. Our lives are meaningful and this is true regardless of whether it matters one iota inside a black hole or at the centre of a star.
Are you honestly going to use an appeal to consequences to dismiss talking about the primary scientific literature? Surely if evolution is false, you can argue against it on its own merits instead of criticising it for it's supposed existential nihilism...
Posted by: Damian | September 1, 2009 11:40 PM
You do realize that a "logical conclusion" is not the same thing as an assertion? If so, and I'm happy to accept that you do, please present an argument, firstly, showing that evolution is a "fairytale", and secondly, that the acceptance of evolution necessarily (i.e. that it is logically necessary) means that life has no point?
I'd actually be happy to accept an argument for either assertion, so if you don't feel up to defending both, take your pick.
Of course, even if it were true that evolution entails nihilism, do you really decide which scientific evidence (and the theories that explain that evidence) that you accept based on the (perceived) consequences of doing so? If so, that's an interesting approach to reality that you have.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 1, 2009 11:43 PM
Not at all. Life may or may not have a point, but the logical conclusion that follows is that living rational beings like humans make their own points. You're a living being; perhaps you're even rational. If you're rational, then you should have a point in the communications you post.
Of course, I agree that it would be irrational to expect rationality from an irrational being. Are you conceding that you are irrational?
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 1, 2009 11:43 PM
@X-Lurker,
That is something we hear even from friendlier theists, and it's true. The point of life for both you and me does not depend on what a god dictates. There are many limitations to how much freedom you have to make life be valuable on your own terms, but there are no hard and fast laws you have to obey.A common refrain from theists is that without their own god, their lives would be pointless, but there is no god and never was, so that is clearly not the case. It shows that the point of life, the reason for living, doesn't need to be anything more than obeying a fictional character for a great many people.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 2, 2009 12:11 AM
It's almost identical to the infamous facilis and his "How can you say my argument is circular if you cannot account for logic?" type defence, completely missing that the point was not to show that we can account for logic but that his position did not.
Here with X-Lurker we see the same thing, does the truth of evolution matter the slightest whether it implies existential meaning? Does it even follow that if there's no existential meaning that it's "irrational" to demand anything? To me, neither follow.
Surely the truth of evolution should be determined by the empirical evidence in related fields and how it fits into the empirical evidence in other fields of study that cumulatively form what we call scientific knowledge. What does the evidence say? That to me should be the only question that matters. Can X-Lurker take down evolution as opposed to attacking the (perceived) consequences or attacking the supporters?
Posted by: X-Lurker | September 4, 2009 10:52 PM
This is exactly the type of glib, vapid non-answer I was expecting, the raw assumption that our very existence is evidence of Darwinian evolution's alleged ability to create all biodiversity, an assumption that is not only loaded with unsupported premises, but represents circular reasoning as well. Of course, "the equivalent of computer software" represents the genome and its information-rich DNA, and you utterly failed to provide even a shred of evidence in support of the idea that natural forces can produce it. It's rather amusing that you implicitly accuse me of being "oblivious" while demonstrating your own oblivious-ness to that big letter X that starts my moniker, said letter X being pronounced "ex", which should suggest that I am a ex-lurker, and hence no longer a lurker. But I am not surprised by this apparent inability to grasp the subtleties of written English. Of course, the mere fact that this "software" can be modified to allow the resulting phenotype to accommodate environmental changes simply doesn't support the notion that those environmental changes could write that "software" in the first place. The "software" that produces the stronger virus still produces a virus phenotype, just like the "software" of its ostensibly weaker predecessors. On the contrary, something that wastes bandwidth can still produce revenue. Just about any TV show I could care to name is evidence of that. And it is interesting that you would try to equivocate on the term "waste" in this manner, but equivocation is just another one of those things I have come to expect from your camp. If we are the result of a blind, indifferent process, the logical conclusion is that it doesn't matter whether we exist or not. How else can we interpret "indifferent"? And if that's the case, what possible "meaning" can we have, beyond whatever shallow, transient "meaning" we assign ourselves (which is itself meaningless)? And this begs the further question, if we are the result of a blind, indifferent process, why do we bother even trying to assign "meaning"to ourselves?I'm sure that your glib answer will be along the lines of, "it provides us a selective advantage", or some such, but that's not an answer so much as it is dogma that begs other questions, including, "do other species attempt to assign 'meaning' to their lives?" Do we have any actual evidence to suggest they do? If they don't, then why do we do so? I mean, bacteria seem to flourish just about everywhere on this planet, including environments hostile to our delicate phenotypes, so the "selective advantage" explanation rings a tad hollow, given the stretch required to believe that bacteria assign meaning to their lives.
Again, why do you suppose we are wired to seek meaning, especially if there is no real meaning in the Universe (beyond the subjective, whimsical "meaning" we conjure up for ourselves)? Why did an indifferent Universe produce creatures that seek in vain after that which does not exist? Hell, how did this indifferent Universe produce creatures "wired" to seek meaning?
That is a true conundrum which the Darwinian/atheistic world view fails to resolve.
Acccording to whom? You? Your subjective self? What if some despot decides your life isn't so meaningful? Or is only "meaningful" if it helps your fellow man in a method of HIS choosing, such as injecting you with ebola in order to try experimental vaccines on you, for example? Who gets to decide what "meaning" your life has?
I am sure you would claim that such a decision should be yours -- do you have any objective evidence to support such a claim?
And what about those bacteria I mentioned earlier, the ones that would dine on your tissues, making you gravely ill or perhaps even killing you? From their perspective, your "meaning" or "purpose" is their sustenance, and nothing more. Are they "wrong"? Remember, from the Darwinian perspective, the only "value" an organism has is its ability to survive and produce offspring.
It's interesting that you would jump to such a conclusion. You seem to be saying that the only possible reason to discuss the logical conclusions of a world view is to "dismiss" discussion on another topic, but the one doesn't follow from the other, as we can discuss both topics.
My leading question was, "where is your evidence that natural forces can produce the equivalent of computer software?", after all. That you have thus far failed to produce any such evidence is hardly my fault.
Besides that, you conveniently forgot or flat-out ignored the reason I mentioned this "appeal to consequences" in the first place; it was a couple of you guys who were whining about my apparent lack of a "point", and I merely pointed out (no pun intended) the irrationality of demanding that I have a point when the logical conclusion to their (your) world view is that the Life and the Universe itself don't have one.
I do, and I also realize that being afraid of following one's world view to its logical conclusion (as you appear to be) in no way refutes that logical conclusion, nor does it demote it to a mere "assertion". And, for the record, I was referring to an objective point or purpose, not a subjective one, for subjective points are open to debate while an objective one presumably wouldn't be.
I asked you first to provide evidence that natural forces could produce the equivalent of computer software, a challenge you guys collectively have yet to meet. That you would turn around and demand something from me before you bother to deliver something I ask of you beforehand is typical of the hubris I experience coming from your camp.
Another person who ignores why I mentioned consequences in the first place. Typical. It's rather apparent that you guys simply don't listen, or perhaps you merely cannot comprehend. In any case, demanding that I present an argument when you collectively demonstrate either an unwillingness or an inability to receive it is another form of that hubris I mentioned earlier.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 4, 2009 11:03 PM
Yawn, X-lurker is still boring us with his delusional fancies that evolution never happened, and cannot cite any of the peer reviewed scientific literature to back up his insane and inane claims. In order to refute science, more science is needed. And science is only appears in the peer reviewed literature, which means X-lurker is pissing into the wind...
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 4, 2009 11:12 PM
What are you talking about? I was talking about computer software being built by apes being built by the forces of natural selection...
Our existence matters to us. it follows that a process of survival would select for those organisms best suited to survival. Since we've developed a "belief module" in the brain (great for cultural evolution), it follows that we would be selected on finding value to existing. In other words, life has intrinsic meaning to it because the process is geared towards survival.But in the scheme of things, it doesn't matter one iota about our existence. Our existence doesn't matter outside this planet, and really it only matters on the tiny fraction that is inhabited by life. The question is, does it need to matter in the supermassive black hole at the centre of our galaxy that we exist? Of course it doesn't. just as it doesn't matter on Mars, Titan, Europa, or the Kuiper belt. Does Pluto get affected in the slightest by use classifying it as a Dwarf Planet as opposed to a planet? It matters a lot to some americans, but Pluto does not care at all. It can't care as it is not sentient.
One thing that separates humanity from other animals is the level of physical causality we can recognise and the extent to which cultural evolution shapes our species. Does it matter whether other animals seek meaning? Of course not. We're describing part of the human condition. As for providing a "selection advantage", I'm not going to say that at all. I'd prefer to think of meaning as a spandrel, a bi-product of other functionality that is actually quite useful.As for evidence, there's plenty of anthropological and archaeological evidence supporting this notion. Neanderthals (~500,000 years removed from us) have ceremonial burials. Cave art and cultural artifacts tens of millennia old show that there was meaning existing in humans going back tens of thousands of years. Not to mention that it's a universal trait now, shared by all tribes around the world where our last common ancestor was approximately 150,000 years ago.
But what would be my best answer to why an indifferent process creates organisms that care about their own existence? Just spray a spider with poison and see what happens. Watch it run about trying to get away from the danger. Watch it twitch in obvious pain as its life is coming to an end. The process of evolution is indifferent, but organisms better at surviving are more likely to survive. Meaning is created by the process itself!Posted by: X-Lurker | September 4, 2009 11:12 PM
"Nerd of Redhead" offers up yet more evidence that you guys just don't listen. I never claimed that "evolution never happened", for example, but apparently, facts are irrelevant to you guys.
And I'm not trying to "refute science", as "Nerd of Redhead" so stupidly asserts. No, I merely asked for evidence, knowing full well that none was forthcoming, supporting my claim that this place is nothing but an echo chamber.
Posted by: Sastra | September 4, 2009 11:13 PM
X-Lurker #194 wrote:
It doesn't matter to the universe as a whole, but why should it? The meaning we give our lives is not going to be located "out there." If anything, being created as an artifact with a function to perform for the benefit of something outside ourselves would make our lives less meaningful, not more. Unless, of course, the meaning we were created for is also something that means something to us.
What you're calling the "shallow, transient 'meaning' we assign ourselves" is the only meaning or value we can experience, and do experience -- so take the "scare" quotes off. Subjective meaning is more real than objective meaning, because subjective meaning entails values, and objective meaning reduces to "task."
We're wired to seek personal and communal meaning because we evolved as individuals in communities. Because we have a tendency towards animism, we sometimes look at the universe as if it were a kind of person or community, and wonder what it wants us to do. It's a category error.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 4, 2009 11:14 PM
X lurker you must be incredibly blind. We've seen time and time again that nature can produce change in genes and cause evolution. Unless of course you don't believe in the flu. If you are so sure that Evolution can't be proven by science giving me a peer reviewed paper. I won't hold my breath over it though. If you read other post that PZ have put up, you'd see that you were wrong.
Here is one of those lies you creationist keep throwing. Ants and bees produce sterile creatures. So it doesn't fit this myth of survival of the fittest.
Evolution doesn’t need to produce a fit member. In the case of ants and bees, it can produce non-reproductive organisms for the survival of a species as a whole. So this gives more value to each organism.
If anyone is ignoring the facts, it's you lurker
Posted by: John Morales | September 4, 2009 11:14 PM
X-Lurker seems confused:
X, care to define 'purpose', and to articulate the difference between subjective and objective purpose?
Because I think purpose can only be ascribed to agency, and refers to intent for achieving a goal, which of necessity is subjective.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
September 4, 2009 11:23 PM
So it follows that X-rays are former rays.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 4, 2009 11:27 PM
Firstly, don't equate evolution with atheism. Evolution is the process of how life came to diversify on this planet, it's not the answer to whether there are gods or not. It's up to you to reconcile your notion of a deity with evolution.Secondly, there is no atheist worldview. Atheism is the absence of a belief in gods, it is not a worldview in itself. There are atheist worldviews, like naturalism or humanism and they have their own means of answering the question.
Thirdly, even if there's an intrinsically meaningless universe, it doesn't change the fact one iota that we evolved. The evidence from all different fields of biology all point to the same conclusion - we evolved like every other piece of life on earth.
Finally, as I specified in the post above, the process is geared towards survival. It's an obvious truism. Organisms that survive better live on. It's not so hard to understand, surely.
I cannot speak for anyone but myself in terms of how I gauge meaning in this universe. I can seek to explain how it is that we are meaning-seeking creatures and my answer would be along the lines of seeking patterns, forming relationships and the sense of self. But as for what I find meaningful? I'm not so infantile that I need to place a higher meaning out there to have a meaningful life. I find meaning in connections, in feeling as one with others and with my environment. And I fully accept it's because I'm wired to feel that way by a blind indifferent force.
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." - Charles Darwin
Just how much more meaningful do you need?!?
Posted by: Sastra | September 4, 2009 11:31 PM
X-Lurker:
I have a question.
If you were to consider the matter and conclude that a non-teleological form of evolution did in fact occur, and thus there is no higher meaning or purpose for which we were created -- would you change your behavior? Would you no longer love what you loved, or care for what you cared for, because it's not eternal and cosmic?
Do you need a stage, and a role, and an audience, for love to matter to you? Doesn't anything matter to you for its own sake?
I suspect it does. Your insistence that 'shallow, transient meaning' is insufficient is mere flourishing, on your part. You don't really mean what you're saying: that life only matters if X is true. No. You're saying that life matters, therefore X must be true. But, if it's not -- then the first part is still true.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 4, 2009 11:40 PM
l'existence précède l'essenceThe fact that we're having this conversation now suggests that you agree with the statement. You care, just like I do. And we're arguing over something trivial, and it won't make a bit of difference to the debate over this matter what we say or do. And even if someone comes by chance to this topic and takes something away, ultimately they like us will die, civilisation will collapse, the sun will die and the universe will eventually be a sea of nothingness as all atoms collapse back into energy.
Yet here we both are, you spending your friday night trying to convince me of the inadequacies of my "worldview" while I'm trying to correct your misunderstandings. Why do either of us bother? You don't know me, as far as it concerns you I'm a perl script putting out automated responses. You might as well be arguing this conversation with a brick wall. But here we both are...
And we aren't the only ones here, it's not like this is a private conversation. We could be doing this privately, by correspondence of email as opposed to typing on a public forum. Which suggests that you're more concerned with getting the message out to anyone possible than trying to convince me personally. I can say the same too, I don't care who you are, yet I think you're wrong and I'm expressing it publicly. Maybe it is self-indulgent, that I seek the approval of the others on this site. Indeed my body of work and the OM next to my name suggests that there is that element to it. I could be posting on other sites the same, but I choose to do it here.
So what grounds do I decide that my life is meaningful? On my own, because that's all I can judge. At the same time though, meaning comes from experience and we are wired to be social creatures. So what I find meaningful is influenced by those around me. And those around me do the same.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 4, 2009 11:54 PM
Okay, I'll explain this as best as I can...You're right about producing offspring, all that matters in evolution is the survival of the genes. The pacific salmon takes on a perilous journey from its river home out to the ocean then back up the river only to mate then die. Their successful strategy involves copulation as the final act.
Whereas we don't. We look after our young, we teach them how to behave, how to act, how to survive, and hopefully to reproduce themselves. Before the days of the internet or even books, there was only oral transmission of information. The grandparents, those experienced throughout life, help by not only providing extra care for the young but can act as teachers to future generations. We unlike the salmon need to survive long enough in order to ensure the survival of the genes.
And it's not just grandparents either, being part of a large (~150 people) community means that individuals can specialise. That people can dedicate themselves to performing specific tasks that are beneficial while others do the essentials. i.e. you don't need everyone to look for their own food, or build their own shelters, or protect themselves. In effect, our social nature is a successful strategy because it means that individuals don't have to do everything for themselves.
So cultural evolution and our social nature both contribute to the survival of the genes, they are essential parts of humanity. A pacific salmon doesn't need these but we do because that is what allowed us to conquer the environment and survive the process red in tooth and claw.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 5, 2009 7:47 AM
Try the peer reviewed scientific literature, found in libraries at college campuses around the world. Look up your own information like a man. You need to listen. The only echo around here is from you and your empty mind.Yep.Yep.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 5, 2009 8:16 AM
X-lurker, your tactic is about #7 on the creobot chart. Life has no purpose without a god, ergo you mean atheist scientists have to include god in your theories. There are several misconceptions here.
First of all, science is an adeistic methodology. It cannot use or prove god for its observations. Science divorced itself from god a couple of centuries ago, and the separation is permanent. Science doesn't need god. This appears to be one of your irrational problems. You think it does.
Second, even though science is adeistic, many scientists believe in god. With something like evolution, they can personally believe god is directing evolution, or god just set up the universe, and let it do its thing. The latter are deists in outlook. So there is nothing stopping you from personally doing either of those things. But science simply cannot and will not acknowledge your imaginary deity. And because you need your imaginary friend, why do we need to join in your delusion?
There is no meaning to being an atheist beyond not believing in gods. All gods. You are an atheist toward all but one of the 1000+ gods invented by man. We just take the next step. Beyond that, there is nothing. No political, sociological or economic agenda.
However, people like yourself think atheists have an agenda. Atheists tend to be more intelligent and better educated than the average person. As a result of being intelligent and well educated, they tend to be more liberal in political thinking than the average person. But the atheist community runs the political gamut from libertarians to socialists, just like you would find in most communities.
So, what your real point for posting here X-lurker. State your agenda in plain, declarative sentences.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 5, 2009 8:24 AM
Any argument from consequences is not worth addressing, but such is the nature of SIWOTI that there is at least the desire to correct such a misapprehension. The truth of evolution rests with empirical evidence, so regardless of any existential meaning beyond our species is irrelevant to the discussion. We evolved because that's what the evidence says. It's better to encompass that into your understanding of meaning that to deny it and persist in a delusion.
Posted by: X-Lurker | September 9, 2009 9:07 PM
You were? It was "Nerd of Redhead" who replied: See message #186.So why are you trying to take credit for his vapid yet glib non-answer? Not only does it fail to answer my question, it apparently attempts to answer an altogether different question, one I didn't ask, and furthermore, it merely presumes the "truth" of the Darwinian explanation and attempts to offer that presumption as "evidence".
When I wrote "the equivalent of computer software", I was referring to the genome, not actual computer software. I subsequently made that fact explicit, and when the response is, "The computer you are typing this on.", well, that does come across as rather glib. Your subsequent explanation quoted above still falls into the trap of assuming the "truth" of the Darwinian model and offering that assumption as evidence.
But this is circular and subjective. Of course our existence matters to us -- this is true of many sentient species at some level. All critters with even a smidgeon of self-awareness seem to want to not die -- this is pretty much a given. But the mere fact that we fear death and want to stay alive certainly doesn't mean that I am personally required to have a "point" while posting here, and that is the issue that started this whole discussion, my alleged lack of a "point" that you guys are whining about. Again, the Universe doesn't have a point, Life doesn't have a(n objective) point, so why am I required to have one? The honest answer is that I am not required to have one, of course. It's merely to illustrate your collective duplicity that I make this observation.
And again, you merely presume that "we've developed a 'belief module'" via a Darwinian process, and proceed to argue from that unproven premise, a premise for which I have asked for evidence, which you have subsequently and collectively failed to provide.
It was none other than Christopher Hitchens who wrote that any assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Based on his statement, I am justified in dismissing your explanations.
Well, you certainly make a lot of sweeping, apparently absolute assertions -- do you have any objective evidence to back them up? If not, allow me to introduce you to Christopher Hitchens, just a few lines up...
You know, the first time you brought this up.I responded:
Take a look at post #194 above if you have a hard time taking my word for it...
As you can see (assuming you aren't "incredibly blind"), in my original response, I acknowledge that adaptation does indeed occur in the form of genome modification, so we again have evidence that you guys just don't listen. And again, the fact that the flu can adapt to environmenmtal changes fails to support the idea that those environmantal changes could write the flu's genome in the first place.
Which I have, and I've read The Blind Watchmaker and Endless Forms Most Beautiful and The Selfish Gene, and no, none of that produced any evidence that natural forces alone could produce a genome. There were lots of "just so" stories on how it "coulda" happened, but a just-so story ain't evidence.
Sure, there is lots of evidence on how organisms can adapt, how existing genomes can be modified, but again, I am asking you guys to produce evidence that natural forces can produce a genome in the first place. And you continue to crash and burn in a most spectacular fashion.
"Wrong" about what, exactly? That your collective belief that Darwinian evolution is capable of producing all diversity in the biosphere is a fairy-tale? Well, like I said, I have yet to encounter any actual evidence to refute such a claim, in spite of having read Dawkins and Carrol, etc. Again, just-so stories ain't evidence.
Try not to be such a Drama Queen, Gyeong.
Perhaps, but then, ant and bees have nothing to do with the actual example I was discussing, do they? How typical to lift my statement out of its context and attack it in a vacuum, but this is just another example of that equivocation I see so often coming from you guys. In the context of determining "value" or "purpose" in the example of bacteriological pathogens attacking a human host, my statement is correct, since my statement only entails bacteria and humans.
And in fact, one of your fellow evolutionists, Kel, admitted that I was correct:
See post #205.
He was able to grasp the gist of what I was saying, without getting hung up on (irrelevant) minutiae. In fact, he seems genuinely interested in trying to have an actual discussion, unlike so many of you guys, who seem more interested in scoring points and generally engaging in a self-congratulatory circle-jerk.
Well, yeah, I guess you got me there -- I do ignore facts that are irrelevant. Again, I was speaking in a specific context, which you ignored in order to attacked a generalized (mis)interpretation of my statement. Whining about my allegedly ignoring facts while you ignore context is sheer hubris and duplicity.
Sure, why not? However, before I begin, let us remind ourselves that you specifically asked me to do this, and what I am providing is in no way meant to be absolute, or all-inclusive, or objective, or anything other than my personal view on the matter, and any complaints will be dismissed with prejudice. I am not the one making a pretense to reason and evidence -- that would be you guys. I am merely asking for evidence and some indication of reasoned discourse from you guys, but what I am getting is a whole lot of unsupported assertions...
So I would define "purpose" as "a specific reason to exist". "Objective purpose" would be purpose assigned to us by an outside agent who created us for that objective purpose. "Subjective purpose" is purpose or meaning we assign to ourselves, based on our meager understanding of reality, and on our fleeting whims.
Perhaps, if you are in the habit of subscribing to inappropriate analogies. I took on a specific moniker for a specific purpose. If you can show that x-rays did the same, your analogy might be valid.
I don't need to -- you guys already did it for me...
From #186:
From #192:
To continue...
Do you really believe that pap? Or are you merely being duplicitous? As I've shown up above, one of the whole points of Darwinian evolution is to show that "No god [is] needed to explain it." Richard Dawkins wrote that Darwin's quaint little hypothesis allows him to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist". So please spare me this nonsense.
You're splitting semantic hairs. Whether there is one or several, you admit up above that there are indeed atheist world views, but they all have at least one thing in common, namely, atheism. And they all tend to gravitate toward Darwinian evolution as the grand explanation for all biodiversity.
It isn't a question of what I need. It's a question of following your world view to its logical end. Few of you seem willing to do so, but some of you admittedly admit that life has no purpose beyond what "purpose" we give it. But that's the crux. Since we ourselves are meaningless, we cannot logically assign meaning. After all, if the Darwinian/materialist explanation is true, there is no real reason why Life couldn't have sprung up billions of times throughout the Universe, which would make Life itself even more meaningless, since it would be just another product of natural forces, like the stars themselves. Or grains of sand on a beach.
And, as Christopher Hitchens relishes in pointing out, at some time in the future, the Universe will undergo what he calls a "heat death", when all energy has been transformed into matter. Since there will be nothing but matter and space, with zero energy, there obviously cannot be any Life. So the ultimate fate of all life anywhere in the Universe is to perish.
There will be utterly no memory that we ever existed.
This is the type of logical conclusion you guys seem so eager to avoid facing. But again, for the umpteenth time, the only reason I bring this up is to illustrate how meaningless it is for you guys to demand that I have a "point". It is NOT for the purpose of "disproving evolution" or such, and you guys look like bumbling idiots whenever you draw that inane conclusion.
Again, it isn't a question of what I need or don't need. It's simply a question of facing ultimate reality, nothing more. Your repeated distractions are amusing, but they serve no purpose beyond distraction. And amusement.
What I am saying is that the logical conclusion to your world view is that life has no point or purpose. I am saying nothing beyond that, but again, it's amusing to watch you guys fall all over yourselves trying to read your own projections into my statements, and then pretend that THAT is what I "really mean".
Again, Kel shows that he is interested in discussion and reflection, which is refreshing. I still consider this place to be an echo chamber, but yeah, there are a ferw of you guys who are willing to actually reflect a little bit.
FWIW, I am not "trying to convince [you] of the inadequacies of [your] 'worldview'" at all. I am merely pointing out the logical conclusion to that world view, and using that conclusion to state that I personally don't have to have a "point" to post here, because, ultimately, the fact that any of us ever posted here will be utterly forgotten by a heat-dead Universe, if there is no God.
And that is ALL I am saying.
So then, you admit that you are unable to produce the evidence I asked for? Just as I suspected, and more evidence that this place is nothing more than an echo chamber. Someone comes in and asks for evidence, and he's shown the door. Very convincing method you got going there.
And, for the record, I've already mentioned that I've read a number of books on evolution, and they didn't provide the evidence I asked for.
Listen to what, exactly? You repeating over and over that I've got an "empty brain" or an "empty mind"? You really should try getting over yourself, sometime, and figure out that such tactics might impress yourself and the other members of your little circle-jerk, but they DON'T convince skeptics such as myself.
When you guys recite this talking point litany of blather, it only makes me chuckle. But you go right on ahead and keep telling yourself what you want to hear...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 9, 2009 9:14 PM
X-lurker tl;dr, and I couldn't hear myself over the echo from your empty mind. You have nothing, since science is only refuted by more science, and science appears only in the peer reviewed scientific literature. You had no citations to said literature, so everything you said was worthless. A lot of wasted effort into nothing.
Yes, you said what you wanted to hear, but none of is was factually correct, that is it was blather. We know that, and you are too stupid to realize your god doesn't exist and your babble is fiction. I feel sorry for you. What a waste of an empty mind-nd-nd-nd. There goes that echo that happens every time you post...Posted by: John Morales | September 9, 2009 9:23 PM
X-Lurker, you really are inane.
Bleh.
<Spoing!>
Posted by: X-Lurker | September 9, 2009 9:29 PM
And of course, "Nerd of Redhead" has to jump in a mere seven minutes after I post with his predictably repetitive nonsense, and a lame attempt to use my words against me. I suppose he thinks he's being real clever, but repeated assertions with nothing to back them up don't strike me as clever, but maybe in his world that qualifies.
He still cannot seem to figure out the fact that I'm not even attempting to "refute" anything. I merely made some observations and asked for some evidence. But that's all it takes to set some people off, apparently.
When one presumes to speak for all, that's a strong indicator that the venue is indeed an echo-chamber...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 9, 2009 9:34 PM
Not lame, you are lame. You have no evidence, but pretend you do. Can't get any lamer than that.We don't have to defend evolution. The answers to your inane, stupid, and irrelevant questions are found in the peer reviewed literature. Go look them up. The literature is found in libraries in institutions of higher learning around the world. You have to present and defend your idea, whatever it is. Put up or shut up. Welcome to science. And be sure to cite the peer reviewed literature to back up your inane ideas.Annddd whhhoooo arfe youuuuopouu speadakindgd forrre? *damn it gets loud with his empty mind.Posted by: John Morales | September 9, 2009 9:35 PM
X-Lurker, you're claiming dissent constitutes an "echo chamber"?
Heh.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 9, 2009 9:37 PM
Dang, I didn't copy/past from the x-lurker correctly.
You back nothing up. No evidence, and you verbiage is not evidence, but sophistry. That makes you an imbecile. Do you want to keep playing?Posted by: X-Lurker | September 9, 2009 10:23 PM
Me(#212): "Nerd of Redhead" has to jump in a mere seven minutes after I post with ... a lame attempt to use my words against me.
Nerd(#213): Not lame, you are lame.
Me(#212): I suppose he thinks he's being real clever, but repeated assertions with nothing to back them up don't strike me as clever...
Nerd(#215): You back nothing up.
Apparently, "Nerd of Redhead" is a graduate of the Pee-Wee Herman school of debate ("I Know You Are But What Am I?"). I even posted evidence to back up the observation.
Posted by: John Morales | September 9, 2009 10:26 PM
X, your whining is pathetic.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 9, 2009 10:44 PM
Sorry a quick look at your tl;dr post showed no links, and no citations to the peer reviewed literature. No surprise there. Dawkins' books are not science. They only explain science.Evolution is a science. You must refute it with science, and science is only found in the peer reviewed literature. With names like Science, Nature, Cell, Journal of Biochemistry, Nucleic Acid Research, etc. Trying to ding evolution without scientific evidence is impossible. You either play the game right, or you don't play.
You show no ability to play the game of science, which isn't the same as philosophy. Philosophy without evidence is sophistry. Which is why science progresses humankind as it is constantly improving, while philosophy, not so much, and religion hold mankind back.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 9, 2009 11:10 PM
So are you arguing that your objective purpose is solely to comment here?
I don't see how the concept of life having an "objective purpose", as you define it, can possibly be consonant with humans having free will. But perhaps you are a Calvinist.
To expand: If humans were created by an "outside agent" for some "objective purpose" that is completely opaque to us, our apparant subjective purpose that we think we have must be an illusion. No, we are not following our whims -- we only think we are following our whims. We are actually doing the agent's will.
Therefore, as we post comments here back and forth, it is not you who are arguing here with us, but rather, God, transcending time and space, is arguing here with itself. And rather at cross-purposes, too.
Of course, by your own definition, God does not have an objective purpose. So God is simply following its own fleeting whims, based on its own understanding of reality. And arguing with itself seems, to me, to be rather pointless, but perhaps God just likes conflict for its own sake, and specifically uses that conflict for its own amusement.
So is that how you see your objective purpose? As a puppet for the amusement of a transcendent outside agent?
I hope you will excuse me if I disagree. After all, if there is no "external agent", then subjective purpose is all we have. And if there is an "external agent" which does grant us free will, then again, subjective purpose is still all we have. And if there is an "external agent" that uses us like puppets, then it made me specifically to come to the conclusion that no external agent exists, and to disagree with you.
So no matter what, I have no actual choice in the matter.
Posted by: John Morales | September 10, 2009 3:16 AM
Um. I see Owlmirror picked up on X's response to my question (it is appreciated, X-lurker - I missed it as my eyes glazed over that compound response) and highlighted its paradoxical nature.
I love the response, sad though it is: "Objective purpose" would be purpose assigned to us by an outside agent who created us for that objective purpose. "Subjective purpose" is purpose or meaning we assign to ourselves...
Posted by: Jim | September 10, 2009 6:38 PM
You've probably noticed, X-Lurker, that Nerd of Redhead is all sizzle and no steak. Or - to mix my metaphors - he brings to mind the old adage that an empty can makes the most noise.
Posted by: X-Lurker | September 10, 2009 8:21 PM
In message # 210, "Nerd of Redhead" writes:
Since none of his posts in this entire thread have any "citations to said literature", it naturally follows that everything "Nerd of Redhead" has written in this thread is worthless, by his own argument.In message #217, John Morales writes:
If you have any desire whatsoever to disprove my claim that this place is nothing but an echo chamber, such one-liner responses on your part serve only to undermine such an effort.Now that the utter buffoons are dealt with, we can move on to actual discussion with Owlmirror, who, like Kel, is at least making an attempt at actual discourse...
No, I am not arguing anything of the kind. I am not even claiming that I necessarily have an objective purpose. I am merely arguing that if we are the result of a blind, indifferent, unguided process, we simply cannot have an objective purpose, nothing more.Small steps...
No, I'm not a Calvinist, but it's amusing that you would jump to such a conclusion, even provisionally. As far as free will is concerned, if God does exist (humor me), and if God gives us a choice to either comply with his "objective purpose" or selfishly seek our own "subjective purpose", how is free will violated in any way? This is based on a false, or at least unfounded, premise, namely, the premise that we have no choice but to follow this agent's objective purpose for us, and that free will is an illusion. Also, the idea that any "objective purpose" must necessarily be "completely opaque to us" is another unfounded premise. But again, what if that agent gives us a choice up front, between its objective purpose and our subjective purpose? That would completely undermine your premise, yes? Well, my definition was limited to US, so your conclusion doesn't follow from that definition. Don't get me wrong -- your conclusion may indeed be correct, it just cannot follow from a definition that is limited to humans.Recall my preconditions, from #209:
So, in spite of my explicit fair warning that my definitions were not meant to be absolute or all-inclusive, you insist on treating them that way anyway.Since God ostensibly inhabits a realm that is eternal, it would seem to follow that his whims cannot be "fleeting", but must themselves be eternal, which would subsequently undermine the claim that they're "whims". In addition, since this God presumably created this Universe and everything in it, it stands to reason that his "understanding of reality", at least as it pertains to this Universe, would be substantial, perhaps even complete and total, in stark contrast to our (extremely) limited understanding.
No, but it's amusing that you would choose to see it that way. As I've indicated, your view is based on the unestablished premise that free will is an illusion if this God exists. No need to "excuse" you at all, for I also disagree with your straw man. How does this follow? Can we not, of our free will, choose to follow this external agent's objective purpose for us? Or are you claiming that free will and objective purpose are mutually exclusive? If so, I have already shown that they are not, necessarily, if God gives us the choice between his objective purpose and our subjective one. Well, again, this is based on an unestablished premise.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 10, 2009 8:32 PM
Yawn, another wasted post the mind echoooechooo chamber of x-lurker. He has nothing to offer, just his stupidity. No science, and sophistry for philosophy. What a crashing ignorant bore. Take it on the road. Somebody somewhere else might consider your sophistry of interest. His sophistry comes about because his imaginary deity doesn't exist, as no evidence has been offered to make it exist. Philosophy with evidence is sophistry. And presuppositions, like god existing, are always wrong...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 10, 2009 8:34 PM
Gack, that should be #223... Philosophy without evidence is sophistry...
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 11, 2009 1:41 AM
@X-Lurker
Nerd of Redhead, OM pointed out that evolution needs no divine intervention, and I wrote #192 with no thought of Darwin or evolution. So no, we did not equate atheism with evolution.Now, look at the sources for your theism. You probably have only two: a book and your brain. Such sources are quaint indeed and offer no empirical evidence of a god or gods. Any fool could have dreamt up the stories and written them down. Any other fool could have copied them in written or oral form.
My point was that you and other theists believe a fictional character (no more real than Harry Potter) gives your lives meaning. That is all it takes! The meaning of life — the purpose of life — is not universal and does not need to be anchored to reality. All it takes to give life meaning is one's own imagination.
Of course evolution makes atheism fulfilling; it confirms that inserting a god into reality is unnecessary. I don't see how you can be so fulfilled with your damnable free will belief anyway. Don't you believe that you have no frakkin clue what your god wants because of free will? You're free to spend your life doing whatever you like; that's free will for you. It's like you're a pet dog content in your master's house but free to roam about into any room for any reason. Where is the purpose in that? It's devoid of purpose. Oh yeah, maybe in death you get to finally sleep in the master's bed. Big whoop-dee-doo!
Which leads me to this very important point you overlooked: there is no afterlife. You and I will die and cease to exist within a short period of time but far far far before any catastrophe like universal heat death. Nobody can cheat death at this point. What is your purpose here and now in this life?Bringing in the end of the universe scenario can actually create a purpose larger than a person. For instance, it might behoove of us to learn enough about the universe to get to such a stage of technological advancement that we can form a new universe, extend the life of the one we already have, or open up new possibilities. Believing in a god and devoting your life's work to worshiping a fictional character will be of no help at all in overcoming the limitations imposed on terrestrial life by the universe and the local spatial environment.
Think things through a little farther than your own beliefs. Play the what-if game. What if your theistic beliefs are false and there is no god? Would that diminish your purpose in life? Does purpose remain after death if there is a god? What about if there isn't a god? You came here blasting us for not thinking hard enough, but clearly you are the one who has not thought deeply enough about your own beliefs.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 11, 2009 3:41 AM
And I am taking the concept of "objective purpose" as best I understand it and extrapolating what would follow if it were both correct and true.
You're equivocating around the term "purpose", there. God's "purpose", as you use it above, is God's intent. It isn't something we are mystically imbued with, assuming we do indeed have a choice. You're also equivocating around the term "objective". An objective fact is something we don't have a choice about. We cannot choose for 1 to equal 2 -- at least, not by the objective definitions of "one", "equal" and "two'. It looks like you want to now weaken the sense to mean that it is objectively true that God has a specific purpose, or rather, intent, in mind for us. But that's something about God, not about us.
As soon as you detach God from interacting with our will, you're left with us only having subjective purpose. God's objective reality and intent are now something that we have to take into consideration -- but we still are doing so from our own subjective point-of-view, and making our own purpose based on that knowledge. We might selfishly decide that God's intent serves our own purpose as well, and therefore comply with it, but it's still all just us making the decision about it.
And as an aside regarding "selfishly" -- God's "objective purpose" is selfish as well. You can't get away from selfishness existing on the part of both parties, here.
It follows from us existing solely for the external agent's purpose. As soon as you bring in that our choice is utterly independent from the external agent's will, you destroy the agent's objectivity of purpose being something about us.
If God exists in our reality, God's "objective purpose" -- whether meaning simply its personal intent or meaning something we are imbued with, as I originally extrapolated from -- is indeed completely opaque to us. The only way that it would not be is if God provided empirical objective evidence of its existence, and made it unequivocally clear what that conjectured "objective purpose" was.
Yes, that particular premise. But it is not the case in our universe.
This is simply special pleading. It may be objectively true that God exists and has a purpose/intent regarding us -- but God's "purpose" is subjective for God.
If you want your statements to mean something different from what they in fact mean, feel free to revise them. But don't blame me for taking them at the face value in which they were originally phrased.
If so, then we cannot have free will. This eternal and trans-temporal understanding -- which certainly sounds like total omniscience -- contradicts any free will that we might have.
So we're back to God bickering with itself for no purpose other than its own amusement.
If God is indeed omniscient, free will is indeed an illusion.
Not if this external agent knows beforehand what choice we will make.
And I have shown, twice over, that the mutual exclusivity of human free will and divine "objective purpose" must be correct: The choice is an illusion if God is omniscient, and even if that is false (and we do have a choice), then if we do have free will, then "objective purpose" simply means "objectively existing intent (in the mind of God)".
It follows from all of the premises, regardless of what they are.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 11, 2009 3:54 AM
to be honest, it read like something I would type :PAnyway, I've given answers to that topic and more. How can a process build what we see? It's called natural selection. You don't need to go further than that if you truly understand how natural selection works.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 11, 2009 4:02 AM
You asked how the process could build meaning from non-meaningful, and I gave you an answer. We have meaning, meaning in our actions, meaning in our interactions, meaning in our thoughts and intentions, etc. My contention is that a non-meaningful process can build meaning, thus you are being greedy reductionist when you take the following glib non-answer:If you think that your life has no significance in the black hole in the centre of our galaxy translates into interaction between members of our species, then you are being greedy reductionist. You need to have a point because you are having a conversation. Human interaction is meaningful, it is the cultural exchange of information, forming relationships and ensuring survival. Your basically using existential nihilism to justify not engaging in conversation. Does your existence really need to matter in the centre of a quantum singularity in order for you to actually have an intellectually honest discussion? Because it seems from this vantage point that you're using it as an excuse to snipe as opposed to engage.In short you need to have a point because conversations of any value have a point. You are having a conversation now, and while this doesn't mean anything to the Kuiper belt objects, it means something for us here and now.
Posted by: John Morales | September 11, 2009 4:16 AM
X-Lurker:
You failed to realise I was addressing your whining, not your vapid claim.
The onus is on you to substantiate it, but since we're not echoing each other, it's instantly apparent this is not such a place.
Heh.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 11, 2009 4:30 AM
I'm arguing that you aren't following this worldview to its logical end, and for that matter the truth of evolution shouldn't rest on what meaning there is. Evolution's truth is only validated by the evidence. And this is what I find dishonest about you, if you want to talk the evidence for evolution - that's fine. I'd be more than happy, as would many others here to have a discussion about evidence. Same goes for atheism, I'd be more than happy to discuss with you on the topic of atheism...But to mix the two together, to bring science and philosophy as one huge straw man to attack? I don't think that is intellectually honest - and coming from someone throwing insults like "echo chamber" about, you'd think you'd be doing what you could to frame what you are talking about in an honest manner. If I were a theist who believed that God gives the universe meaning, I'd still support evolution because that's what the science demonstrates is true. By lumping evolution and atheism together, you are using the existential nihilism of atheism to discredit the cornerstone of biology. That is incredibly dishonest.
As for the logical conclusion, again I disagree that it follows that if there's not meaning in an atom that there is meaning in nothing. We as a species have meaning, it's impossible for us not to because we've been wired that way. So it's no logical conclusion that we shouldn't have meaning, it's not understanding the universe for what it was.
Back when I was a teenager, I used to buy into that stupid argument too. I was an atheist then like I am now, but I couldn't see how one could break from the existential nihilism that seemed a consequence of my "world view". (For my high school examinations, I composed a piece of music called "(the pain and isolation of) Meaningless Existence". I used to buy into that non-overlapping magisteria nonsense too, science is the how and religion is the why. So I searched for meaning in the way Gould thought of religion. I didn't find it, I found it just made me worse.
Coming out the other side, I realised that I was wrong all that time. That the search for meaning is a meaningful endeavour in itself. That to have no meaning would be at odds to me being human. It was actually Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion that awoke me to the wonders of the universe. There is grandeur in this view of life. The moment you realise how wonderful it is to actually exist, then it all comes together.
One thing I like about being an atheist in this modern age is that it's not just "resigned theism". There's no need to mourn the death of God, but a whole new understanding of who we are and what our place in the universe is can unfold. God is such an infantile answer, it's meaning in the same way that an infant has meaning through a parent giving it a rattle. This is modern atheism, it's still asking similar questions to traditional theism, but finding that the theistic answers are vacuous, infantile and ultimately unsatisfying. There's something far grander to the story of who we are and how we came to be without appealing to supernatural entities.
We are star stuff, built from material forged in stars and exploded into space. We are trillions of generations of continuous survival - our lineage has extended over 3.5 billion years! Yet from such humble beginnings, we can think, feel, love, experience, and wax philosophically to an audience of three in an ultimately futile discussion in order to get another to understand our point of view.
I can break from personal meaning, because I'm not the only person on the planet, nor is what I find meaningful the only consideration I make to anything. We are communal apes, who we interact with, who we love, who we call family, their meaning influences our own. You're dead wrong, and to even try to attach this to evolution is just absurd.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 11, 2009 4:44 AM
You're waiting a bit too long there. In about a billion years (maximum 2 billion) the sun will get so hot that earth will no longer be habitable. At maximum, we have 5 billion years before the sun exhausts all its fuel, expands to a size that puts the earth within it and then will die. All the while there's the persistent threat of Jupiter sending an asteroid our way or objects from the Kuiper belt. Then there's the chance for a virus to wipe us out before then, or even making our own demise through environmental or military devastation. Why wait for the "hot death"? Our species will be long dead well before then...
Avoid facing? Have I not laid out a convincing case for the ultimate futility of endeavour? It's not that we're avoiding it, it's that your logical conclusion reeks of ignorance. Most of us have moved beyond such juvenile assessments of the situation, quite simply you're wrong.And again, why do you need to have a point? Because if you think that what happens in 1023years time when the atoms start to decay matters to a creature that lives at most 102 years, then you're a fool. Does this conversation only mean anything if there's a magic sky daddy watching over us? You're being deceptive by being greedy reductionist, ignoring human interaction for what it is because apparently the ultimate mortality and erasure of everything we do warrants us to abandon everything that makes us human.
Posted by: X-Lurker | September 13, 2009 11:40 AM
Really? I mean, here we are on a Darwinian evolutionist's blog, an ostensible "science" blog (just look at the actual URL if you have any doubts), and you are claiming with a straight face that the Darwinian explanation doesn't enter your mind when you pontificate to me that God doesn't exist? I mean, what other choice is there, considering that this is an "evolution" blog?Pardon me if I seem incredulous, but I suspect that you are so convinced by the Darwinian explanation that perhaps you don't consciously make the connection between your atheism and the Darwinian explanation, but that doesn't mean the connection isn't there. and it doesn't mean it isn't manifested in what you write (or where you choose to write it).
Perhaps not deliberately or consciously, but it takes willful blindness to claim that there is no connection whatsoever. As far back as post #40, "not a gator" dragged the Roman Catholic Church into the discussion, apparently for the sole purpose of calling Christianity a lie. And I repeat, your claim might manage to hold water if this were not an ostensibly science venue. In addition, as far as the part of this thread that I am participating in is concerned, it was you guys who first brought up God, not me.
Your "point" is based on an unproven premise, namely, that God is a "fictional character". Your personal, subjective belief to that effect doesn't make it an objective fact, but it's pretty typical of you guys to try an pass of your personal opinions as "facts"...
And you again show how they are linked while clinging to your denial that you are linking them. And your choice of rhetoric is amusing -- "'inserting' a god into reality", the implied assumption being that God isn't already in that reality going out the gate, but requires that Man "insert" him into it.
Well, again, I didn't bring free will into this discussion. Owlmirror did, in #219, but I guess I'll have to deal with your sour grapes anyway.
Why would I believe that? Because you (apparently) do? You have just displayed some pretty profound ignorance with regard to Christianity, yet you still dismiss it as "fiction". This is flagrant duplicity. Based on what I have observed from your camp so far, it seems safe to say that you would be absolutely merciless toward someone who dismissed all of "evolution" as "fiction" while demonstrating even a fraction of the profound ignorance you just demonstrated. Yet you apparently feel quite justified in engaging in analogous behaviour because you're in the "science" camp.
Well, a more fitting question would be, what's the purpose of such a stupid, inappropriate, straw man analogy?
Besides the obvious one, of course (the same "purpose" any strawman has)...
Of course. That's why you constructed your straw man, to "show" how "devoid of purpose" it is.
And again, you try to pass off your personal opinion as an objective fact. I'd like to see some objective evidence in support of your raw assertion, but I won't hold my breath.
Indeed, this sounds very nice, and I mean that sincerely. In fact, if Man were to achieve the creation of a Universe, it would go a long way to convince people like me that there is no God. But of course, we ain't there yet.
And of course, this is just another example of Man trying to be God. From my perspective, if Man succeeds, great, but history doesn't give me much reason to believe man will succeed. Sure, Man, via science, has given us many things, such as antibiotics and medicine and x-ray devices and refrigeration and a host of other things that extend and enhance life. But then, that is a two-edged sword, isn't it? For science has also given us sarin and the hydrogen bomb and bioweapons and ever more exquisite ways to torture and kill, as well as all those various pollutants that scientist now tell us are threatening to destroy life on a large scale. Science tells us that we (homo sapiens) are accelerating the extinction of species at an alarming rate. Well, like it or lump it, it is the advancement of science that has led us to this state. In fact, some go so far as to suggest homo sapiens go into voluntary extinction by halting child birth, as the only sure means to ensure Earth's survival.
So I am personally a bit skeptical of the claims that science is the road to nirvana, the sole source of our salvation.
Of course, the implication here is that I don't do so already, which is a false assumption.
On the contrary, you have simply made a host of unsubstantiated assumptions and have proceeded to argue from those false premises. I play your "what-if" game on a regular, consistent basis, and I come to the same conclusions each time.
And one of the formal definitions of "intent" happens to be "purpose". Go look it up yourself on dictionary.com if you don't believe me. Go ahead. I'll wait...
See? Right there in #1 under "noun"?
So don't sit there and tell me that I'm "equivocating", here. On the contrary, you are merely trying to split semantic hairs, presumably in order to score rhetorical points. And you're failing miserably.
True enough, but then I'm not talking about "facts". I'm talking about "purpose", and the simple fact is that "fact" and "purpose" are not the same thing. That's one of the wonderful things about free will -- we can choose our own purpose. Or "intent", if you insist. In fact, the very word "intent" implies deliberation, which implies choice, which also implies free will.
If anyone is playing the equivocation game, here, it would seem to be you.
I can and will blame you for ignoring the caveat that preceded them. Like I said before, your conclusion may indeed be correct, but don't sit there and tell me that your conclusion is in any way based on my definitions, because it ain't. You can call it "special pleading" all you want, but the fact is you ignored my preconditions,which I stipulated for the express purpose of not drawing hard-and-fast conclusions about that which is outside our purview. I knew full well, that the only real reason you guys asked me for definitions was so that you could attempt to use them against me, as you have attempted just now. That's why I stipulated those conditions. If you want to draw hard-and-fast conclusions about God or eternity or anything else you obviously don't know a whole lot about, knock yourself out. But understand that you're doing it unaided by me. Explain how that follows. Even assuming that this agent knows beforehand every action we will take, that still doesn't preclude free will. The problem is that we perceive Time as linear, but our perception may be limited and therefore flawed. Time may actually be planar, or have even more dimensions than we can fathom. It's possible that this agent can not only see every action we actually do take, but also every action we don't take, and the ramifications of those actions had they been taken. Kind of like a brute-force chess playing algorithm that simply plays out every possible combination of moves X steps into the game, perhaps that's how this agent perceives our reality(ies), and perhaps this agent has the "computing horsepower" to plan contingencies for each and every branch in the conbinatorial tree.And, of course, there is also the possibility that this agent simply chooses to not know everything we do beforehand. Or perhaps is very selective of what he or she or it chooses to know about.
Well, it's rather apparent that this is where you want us to end up, but it's by no means a forgone conclusion.The rest of what you posted is pretty well undermined and deflated at this point, since it's based on premises that I have shown to be inadequate to the task.
Um, no, I didn't "fail to realize" anything, but apparently, you "failed to realize" the significance of that little two-letter word that started my response.
Well, you're making the assertion, but arguing that we provide subjective purpose hardly refutes my claim, given that my premise indicates that we are ourselves ultimately meaningless, which includes "meaning" we assign to ourselves.
Which I have asked for, which I have yet to receive.
So asking you for evidence that natural forces can produce a genome is now "dishonest"?
We'll see...
Well, one of the unsupported premises you appear to be arguing from is that I universally and unequivocally don't "support evolution", whatever "support evolution" is supposed to mean. Sure, "evolution" is true, but then it's an ambiguous term. The mere fact that organisms can adapt to environmental changes pretty much proves that "evolution happens", but "evolution", again, is a rather general and therefore ambiguous term. And that wasn't what I was addressing.
What I asked for was extremely specific, evidence to show that natural forces can create a genome. I'll even give you a head start:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/nature08013.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja036465h
The first link discusses the creation of ribonucleotides in an allegedly prebiotic soup, while the second one talks about how ribonucleotides can form polymers, again in allegedly prebiotic conditions. One problem is that the conditions required to create the ribonucleotides are vastly different from those needed to create the polymer chains, and there is still the problem of creating DNA as opposed to RNA, and infusing it with the information required to define proteins and enzymes and assembly instructions. The articles do represent a couple of fragments of evidence, but a copious amount of faith is required to act as the glue binding these fragments together into the idea that unaided natural forces can create a genome.
But I digress...
If you think I am being "dishonest" by asking for specific evidence, well, that ain't my problem, frankly. If you think I'm being "dishonest" because I link atheism and Darwinian evolution, well, notice how I qualify the term "evolution" by preceding it with "Darwinian", in an attempt to disambiguate the term. Whether my attempt is successful is open to debate, but it seems a stretch to call me "dishonest" at any level, considering how I attempt to avoid ambiguity and limit the scope of discussions/challenges by being highly specific in my request. On the other hand, you guys keep speaking in vague generalities, refering to "evolution", which could meaning just about anything, including "change over time". Like Darwin's finches, which grow thicker beaks during a drought and revert back when the drought ends. Also, as some on your side have admitted that the Darwinian hyopthesis "verifies" atheism at some level, it again seems a stretch to accuse me of dishonesty.
Again, according to whom? How can this be anything but the result of a circular argument?
This is funny, because this is how I view atheistic answers, vacuous, unsatisfying, and infantile. Well, maybe not quite infantile, perhaps. More like juvenile. Atheism strikes me as being a teenager, intellectually speaking. You seem to see the concept of God the same way a teen often sees his parents, as being old-fashioned, outdated, silly, irrelevant. Teens often come across as being arrogantly self-assured know-it-alls, kind of like atheists. And there are more parallels that are less flattering.
No, what is absurd is your duplicity. According to the neo-Darwinian explanation you cling to, everything you mentioned above is the produce of that "evolution" you would forbid me from attaching it to.
I was thinking beyond the immediate and local. There is the possibility that we can advance technologically to the point of escaping this Earthly cradle, and there is the possibility that there is other life scattered throughout the Universe. My scenario was meant to encompass these possibilities.
Well, the mere fact that you personally have "moved beyond" something in no way translates to the assertion that "most of you" have done so. You can assert that I'm wrong all you want, but understand that, at this stage, it is only an assertion.
"Magic sky daddy?" No, I doubt that a "magic sky daddy" could make this conversation any less meaningless...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 13, 2009 11:48 AM
More ignorant blather from X-lurker. Your deity doesn't exist and your babble is a work of fiction. Science divorced itself from deities a couple of centuries ago, and will not consider deities in any of its methods or conclusions. So, what is your argument? You don't approve? As if science and scientists give a shit what you think. Deal with it elsewhere. Your posting, on old essentially dead thread and your tl;dr posts mean you are simply trolling. And like any troll, you have no point.Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 13, 2009 12:17 PM
PZ Myers:
Tell me PZ, how does NS solve the non-beneficial gap problem? As you know, the "Methinks it is like a weasel" algorithm doesn't solve this problem because it only deals with a situation of template matching where every single character match to a pre-established template is selectable. What happens when it comes to producing qualitatively novel beneficial systems within the gene pool that cannot be built by simple template matching?
Yes, I know, various forms of mutations will easily put together what has already been formed within the gene pool to produce higher and higher levels of functional complexity - or so the story goes.
Have you not considered the exponentially decreasing odds of this story of yours? - with each step up the ladder of functional complexity? The odds that what already exists within any gene pool will not need any significant modification before it will work in a specific orientation with other "parts" to produce a higher level collective function are extremely remote and become exponentially more and more remote with each step up the ladder of functional complexity.
As it turns out, the likelihood that additional mutational changes will be needed (which are sequentially non-beneficial changes) increases exponentially with each step up the ladder of functional complexity.
Therein lies the problem for the RM/NS mechanism. The NS part of this mechanism becomes less and less able to act at higher and higher levels of functional complexity. This is also why there are no examples of evolution in action producing any qualitatively novel system of function which has a minimum structural threshold requirement of more than 1000 amino acid residues with a fairly specific arrangement (i.e., 1000 fsaars). There isn't one such example of evolution in action in all of literature - not one.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 13, 2009 12:28 PM
Sean, you are blathering again. Your analysis is meaningless drivel. We know why the Weasel program works. If you don't, that is your problem, and nobody needs to explain it to you. You need to learn that you might be wrong, and how to correct your thinking if you are. Get it? Any real scientist knows that. You are wrong until you can prove yourself right. In your case, that is difficult.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 13, 2009 12:42 PM
Atheism has been with us humans from the beginning, long before evolution was even considered a possibility. The timeless question, "Which god?", clearly cuts down all gods to cultural fiction, no theory of evolution necessary.
That hardly matters. It makes no difference who spoke about the Roman Catholic god first. Evolution is atheistic in its mechanisms, but it is not atheism.
How can you prove a fact? It just is. There is nothing in reality that challenges the fact that there are no gods except theism, but theists haven't done a very good job of proving their case, have they? A book here, a monument there. Nothing else. When you show proof of a god, then we can talk about how gods are nonfictional.
OK, then how about: evolution confirms that extracting any visage of a god from the developmental process of life on Earth is possible. Is that better? It still supports atheism, not theism.
So you know what your god-given purpose is? Explain how free will allows you to know this. Explain how you still have free will by knowing this inside information from your god.
Then elucidate us as to what your purpose is under your god! How profound of a purpose can there be under the scenario put forth by Christianity? I'm sorry, but Adam and Eve and their offspring were nothing more than pets of the divine, once loved, then tormented, then tormented in love according to the Bible. My strawman is meant to make it clear how bleak such an existence is; you might as well be a nihilist.
Very funny. Show evidence for an afterlife. You confirm there is no afterlife every night you go into dreamless sleep at which time no memories are stored and you show no capacity to think. The objective finality of the capacity to think is further confirmed by every living thing that has died. Holding your breath is indeed a good way to prove to us that you have no afterlife, but I'm glad you won't be carrying out that experiment because your death would be untimely.
So you admit that you don't need to believe in a god-given purpose to have a fulfilling, meaningful existence.
This is exactly why it would be nice for die-hard theists to ease up on their thirst for theocracy. Human technology can be downright dangerous and could lead to our extinction if it gets in the wrong hands (as it has so many times in history). Yes, I agree, humans play as if they are gods all the time; after all, they invented the gods.
My bad. It appeared as if you had put on reality-blinders from what you wrote.
Stop labeling reality as a false premise. You are the one assuming the apt possibility of a god, and that is why you keep coming to the same conclusions. Try going through your what-ifs without any gods, and see what happens.Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 13, 2009 12:42 PM
Re: NoR #235:
You know why the "Weasel" program works? Really? You do realize that PZ Myers and Ian Musgrave argue, along with Dawkins, that the Weasel program was never intended to illustrate the powers of RM/NS. It was only intended as an illustration of a selective process - a selective process which isn't based on function at all.
The selective process of NS is based on function. So, this algorithm really has nothing at all to do with the mechanism of NS, much less the problem of an exponentially expanding non-beneficial gap problem.
I have to ask... Why don't you ever present a real argument? Is the very best you can do is your usual lame attempt at meaningful pejoratives? Don't you have any desire to produce a meaningful explanation of the "correct" position on these issues? - even for the benefit of lurkers of not for me? You know you're just making yourself look juvenile otherwise? - right?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 13, 2009 12:55 PM
Lying criminal plagiarist quack Sean Pitman, you are a troll.
Ian Musgrave said at the link PZ provided, "Now, this wasn’t a simulation of natural selection, and Dawkins was very careful to point this out."
Yet you are trying to take over yet another thread, this one explicitly unrelated to natural selection and your made-up fsaar nonsense, by trying to pretend that PZ said something he did not say.
That is troll behavior.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 13, 2009 12:56 PM
Sean, what is your point? We know evolution works. Period, end of story. You are blathering about some other mechanism which you will not or cannot explain. Until you do so, you are just random noise. Welcome to real science, not the science of the delusional godbot.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | September 13, 2009 12:58 PM
Sean, I realize that English isn't your first language, and I know you've had some serious problems communicating with the posters here, so I don't feel bad asking: what the hell does "It was only intended as an illustration of a selective process - a selective process which isn't based on function at all.
The selective process of NS is based on function. So, this algorithm really has nothing at all to do with the mechanism of NS, much less the problem of an exponentially expanding non-beneficial gap problem." even mean? Of course Weasel is relevant to NS: they both do selection against a criteria; the actual 'algorithm' doesn't matter, so long as selection criteria exist. In the case of Weasel, it's how close the string is to a target; in the case of NS, it's whether the morphology confers some reproductive advantage.
It's very simple.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 13, 2009 2:58 PM
Sean, you don't want to get it. Every time I hit your for not being scientific, you take the hit, not me. Why? By any reasonable definition of being scientific you aren't. Evolution is a science, and is only refuted by more science. You can present in this blog all the philosophical issues you have, and irrelevant statistics, and it does nothing to evolution. So you just waste your time doing that. In order to be scientific, and in a position to ding evolution, you need to publish your opaque statistics so we can see what is being calculated in a transparent manner. You need to flesh out your idea of how life came about, also in a transparent manner with evidence. The best way to do so is to publish both papers in the peer reviewed literature. I even linked submission information for you. Until you publish, we presume that you are running a con job, because your way of arguing is like you are a con man, and not a scientist.Posted by: tresmal | September 13, 2009 3:38 PM
NOR
Opaque is exactly the word that's been going through my mind when reading Dr. Pitman's stuff. So it's not just me then.Posted by: Owlmirror | September 13, 2009 7:36 PM
I think you need to go and look up the word "equivocate", yourself.
Why not? You are, indeed, equivocating.
Are the phrases "a tool has a purpose" and "a tool has an intent" exactly equivalent?
My point was that God's intent is internal to God. It is not something that humans are imbued with -- if we have free will.
No, you're failing to understand my point. I wonder why?
So... you're arguing that an objective purpose cannot possibly be a fact?
Why are you arguing that one of your premises is not a fact? I mean, I agree that it's not a fact, but you can't reach any conclusions from it not being a fact.
Right -- assuming free will exists, we have subjective purposes, not an externally-imposed objective one.
Again, this is equivocation. What is "objective intent"? What does that term mean if you're referring to something about this "external agent"?
Maybe the problem is that I am assuming that you know what "purpose" means, let alone what "equivocation" means.
Are the phrases "a tool has a purpose (a telos)" and "a tool has an intent (has deliberation, has a choice, has free will)" exactly equivalent?
Nuts. They're your words. You take responsibility for them.
Did I say it was? I've been asking you to clarify your definitions, and you've been doing nothing but making a worse conceptual mess. I don't think you know what your definitions even are, even while banging on about dictionary definitions that don't mean the same thing.
Sure, because it is special pleading.
Nuts. If it's outside of our purview so completely that nothing that applies to us applies to it, then you can't say anything at all about it, period. Not anything about purpose (or intent); not anything about creating; not anything about knowledge; not anything about eternity: Nothing.
And if you claim that you can say them and I can't, well...
It's not my fault that you refuse to follow the premises to their logical conclusions.
And yet, for some strange reason, you get to rebut me with hard-and-fast conclusions about God and eternity. Hm. Gosh, you have an intellectual double standard! What a surprise!
I don't need your help to do logic. Thanks!
Yes, it does. Think about what you're saying: Every action we take, from first breath to death, from womb to tomb, is set in stone in the mind of God! There is no action that you can take that God does not know you will take. Since every single possible action is known, therefore, no actual choice is possible on our part.
"Chooses to not know"??? What do you think God does, give itself transtemporal brain surgery?
Do you really think that God is reading these very words and wondering "Gosh, I don't know what Owlmirror is going to type next! I'd better keep reading if I want to find out." ?
It is if you use the kind of definitions about God that you have been offering.
I was actually willing to concede your point, though, if God was not omniscient, omnipotent and otherwise transcendent. There's nothing in the phrase "external agent" that requires those traits, after all. But you wanted to quickly move to traditional definitions and traits of God. Fine. But there are logical consequences of those definitions and traits that you obviously have not thought through very well.
We're ultimately meaningless, regardless of whether or not God exists? Well, yes, I agree with that. That's pretty much what I've been arguing all along: we only have meaning that we assign to ourselves, if we have free will. We also don't have any meaning if we only have meaning imposed on us by an all-knowing God, since it is God's meaning and not ours.
I suppose, if you want to be nihilistic about it, our self-assigned meaning is "ultimately meaningless" in that ultimately we die and lose our meaning, those who know us die and lose what meaning we had for them, and our actions, in the course of time, are forgotten, or remembered only in a distorted way.
Is that what you mean? Are you in fact such a nihilist?
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 13, 2009 9:15 PM
Re: Relke's Granddaughter #240:
There's a big difference between selection based on template matching to a pre-existing string and selection based on a functional benefit of a newly discovered string.
In the first scenario, every single character match is selectable. Because of this, it is downright obvious that a complete match will be "evolved" in very short order.
However, when it comes to selection based on function, the success rate is dependent upon the ratio of potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences in sequence space. As it turns out, this ratio decreases, exponentially, with each step up the ladder of minimum structural threshold requirements (i.e., size and/or specificity). So, the odds of success also decrease, exponentially, as well.
That makes all the difference in the world. Template matching is easy. Finding novel functionally beneficial sequences in sequence space isn't nearly as easy and gets dramatically more and more difficult with increasing scales of functional complexity.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 13, 2009 9:19 PM
Sean, you are still blathering, and you are simply unable to acknowledge the fact the natural selection works. That means you are a verbose unscientific delusional fool, who has nothing of interest to say to us. Go preach your gospel according to Sean elsewhere. We see through your preaching to the empty world behind the fancy curtains.
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 14, 2009 12:07 AM
Re: NoR #205:
Where did I ever say that NS didn't work? NS does work! It works great! RMs also work. They work just fine.
The only problem is that they only work at very low levels of functional complexity. There simply are no examples of evolution in action producing anything which requires at least 1000 amino acid residues working together in a fairly specific arrangement at the same time (to include multi-protein systems where the individual proteins are required to be specifically arranged at the same time).
Now, why is this? Why are there no examples of evolution in action beyond such a level of functional complexity? - when there are so many examples of lower level evolution in action?
It's really a very simple question. What's your answer for this stalling out effect?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 14, 2009 12:49 AM
Sean, Majorly Deluded
NO EVIDENCE? ARE YOU FUCKEN THAT BLIND!
Do I really have to go through the entire fossil record to show you that there is a lot of evidence for macro-evolution?
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 14, 2009 2:55 AM
So you're saying that all of life has very low levels of functional complexity.
Well, then, since there isn't anything that meets those standards in existence, I suppose that follows. You're saying that it's impossible to reach, and that they don't exist.
I am baffled what your point is in ruling out something that doesn't exist serves, though.
Why should there be?
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 14, 2009 6:43 AM
Okay, where do you want to start. The fossil record? The genetic markers that show irrefutably common descent? The observations of mutation, selection, adaptation and speciation in action? How about we start at the basics. This is how natural selection works. Make sure you understand that process properly because if you don't understand it then you won't understand how it can build such elaborate structures.Once you understand natural selection, you will hopefully be able to see how natural selection can generate "information". Repeat the process a few trillion times, have certain structures that give survival advantage, and hey presto you have a process capable of generating genomes.
Of course natural selection is not the only mechanism at play, but it's best to keep it simple so you understand the basics. Needless to say, it's all quite obvious once you truly grasp the process. After all, there's a reason why almost every single biologist accepts natural selection as a mechanism.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 14, 2009 7:17 AM
Sean, who the fuck are you to be an expert on this subject? A PhD scientist trumps your mere MD on scientific research every day of the week. You are known liar and godbot, and godbot means delusional fool who believes in imaginary deities. Questions on your part are irrelevant, and you present absolutely no evidence to back up your inane statements. Take the Gospel According to Sean™ on the road. You are just making a fool of yourself here.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 14, 2009 7:26 AM
Interesting proposition. I don't see God as anything, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God's existence. This should be quite obvious because the only thing about being an atheist is the non-belief in interventionist deities.But for me personally, when it comes down to it I don't believe in gods for a very simple reason. There's just no evidence to support it. Here we are in a technocracy where we have seen back to almost the beginning of space-time itself - some 13.7 billion years ago. We have split the atom and observed the fundamental nature of our reality. We have peered inside the cell and uncovered the code of life. Looked into the rocks and revealed our evolutionary past.
It's fair to say that if there was a god, the threat of actually being witnessed has somehow scared her like a rabbit down its burrow. Sure when there's great credulity and ignorance in a society, miracles abound. Yet whenever a sceptic turns up, someone who actually has the power to investigate, god hides from sight. It would seem as if the moment we stop to actually analyse the world for what it is that we don't see God anymore. Why is that? Could it be that are smartest and most handsome scientists aren't able to glimpse what is meant to be an interventionist deity?
But, I know, I know. This all seems like convenience. You could shrug that off as not that God is absent from all observation, but that he's been cast aside. That would fit your hypothesis of course that is juvenile - after all it's that we don't need god any more. It may surprise you but my main objection to gods is societal. Every human society, from the tribal hunter gatherers to people now in advanced civilisations have had religion. It's a part of the human condition. Yet none of these religions are the same, the incarnations of the gods take all shapes and forms. Yet all of them are claiming the same - that there is supernatural agency.
So why God? Why Yahweh? the theist gambit is that while every other society out there worshipped false deities, that they worship the one true deity. From an outsider looking in, how could they pick a Yahweh over a Baal? A Christ over a Krishna, a Trinity over Thor? Quite simply, there are so many belief systems that they can't all be right, there are so many contradictory belief systems that there can't be different interpretations of the same divine, and when belief is so tightly coupled to the time and place of your birth, any belief one holds relies on contingency making the entire system of belief arbitrary.
So picking any one god is like picking the winning lottery numbers, picking a particular god is picking the winning lottery numbers based on what others have picked (or have been picked for you), so there's nothing left in any particular religion to support its own validity unless it can demonstrate itself to be more reasonable than others. But alas, gods have always been a substitute for human ignorance. Still today we see this play out. The personal incredulity to see how natural selection works in the biological world leads many to reject all scientific knowledge for the comforts of bronze age myth.
We see galaxies 13.2 billion light years away, date rocks to over 4 billion years old - yet about 40% of Americans believe in a 6,000 year old earth. If this is not an indictment of the very notion of religious belief, then I don't know what is. The fact of the matter is, while you may see it as not needing God anymore, I've never needed God. I've never believed in God. This is why I don't accept that atheism is resigned theism. We are well and truly past that stage. We should have been 140 years ago when Nietzsche provided the first attempt to move beyond God. I'm not a Christian, I was never a Christian, God is just one of many different gods to me. It just happens to be the one that some of the society around me believed in.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 14, 2009 7:29 AM
Tell me Sean Pitman, how does Achilles overcome the infinite sequence to overtake the tortoise?Posted by: Kel, OM | September 14, 2009 8:56 AM
This reads as:Were here on a science blog, and you are claiming with a straight face that the Copernican explanation of heliocentrism doesn't enter your mond when you pontificate to me that
HeliosApolloSol Invictus doesn't exist? I mean, what other choice is there, considering this is a "science" blog?Pardon me if I seem incredulous, but I suspect that you are so convinced by the Copernican explanation that perhaps you don't consciously make the connection between your atheism and the Copernican explanation, but it doesn't mean the connection isn't there. And it doesn't mean that it isn't manifested in what you write (or where you choose to write it).
If you frame it like that, it makes it damn easy to reject the notion of God. When it comes down to it, a scientific explanation shouldn't necessarily destroy the notion of any gods unless the explanations of gods are placeholders in the absence of knowledge of something better - i.e. that god is a god of the gaps. Normally when an atheist says such a thing, there's howls from refined theists - saying that we are attacking a characterture of the real thing. Damn, I'm glad that theists do this for me. Otherwise I'd be charged with attacking a straw man.
Science can only be a challenge to God if God is nothing more than a placeholder for human ignorance. If special creation is needed for your deity to be real, then it is time to let Yahweh go the way of Helios.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 14, 2009 9:11 AM
@X-Lurker,
I forgot to mention that my last post (#236) was in response to you. But adding to that, Kel, OM, picked up on another part of your previous comment that I would like to respond to, also.
Isn't this spectacularly backwards? To me, looking at a more mature perspective with such disdain is rather "infantile". You are basically saying the child who sees through the Santa Claus delusion has learned something "vacuous", "juvenile", and "unsatisfying". For children that go through it, learning Santa Claus isn't real is another one of those lessons that life is not as rosy as they were led to believe (part of becoming an adult), that stories and tradition are powerful in shaping what we believe about reality, and that it is difficult to distinguish between beliefs and reality. There is a certain nostalgia, but once you learn that Santa was all myth, you can't go back.If a child with such knowledge were asked to pretend there is a Santa by adults, of course it would feel "silly", "outdated", and "irrelevant" to that child in addition to being somewhat embarrassing to have to stoop to that level of ignorance. Should a child refuse to play along for the sake of her ignorant peers, of course that child would come off as an "arrogant" and "self-assured" "know-it-all" by her peers, when it is really her peers who are "arrogant", "self-assured" "know-it-alls".
It takes courage to go from theism to atheism because you are moving against a tradition rooted in mythology and ignorance of reality. So, just as we atheists are like the child who discovered Santa wasn't real, you theists are like the children who cling to their ignorance and become petulant when confronted with evidence that Santa was fake all along.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 14, 2009 9:51 AM
"We've looked at evidence from many areas - the fossil record, biogeography, embryology, vestigial structures, suboptimal design, and so on - all of that evidence showing, without a scintilla of doubt, that organisms have evolved. And it's not just small "microevolutionary" changes, either: we've seen new species form, both in real time and in the fossil record, and we've found transitional forms between major groups, such as whales and land animals. We've observed natural selection in action, and have every reason to think that it can produce complex organisms and features." - Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p242
"Every day, hundreds of observations and experiments pour into the hopper of the scientific literature. Many of them don't have much to do with evolution - they're observations about he details of physiology, biochemistry, development, and so on - but many of them do. And every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth. Every fossil that we find, every DNA molecule that we sequence, every organ system that we dissect, supports the idea that species evolved from common ancestors. Despite innumerable possible observations that could prove evolution untrue, we don't have a single one. We don't find mammals in Precambrian rocks, humans in the same layers as dinosaurs, or any other fossils out of evolutionary order. DNA sequencing supports the evolutionary relationships of species originally deduced from the fossil record. And, as natural selection predicts, we find no species with adaptations that only benefit a different species. We do find dead genes and vestigial organs, incomprehensible under the idea of special creation. Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That is as close as we can get to a scientific truth" - Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p242-p243
Posted by: Sean Pitman, M.D. | September 14, 2009 10:54 AM
Re: Owl Mirror #248:
Every living thing has many functional systems that require far more than 1000 fsaars. The rotary flagellar motility system, for example, requires a minimum of more than 5000 fsaars. ATP synthase requires a minimum of over 3000 fsaars. etc.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 14, 2009 11:03 AM
Sean the con man, your whole fsaar argument is nothing but unscientific blather. You have failed the burden of proof to show you are being scientific and your statistics are meaningful to the science of biology. Ergo, your continued lying about it being relevant shows your religious/con man status. Until you publish your data, you have nothing. Remember, on matters of science, a PhD trumps a mere MD every day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Take your Gospel According to SeanTM on the road. We have your number here.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 14, 2009 11:16 AM
Sean. your "fsaar" thing is amde up in your own head. If evolution doesn't work _in your head_, this indicates a problem _in your head_. You have no evidence whatsoever that the concept even means anything! You're trying to claim that ATP synthase needs "over 3000 fsaars", but this is untrue: you're claiming that _every amino acid in the structure_ must be just so and no otherwise. Any biophysicist will tell you that's utterly moronic; huge swathes of the sequence don't need to be anything more than "part of a helix" or "part of a sheet", and that's not a very restrictive specification! So, either make the "fsaar" rigorous and get it into the literature, or stop talking about it. Otherwise I shall simply define the "fnord", or "fairly non-specific or random doohickey", point out that most proteins consist of several hundred fnords, and _your_ assertion is cancelled out by _my_ assertion.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 14, 2009 11:20 AM
@Doctor Pitman
Can you show us the data that allowed you to reach this conclusion?
Again, have you actually gathered data on this? If so, how did you get the data?
Once more, this is nice to say, but you'll have to show convincing evidence from actual research into your hypothesis. It looks to me like you made up a definition of fsaar (why lowercase, anyway?) based on some countable characteristics and then went to town with it but never did any original research. In a sense, you're just pulling everyone's leg.Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 14, 2009 11:35 AM
I'm pretty sure, having just checked the size of those proteins in the PDB, that he's simply taking the number of residues in the thing and claiming that they're all "fairly specified". When pressed, he will weasel about what "fairly specified" means, or ignore the issue altogether. I, on the other hand, am very clear that a functional protein contains many fnords for every fsaar. Ia Cthulhu f'thagn.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 14, 2009 1:13 PM
Doctor Pitman,
Nevermind. On the cursed, undying thread, you showed your hand and it is the Divine Hand of Intervention. By bringing God into the mechanistic explanation, you have admitted to making it all up and doing nothing more than woo-peddling.
We are not going to be buying your pills. Please take them elsewhere.
Posted by: Drosera | September 14, 2009 4:13 PM
Wow, is Sean still hawking his 1000 fsaar snake oil?
No buyers here, Sean. Didn't you notice all the doors being slammed in your face? That is because people here prefer real, tested medicine to the foul-smelling, murky brew that you are offering.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 14, 2009 11:03 PM
I've got to say I'm coming round to Pitman's Incompetent Designer hypothesis. I did have my reservations to begin with, because the pattern of common descent is so compelling. But it follows that if the designer is so stupid as to not be able to build an autonomous process that has the capacity to create without intervention, then it makes sense that "dumb design" is seen all through the animal kingdom.
And here people are thinking that the designer is God. lol
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 14, 2009 11:16 PM
It's really a very simple question. What's your answer for this stalling out effect?
really, could it be that easy?
here's your answer:
it's all in your head.
you made this shit up, it doesn't exist in reality.
you don't need to analyze science, you need to see another MD; one that specializes in dealing with schizophrenic delusions.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | September 14, 2009 11:46 PM
SB: Dear God, the Atheists are laughing at you. They think you're dumb for not having built an autonomous system to generate the thousands of amino acids needed for your fsaars.
GOD: Say what?
SB: Amino acids God...
GOD: Whose on acid?
SB: No one's on acid, God. We're talking about the way you created life.
GOD: Life? I created life? No shit!
SB: Of course you created life, God. Your Holy Book says so.
GOD: You read that? I can never finish it... I prefer spying on humans having sex.
SB: But God, you created sex.
GOD: I did? Oh... oh yeah...I did. But humans were way more imaginative than I'd expected...man, the things some people can do with their things.
SB: But what about the FSAARs God? There's thousands of permutations and you work them all out...
GOD: You must have me confused with one of those youthful, high-energy deities, Smoggy. I couldn't even work out that if you put a dangerous tree in a garden and tell kids not to eat it, it's the first thing they'll do.
SB: True God, that's like 'Parenting 101'. Why leave out the candy then tell the child not to touch? Why not just keep it out of sight in the first space. But back to these FSAARs...
GOD: Look, Smoggy, I don't have a fucking clue what FSAARs are. Sounds like some nasty sexual disease to me, or the creation of a deluded mind. Why do you keep asking me things, can't you just leave me along? I need some head-space. I don't have a fucking clue what an Amino acid is either, let alone how to string thousands together. If you've really read my book you'll know I'm generally confused and angry. Do I sound like a details God to you. If you really want to know about amino acids, why don't you go study biology or something?
SB: But God, I want to give the atheists proof of your existence?
GOD: Why? I don't give anyone proof. All you need is faith. If you want proof you've come to the wrong place. Now FUCK...OFF!
SB: Yes God, sorry God. I just wanted to support Sean Pitman M.D. God.
GOD: That dick-wad? Is he the cause of all this harassment I'm getting? Look, if he wants to be mocked and sneered at, fine! But keep me out of it, I've got more important things to do. There's some teenage kids who've all signed abstinence pledges and they're about to have an orgy without actually fucking. That's where you should send the atheists if you want them to witness a real miracle.
SB: Yes God. AMEN
Posted by: X-Lurker | September 15, 2009 11:32 PM
Upon reflection, it occurs to me that Kel attacked my statement in a vacuum, ignoring the context. This is common. And wrong.
It turns out that I am not "equating evolution with atheism", at least not in any all-encompassing, universal sense, but that is what Kel is implying in his admonition. No, I am merely claiming that neither the Darwinian model specifically nor atheism in general have a resolution to the conundrum I discussed. In that extremely specific sense, yes, I am "equating" the two, and doing so is absolutely legitimate, because the two are indeed identical in that specific regard, any forthcoming whines to the contrary notwithstanding.
And you guys have subsequently admitted, albeit tacitly, that there are connections between the two.
So I am not claiming that the two concepts are absolutely, across-the-board identical. That's just you guys reading into my words more than what was there, again, presumably, in order to score rhetorical points, which seems to be more important than actually providing evidence.
Now if you guys want to argue over the legitimacy of my claim, whether that conundrum I mentioned is real, or whether a Darwinian and/or atheistic world view fails to address it, that would be a legitimate debate. As things stand now, you guys are merely arguing semantics, which I consider a cop-out. If you want me to clarify something, that's fine. You trying to tell me what I "really mean", in order to score points, is, again, a cop-out, as far as I'm concerned.
But it's pretty much par for the course, I must admit.
That hardly matters. It makes no difference if atheism predates Darwin. Evolution still is atheistic in its mechanisms, even if it is not atheism proper.
Well, again, you admit that there is a connection between the two, but would forbid me from claiming the same. Flagrant duplicity on your part.
True enough. A fact "just is", as you assert. But again, you are merely trying to pass off your personal opinion as a "fact". Repetition is not argument, nor is it evidence of anything beyond your inability to put forth a legitimate argument.
Assuming this is true, so what? Are you admitting that you subscribe to the "lack of evidence == evidence of lack" fallacy? That would explain much...
From an article on Stasis:
So, shall we therefore conclude that gradualism simply doesn't happen? After all, we have a profound lack of evidence, at least according to these scientists. So,using your logic, gradualism simply didn't happen. Amazing, considering that Dawkins dedicated and entire book to the concept (Climbing Mount Improbable).
And I'm confident that you will miss the point yet again, and start off on some other tangent about Dawkins or his work.
"How can you prove a fact? It just is."
Well of course, so tell that to Kel. He's the one who got pushed out of shape because I "equated" it to atheism (which I did only in a very limited and specified (and therefore legitimate) way).
Is there no end to the duplicity in your camp?
I'm not the one making assertions, so I am under no obligation to "explain" anything. It's you guys who are asserting that free will is being undermined somehow, so the onus is on you guys to explain how. I am under no obligation to show the opposite.
What an utterly bankrupt way you guys have of debating! Make some assertion and expect me to merely accept it. If I ask why I should, you guys demand that I prove the opposite of your assertion. Brilliant! Utterly bankrupt, of course, but really, quite clever...
There you go AGAIN. I am not asserting that there is an afterlife, but you did assert that there is NOT an afterlife, so again, the onus is on YOU to back up YOUR assertion. Since you apparently cannot, you have no recourse but to AGAIN demand that I prove the opposite of YOUR assertion.
How utterly bankrupt you appear to be.
So dreamless sleep "confirms there is no afterlife"?? Of course, we tend to wake up from dreamless sleep every morning, so by your shallow analogy, we confirm that there is an afterlife every morning, when we get up.
Trying to stuff words into my mouth again, I see. You are, of course, free to misrepresent what I write in any way that you think will suit your argument.
No, what I actually said was,"if Man were to achieve the creation of a Universe, it would go a long way to convince people like me that there is no God. But of course, we ain't there yet." Like I said, you are free to read into that anything you think will bolster your position. It was a hypothetical situation, after all, one that, in all likelihood, will never occur, at least not in our lifetime, assuming it can occur at all, ever.
After all, we are free to call just about anything we want a "universe". The crux would be creating one similar to the one we inhabit, with stars and galaxies and life.
When man creates new life from scratch, without using any existing organic material (the way the Universe allegedly did, in other words), then maybe you'll have something approaching an argument.
Especially the history of the 20th Century, with Zedong and Stalin, to name just a couple. It's funny, whenever I confront atheists with the raw numbers of people slaughtered under atheistic regimes, how the numbers are orders of magnitude greater than anything atheists can point to on the side of religion, they tend to hide behind "technology" as their excuse: "The only reason the numbers are greater is because they (the atheistic regimes) had access to technology that wasn't available during the Dark Ages, and the population was smaller back then", yadda yadda yadda.
Of course, this "reasoning" ignores the fact that this "technology" was just as "available" to 20th Century theists as it was atheists, but it was the atheists who put it to use...
And again, let us remember that it's science that produces technology. Also there is the issue of poisonous side effects such as pollution, and increased consumption of resources, which can have a disastrous effect regardless of ideologies, regardless of "who's hands" technology might fall into.
I'd have to start before I could stop...
What I am calling "false premises"are those unproven assumptions on which you appear to be basing your arguments. I am not calling "reality" a false premise, I am calling the basis for your interpretation of it a false premise. At the very least, that basis is far from proven.
Well, again, you are free to think whatever nonsense floats your boat, but you simply have the cart before the horse. I can picture a Universe that merely popped into existence for no apparent reason, and with no apparent cause, and created sentient life without any outside help, again for no apparent reason, but that picture simply doesn't make any sense.
I simply don't have enough faith to believe that particular fairy tale.
Okay, hang on, be right back...
Yep, just as I thought, a definition describing your behaviour, "an attempt to mislead or confuse".
Now what?
No, but then we aren't talking about inanimate objects, are we? No, we are talking about sentient beings, and in the case of sentient beings, "he has a purpose" and "he has an intent" can very well mean the exact same thing, depending on context and circumstances. Thanks for providing another example of your attempts to mislead or confuse.
Probably because you are using so much equivocation to arrive at that point.
Nope, but thanks for another example of equivocation on your part.
That a given purpose exists is indeed a fact, but that fact is about that purpose. The fact isn't the purpose proper.
This should be obvious, and I suspect it would be if you weren't so hell-bent on equivocating. And your semantic game-playing is admittedly getting tiresome, which I suspect is the intent. Since you apparently have no real argument, you argue semantics.
I am not making that argument. You are, via equivocation.
I did. I set down preconditions for their use. That you persist in ignoring those preconditions makes you the irresponsible one.
Let me refresh your apparently failing memory (emphasis added):
Glad to help.
No, you've been acccusing me of equivocation while actually engaging in it yourself. I agree that there is a "conceptual mess" here, but it's of your own making.
Well, for the record, I am not making such assertions. You are. I am making educated speculations and inferences, but you are making hard and fast assertions. You stated flat-out that "God does not have an objective purpose", and that "God is simply following its own fleeting whims, based on its own understanding of reality." You tried to pin that on my definitions, of course, but I made clear that my definitons were not all-encompassing or universal, because I can realize my own limitations. Too bad you arrogantly refuse to do likewise.
I even conceded, at least twice, that your raw assertions could indeed be true and correct, but apparently, that isn't good enough for you, for some strange reason. I only stipulated that your raw assertions could not be based on my limited definitions. And that has sent you into a tailspin.
Let's take a look at those 'hard-and-fast conclusions"...
Those items in bold are known as "qualifiers", so the notion that I am making "hard-and-fast conclusions" about anything is absurd.
In fact, the whole reason I wrote that was to illustrate how your hard-and-fast conclusions, which you erroneously tried to base on my limited defintions, could be undermined with but a little thought about that purview, and illustrates why I limited my defintions in the first place.
If you want to insist on and persist in being reckless, go right ahead, but include me out of it. That's all I'm sayin'...
Well, you do seem to be working rather frantically to force such a conclusion.
But this is misleading, of course, for the implication is that our actions are "set in stone" "first", and our actions come "afterward", but this illustrates my point, which is that we cannot properly discern eternity while we are trapped in a temporal Universe. What if "before" and "after" simply have no meaning outside our Universe? Atheists have even made the argument that "prior to the Big Bang" is meaningless, because Time started with the Big Bang. It's like saying "north of the North Pole".
Well, how do we know that this same dynamic doesn't apply here, if time is limited to this Universe, and perhaps doesn't exist at all outside of it?
The "definitions" you read into what I actually say, in other words.
You were willing to concede? Where?
Oh, right, God based on "my definitons". In other word, Man.
And for the record, I'm not the one who assigned omniscience to this external agent. You are:
I only acquiesced to this "omniscience" later:
I gave reasons why that could be so, but the underlying premise is that we simply cannot know very much about an eternal realm that lies beyond the Universe (assuming it even exists, of course). If this agent truly is omniscient, what does that really mean? I submit that we cannot know for sure. I likewise submit that we cannot conclude that free will is undermined, because, again, we simply don't have enough knowledge or understanding of what "omniscience" actually means to draw any hard conclusions. And if you bother to read what I write with open eyes and an open mind (not holding my breath, though), you might manage to discern that I do my best to avoid such pitfalls. But you seem to revel in them.
Again, I only assumed God had "omniscience" well after you attached that characteristic to him. Prior to that, I merely suggested that he knew lots about this Universe he ostensibly created. I didn't claim he could see every future action any sentient inhabitants of that Universe would make. You apparently read that into what I said.
Like I said, I merely followed your lead, here, so your subsequent whining will be dismissed.
Oh, and cue "tl:dr"* nonsense from Nerd of Redhead...
* in his case, it should stand for, "too lazy; don't read".
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 15, 2009 11:38 PM
X-Lurker
You mentioned some kind of conundrum that we are all passing up. What is it? Could you restate it afresh without anything else accompanying it?
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 15, 2009 11:45 PM
@X-Lurker Re: evolution and atheism
I think you are misunderstanding the simplicity of atheism. It is the negation of theism, not the negation of religion. Evolution does not require anything but natural processes, so in that sense it is atheistic rather than theistic in how it works, and thus supports the more general concept of atheism.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 16, 2009 12:42 AM
@X-Lurker Re: God (Christian god) as fiction
Have you opened your Bible lately? The evidence overwhelmingly paints God as a fictional character.
For one, the Bible has proven to be of little value as a history book; most of its content is fictional or only loosely and imprecisely based on historical events. There are also parallels between God and gods from other mythologies known at that time. Then there is the fact that none of the things God does are the least bit likely to have happened based on the idea that the universe is largely unchanged since the Bible stories were written and compiled. We also have a great deal more knowledge about nature than we did when the Bible stories were being generated, and key acts of God now have scientific explanations.
Without competing evidence other than hearsay, all of that evidence means that God fits best into the category of fictional storybook characters and so we can assume it is true, as a fact.
If you have a different god in mind, you need to define it and show us evidence that it is real and not imaginary. Without compelling evidence, you cannot assert a god exists as a fact. Notice that I arrived at God being fictional through evidence; it sure beats bare assertions.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | September 16, 2009 12:52 AM
Dear Brother X-Lurker
As a fellow Christian I feel I should support you in your brave witness here, but in truth I fell asleep just two miles into your post. It may be that long-windedness is a Gift of the Spirit that I'm unfamiliar with. But I fear that the more likely problem is that you are unwittingly possessed by demons. As an act of caritas would you permit me and my fellow exorcist in Christ (Brother Floyd Rubber) to come to your house and deliver you of the "Demon of Verbal Diarrhea", the "Demon of Tediousness", and the "Demon of No Sense of Proportion"?
Yours in Evangelical Acedia
Smoggy Batzrubble
Missionary to the Atheists
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 16, 2009 1:07 AM
@X-Lurker Re: Free Will
I don't grant that free will exists, you do. So how could I undermine it? I will use Dan Dennett's insight: free will is real magic, which is to say it is like the Force from Star Wars and not at all compatible with observations of reality. That is, if we could reverse time and repeat a situation where a choice is to be made, we would always make the same choice (the future is unalterable). However, since we do not have the ability to reverse time, we are never faced with the same exact situation again but rather situations that are in the neighborhood of exactitude to other situations.
Now, you claim there is free will. That would mean even if you reversed time and faced an exact repeat of a decision-making situation, you could make a different choice (so same point in time, no clear outcome even though we know the future — this is sounding like the parallel universes idea from Back to the Future). The question is, if you throw in a god who bestows a purpose on you, does that invalidate your free will? OK, now suppose you reverse time and repeat a situation where you make a decision with knowledge of a god-given purpose. Will you choose to use your free will randomly? Will you always make the same choice based on your god-given purpose? Remember, these are all repeats of the exact same situation. Will a god-given purpose drive your choices or not? If it does, then it invalidates your free will, doesn't it?
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 16, 2009 1:13 AM
Punctuated equilibrium is a form of gradualism.But your point is mute, gradual evolution in the classical sense has been seen to take place in the fossil record. Where there's continuous fossil records (such as in core samples) gradualism can be seen.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 16, 2009 1:19 AM
@X-Lurker Re: No Afterlife
You contend that waking up is proof of an afterlife, yet the brain ceases to function in death. Unlike when you sleep, when you die you never regain thinking capability. There is no reason to doubt that, and you certainly have not offered any counter evidence. Why is it so hard for you to accept facts?
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2009 1:20 AM
Evolution still is atheistic in its mechanisms, even if it is not atheism proper.
I only have ONE question.
since indeed, science itself is atheistic in application, what, exactly, do you have a problem with?
the minute you can find and interview a deity so we can learn how it interacts directly with the world around us, you can start introducing deism as a concept also amenable to scientific study.
till then...
Do you actually have a problem that science ignores untestable fiction?
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 16, 2009 1:28 AM
@X-Lurker Re: Your Admission We Don't Need God-Given Purpose
Since you can conceive of a hypothetical possibility where no god-given purpose is necessary but your life is still full of meaning, then I am not stuffing words in your mouth or misrepresenting you. You have, by your own words, removed the necessity of such a thing as god-given purpose. You do it again in #266 by positing a situation where humans create life from scratch.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 16, 2009 1:38 AM
@X-Lurker Re: Faith is Not Grounded in Reality
You wrote:
Say what? This whole time you have had your mind made up? Faith is adding a layer to the puzzle that is not grounded in reality but in gut feelings. I'm not sure what you mean by it "doesn't make any sense" if you can go through the what-ifs without a god and arrive where we are today. You are not telling us something. What is it?Posted by: Kel, OM | September 16, 2009 4:43 AM
You can't prove a negative, by claiming that one needs to prove the not, you show that you don't know how to think. Positive claims require positive evidence, this is why we start off with the null hypothesis.Posted by: Kel, OM | September 16, 2009 5:13 AM
Actually I attacked your mixing of Darwinism and atheism. Statements like this: That is a true conundrum which the Darwinian/atheistic world view fails to resolve. You may have meant it differently, but it seems you're playing the same wedge strategy as many other creationists - that is using an association between evolution and atheism in order to dismiss both. This is both dishonest to evolution, to theists who support evolution, and to what atheism actually is. Atheism is not a world view, it's the non belief in interventionist deities. It entails nothing.So it might be that you're not trying to do anything more than talk about naturalism - and that's fine. But be specific because even if you didn't mean it that way there are plenty of creationists who do and it's one of the most common misconceptions about evolutionary theory.
All science is atheistic in its mechanisms. It's called methodological naturalism for a reason. Evolution is just as atheistic as atomic theory, general relativity, electromagnetic theory, etc.If you want to say that evolution is inherently atheistic, then you concede that all science is inherently atheistic. It's only atheistic in that it considers natural causes. If there were a god interacting to create life, that would still be a natural cause as we are talking about the natural world. There might be an ultimate supernatural causality behind the natural causation, but us being crafted was a natural event in the way that we consider it. Divine creation is still a scientific statement, it's just one that isn't supported by the evidence - indeed it is contradicted by the evidence.
Understand the distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism. Your misrepresenting what aratina cage meant.
Again, I believe your misinterpreting what I'm saying and what aratina is saying. (I could be wrong on the latter, please correct me if I am aratina) My contention is that evolution / atheism shouldn't be linked explicitly. This doesn't mean that evolution supports theism, or that it doesn't support atheism. Evolution gives a mechanism free from gods, it doesn't mean that gods weren't involved in the process or transcendent to the process. After all, a god could create via process rather than specially.Evolution works with or without ultimate agency. And there are plenty of theists who would dispute that evolution means that there is no god - rather that evolution is the mechanism by which god chose to create. One of my co-workers has a saying for programming "If it's worth doing, then it's never worth doing again". Meaning write the code in such a way that it is reusable. When you can create a process that will give you both dinosaurs and apes, showing a grand symphony of nature over billions of years - surely you can find a theological justification why a deity would do such a thing. After all, aren't we made in gods image and we love dinosaurs? ;)
But to get on point. Evolution does give evidence against the teleological argument for god as it shows that the design in nature is merely an illusion. And since the process acts without agency, it's not an argument for theism. I find the statement that it's evidence for atheism and not theism perfectly consistent with my position that evolution is no more atheistic than any other scientific theory. Rainbows are made by the diffraction of light through water particles, does this mean that rainbows are atheistic in anything beyond the methodological sense?
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 16, 2009 7:35 AM
Just to make myself perfectly clear...
I'm an atheist. I've never been a Christian, nor have I ever believed in any gods. Science in theory eliminates the need for gods, because gods historically have been placeholders for human ignorance. That is to say, that in the absence of knowledge of nature humans personified natural forces. We are wired for detecting agency. Just think of the number of sun gods, or weather gods, or fertility gods, or agricultural gods that have been throughout human history.
This leaves the question of gods in a perilous position. Does a literal causal agent need to be interactive in the world for said deity to exist? That is, does a naturalistic explanation for lightning kill the god of thunder? If this is the case, then I agree with you that evolution is atheistic. After all, if God needs to be the agency visibly interacting in the world, then God is dead.
However, this view of God is quite primitive. Most theists have moved on from this with at least some naturalistic explanations. Rainbows are a perfect example. You often hear that "God creates rainbows", yet we know perfectly well how rainbows are formed. They are just a diffraction of light as it moves through different materials. Now one could say that "God creates rainbows" means that God has to be literally there creating rainbows, or that God is transcendent to the process and that the naturalistic way of creating rainbows is God's way of creating.
As a programmer, I can understand this point of view. Imagine having to maintain a system where I was required to code every single function as users went to use the system. I'd go insane. Instead I would write a means to give the same functionality each time it arises. I'm still the creator of the software, of the functionality, but I don't have to be there putting each function every time someone wanted to use it.
For me, I don't see an interventionist deity operating in the world. I don't have to reconcile evolution (or rainbows, or any other scientific theory for that matter) with a deity. I just don't believe a deity is there. Yet there are many theists who accept the Darwinian explanation for evolution. The Catholic, Orthodox and many protestant churches all have come out in support of evolution and attested that God and evolution are reconcilable. The Archbishop of Canterbury puts it well when asked if God intervened in the process "That would imply He didn't do a very good job in setting up the laws of physics".
And it's not only theologians who see a reconciliation either. While evolution enjoys an overwhelming consensus among scientists (over 95% of scientists and over 99% of biologists), the majority of scientists are believers in some form or another. The most prominent defender of evolution in the United States today is a theist. Some of the biggest names in the history of evolutionary theory were theists and even amateur theologians. All of them are able to reconcile God with evolution.
So when you associate evolution and atheism, I think of all the theists who support evolution. While there is a strong percentage who don't (it shows the difficulty of reconciling such concepts), the bottom line is that so many do that it would be downright irresponsible for me to say that they are irreconcilable. When it comes down to it, what is irreconcilable is a literal reading of Genesis with evolution. The question is, is God contingent on a literal interpretation of Genesis? If so, God fails as the moon is not a light in the sky any more than my desk is a light in my room. And the earth came after the sun, not before.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 16, 2009 8:08 AM
Yet you believe that sentience exists without any reason. See the inconsistency there?As for how sentient life can come about? Evolution. No need for reason to it, the process is blind. It doesn't make any sense to us because we are a) not built (by evolution) to comprehend the scales in which the process it works on, b) built (by evolution) to detect causal agency. In other words, humans are wired to detect human-like behaviours. Who'd have thunk it? If it didn't blow your mind then there would be something wrong with you...
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 16, 2009 8:37 AM
@Kel, OM
You are not misinterpreting me about evolution being atheistic by which I was only saying that it is a form of methodological naturalism like any other field of science. Science fits well with atheism in this way.
Not having much experience with young Earth creationism, I did not realize how sore YECs have been over Darwin's discovery of evolution because it made the literal story of God's creation unnecessary and (as the theory of evolution matured) highly unlikely. The way X-Lurker zeroed-in on Darwin is telling but understandable if one's god is a life-giver.
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | September 16, 2009 8:40 AM
X-Lurker
Indeed, why did this indifferent Universe produce moths that fatally fly into naked candle lights?
When you can answer that, you have the solution to your conundrum that the Darwinian/atheistic world view fails to resolve, even though it has. ;)
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 16, 2009 9:41 AM
Thanks, Cosmic Teapot. Maybe that is the conundrum X-Lurker was talking about.
@X-Lurker
How did an indifferent universe produce creatures that are wired to seek meaning? If you think this is a problem, then you need to explain just what you think meaning is.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 16, 2009 9:55 AM
I just love how confused theists have to come to an atheist site to get their theology straightened out. X-lurker isn't making any converts, because he has very poor philosophical rather than evidential arguments. No evidence for deities X-lurker, so any talk about them is pure mental masturbation on your part, up there with talking about pixies and unicorns.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 16, 2009 10:15 PM
X-Lurker wrote:
Atheist regimes? Well, if they were atheist regimes it should be simple for you to cite the document where the atheist (i.e. specific to purely and solely atheism and not any other sociopolitical inclinations) principles that Mao and Stalin drew on to justify their actions were laid out - you know, the atheist rule book that explains that atheists are allowed (or even encouraged) to perform genocide.
How about a similar article or publication that outlines that atheists must agree that this set of principles are to be adhered to?
And let's not forget the other things Mao and Stalin didn't believe in besides gods. It's fairly likely neither of them believed in unicorns, leprechauns or the tooth fairy - are we then to assume that lying to people about the existence of such creatures is a surefire way to prevent despots and genocide?
What I find funny is that theists who believe in an all-powerful god who has infinite love for them will cite his abject failure to protect his beloved creations (and often faithful worshippers) from mass slaughter by the godless.
'Look at how many believers my god (who loves me more than anything) let you unbelievers kill! That's irrefutable evidence that he exists!'
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 16, 2009 10:53 PM
This all stems from the misnomer that atheism is a worldview. It's not, it's the not belief (or belief in not) on the topic of interventionist deities. No tenets, no commands, no prescriptive behaviour - atheism has none of that. Yet fools wanting to dismiss it mistake it for a worldview time and time again.
By seeing atheism as a worldview, they characterise atheists by all the things it is lacking. Atheism doesn't prescribe morality, therefore atheists have no morality. Atheism has no accountability, therefore atheists have no accountability. Thus Stalin / Mao / Hitler / whoever who happens to be atheist the attrocities happen because they were atheist. Just as those who are Christian who commit equivilant attrocities aren't "true" Christians because they aren't conforming to the Christian worldview.
It doesn't matter what motivated Stalin, this kind of thinking means you can blame atheism for whatever atheists do. While many religious actually kill in the name of religion, those don't count. Yet the mere fact that one is a non-believer is enough to dismiss non-belief as dangerous. It couldn't be that it was a dictator trying to keep power, it has to be that the worldview he precribes to doesn't teach him to be good.
Of course, anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity would know that the validity of atheism rests with the simple question "are there one or more gods?" Atheists could all be baby-eating genocidal maniacs and it wouldn't matter one bit to that question. It would show itself to be an undesirable trait for society, but that doesn't mean that it isn't valid. That's what happens when you appeal to consequences and make this issue about belief in belief.
It just goes to show that theism is intellectually bankrupt. Can't argue for gods on their own merits, all they can do is argue that atheism is undesirable as opposed to being wrong.
Posted by: X-Lurker | September 18, 2009 7:55 AM
Wow! So many straw men you guys have erected! So much goal post moving from you guys! It's hard to know where to begin...
It will certainly take some time to deal with the nonsense you guys have posted. It's funny how I get slammed for being "long-winded", but you guys don't. But then, I am often dealing with two or three of you at once, so I have a reason. But this double standard does support my contention that this place is an echo chamber.
I will try to address all of the "points" you guys have put up (more like "talking points"), but it will take time. Hopefully, I can get it done before the comments shut down due to the age of the thread...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 18, 2009 8:00 AM
Pot.Kettle.Black.Don't bother. You have nothing cogent to say. Take your confusion elsewhere.Your deity is imaginary and your babble is fiction. Thats the facts. You have presented no evidence to date to falsify either claim.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 18, 2009 8:01 AM
Usually the only way the comments get shut down here is if the threads get too big (usually > 1000). Then a new thread opens up. There's even been one thread sequence with a total of ~9000 posts, it just never dies!I hope you've read the papers I gave you on evolution, they should answer your challenge. Hopefully you understand what each paper says so you understand the context of evidence.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 18, 2009 8:14 AM
If you want X-Lurker, we can cut all the fat away and just focus on one thing: evolution. That way you can stop acting as if I'm trying to say that there's no link between evolution and atheism (again, it's no more than the link between heliocentrism and aheliosism. Indeed I'd rather talk about the mechanisms behind evolution, the evidence for such mechanisms and what empirical data demonstrates that life has indeed evolved. No arguing whether there is a god or not, no arguing teleology - just sticking to the science itself.
I really hope you read those papers I linked you to above.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 18, 2009 6:43 PM
Just one thing: Máo is the surname, Zédōng is the personal name. In Chinese, the more general thing always comes first: dates are year-month-day, places are country-province-district-village, and so on.
Posted by: X-Lurker
|
September 21, 2009 7:13 AM
As good a place as any. Of course, what the fossil record shows is that various predecessor phenotypes existed. In principle, this record simply cannot show us how evolution took place. It cannot tell us what mechanism created them; random variation filtered by natural selection is merely assumed to be the primary mechanism.Again, common descent in and of itself cannot show us what mechanism caused the evolutionary process to unfold; random variation filtered by natural selection is merely assumed to be the primary mechanism.
What I asked for was rather specific: Show me evidence that natural forces can produce a genome, the equivalent of computer software. The fossil record cannot show this, and even the evidence in favor of common descent cannot. That natural forces did so, again, is merely assumed.
Yes, we observe that the mechanism does indeed exist, and can produce a new "species", depending on how "species" is defined. I don't dispute that this mechanism can cause changes to an existing genome, and I wasn't asking for evidence of such.
I did read through the article, and frankly,it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. I managed to even not fall into any of the misconception traps. I suspect that my having read The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker helped me in that regard.
Yes, the infamous ev program. I am still looking at this program and the claims made on its behalf. What I do know is that it doesn't generate a genome; it ostensibly generates information about a pre-existing genome, namely, the locations of binding sites. Like I said, I am still looking into the program to see how valid the claims are.
Well, with all due respect, that sounds like the little grey cloud in the diagram labeled, "And then a miracle occurs"...
Wrong, chief:
That's how you see God, a timid, frightened little female (!) rabbit scared back into her burrow. I find it interesting that you felt compelled to give God a female gender, presumably to illustrate how "weak" or "timid" this God allegedly is. Misogynist much?
I suppose it could seem that way, if we wanted it to badly enough. On the other hand, 150 years ago, the Universe was thought to be eternal, having no beginning. This, of course, was in conflict with the Christian notion of "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth", because the science told us that there simply was no beginning, so God coudn't have done much of anything...
Of course, during the 20th Century, Hubble determined that the red shift observed in distant galaxies indicated that the Universe was expanding. George Gamow went a step further and determined that some time in the distant past, the Universe had to have been a single point which expanded into our present-day Universe. In the 1960's, Penzias and Wilson discovered the cosmic radiation background left behind by the Big Bang, so the evidence that the Universe had a beginning was, shall we say, compelling? Naturally, this had religious implications, namely, that the Bible was correct in its claim that "the heavens", as well as the Earth, had a beginning.
However, there was still the problem of why God (or whatever) waited until 14+/- billion years ago to set the ball rolling. Why did God spend eons and eons of time not concerned with the idea of creating a Universe, and what happened on that fateful day or hour to change His mind and make Him want to create one? A millennium and a half ago (give or take), Augustine of Hippo determined that Time only existed within (what we now call) the Universe, and that outside of this Universe, the realm that God allegedly inhabits, Time simply didn't exist, so we call that realm "eternity", meaning "timeless". The implication is that Time began when the Universe did, and Augustine came to this conclusion using something Christians are not supposed to possess: Reason.
Cosmology and modern physics came to the same conclusion in the 20th century, approximately 15 centuries after Augustine.
The point, here, is that your premise ("It would seem as if the moment we stop to actually analyse the world for what it is that we don't see God anymore.") simply isn't true, at least not in every case. In some cases, like the two I discussed above, we see what could be argued as affirmation of God, at some level.
Assuming that this is true for the sake of argument, it doesn't "prove the falseness" of religion. It could still very well be true that one religion, and possibly more, are true and correct, alleged "lack of evidence" notwithstanding. That a given issue represents a crap shoot doesn't automatically make it false.
Again, the mere fact that people come away misinformed about certain things because of their understanding of religious things doesn't automatically make that religion wrong. There are many Christian that believe the Universe to be approximately 14 billion years old.
Like I have stated before, science has given us many wonderful things, but at a price. Also, science his given us more than a few horrors, and the simple fact is that some people just don't trust "science" or "the scientific community" or whatever you want to call it. And having people from that community talking down condescendingly to the masses doesn't help.
Wow! So apparently, what you are demanding from a designer is an ability to design a process that completely replaces the deigner??!?
How utterly convenient for you! If there is evidence of God in his design, that "proves" how "incompetent" God is. If God is truly "competent", any trace of his handiwork must be utterly absent from the design!! Therefore, there cannot possibly be evidence of a "competent" designer going out the gate, because "competence" is determined by whether that evidence exists! Evidence == "incompetent". And "competent" == "utterly no evidence"!!
That's quite a straw man you got, there.
Well, your intellectual bankruptcy manifests itself yet again; I never made any such "admission". Ever.
What I actually wrote is:
If you could be bothered to actually comprehend what I actually wrote, it just may dawn on you that I never even hinted at the possibility that life could "still [be] full of meaning" in my hypothetical scenario. In fact, I was explicit in stating that life "had no apparent reason" whatsoever. So yes, indeed, you are stuffing words into my mouth.
And misrepresenting me.
I mean, the evidence is right here in this thread -- I even reproduced some of it. And your written response is further evidence that you either just don't listen, or just don't comprehend written English.
I have only scratched the surface, here, and have lots of stuff still to address. Also, I am sure that this post will generate another flurry of responses, and I am sure that those responses will contain even more goal-post moving, straw men and assorted non sequiturs.
But I am just getting warmed up...
By the way, the fact that I had to register to post this does little to disprove my observation that this place is an echo chamber. Just sayin'...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 21, 2009 7:22 AM
X-lurker, no cited peer reviewed literature on evolution, therefore you said nothing cogent. Your god doesn't exist and your babble is fiction. Deal with this elsewhere.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 21, 2009 7:24 AM
Echo...cho.....o. X-lurker and his empty echoing mind is back. It only echos in here when he posts. Drop the echo chamber business. It just shows your stupidity.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 21, 2009 8:27 AM
@X-Lurker Re: Misrepresenting you about the universe w/o a god
You offered that you could conceive of a universe that built sentient life without a god. Implicit in that hypothetical situation is that you can conceive of things as they are now without a god. The only problem you had with that is how it would confuse you. And as Cosmic Teapot brought to my attention, the reason it confuses you is because you have improperly defined "meaning" into something that depends on a god.Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 21, 2009 8:29 AM
@X-Lurker Re:English apprehension
This coming from someone who thinks that "X" is a great fill-in for "Ex".Posted by: John Morales
|
September 21, 2009 8:37 AM
aratina,
:)
cf. Himself @201: So it follows that X-rays are former rays.
I grant that it's at least ambiguous...
(cf. also X-men)
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 21, 2009 9:16 AM
@John Morales
:) Yes, 'Tis Himself did a good job of highlighting the muddleheaded thinking of X-Lurker. However, I too will grant its ambiguousness and that X-Lurker's "X" did make me curious about how the X-Men got their "X", and I considered it could have been used in a similar way, but with your prodding I checked that trusted intertubez source, Wikipedia:
That tells me the "X" does not signify that they were former humans but that they each have an unknown mutation. There is also Malcolm X: Again, it signifies an unknown. I am guessing that using "X" as a shortening of "ex" is rare.Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
September 21, 2009 9:26 AM
Lurker,
All evolution says is that over time, genetic traits accumulate of they are beneficial to the survival/reproduction of the organism possessing them. The change in information comes from the environment.
Do you dispute that this has been observed?
Now isolate two populations of a species from each other to different environments. Over time, because their environments are different, their genetics will diverge.
Do you dispute this?
When two organisms have sufficiently different genetic makeup, they will not be able to reproduce live offspring--that is, they will be of different species.
Do you dispute that after sufficient time genetic difference will accumulate to the point where reproduction is no longer possible between members of two isolated groups descended from a common ancestor?
That is all the theory of evolution says. It does not concern itself with the origin of the genetic code. The study of those origins is abogenesis, which has come pretty darned close and is getting closer all the time.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 21, 2009 9:33 AM
Oooh, he is just getting started with more inane and sophmoric arguments. And not a speck of physical evidence in sight. What is wrong with this picture at a science site?
Posted by: Kel
|
September 21, 2009 9:34 AM
So to clarify - you accept that evolution can modify the genome, correct? So when we see observations like gene duplications, surely that shows how we can get the "increase" in information given the forces observed. So to me, what you're asking is a question about the origin of the genetic code, which has nothing to do with evolution; rather it is a question of abiogenesis. And how did the initial process get started? I don't know. But natural selection as a process can work for what we see. No, it's not. We know how the process works, there's nothing miraculous about it. That's the point, we have a good idea of the mechanisms involved. To say the process repeats a few trillion times is an understatement, it would have done that before even the first hint of multicellular life. "And then a miracle occurs"? Hell no, it's "And over time a gradual accumulation of advantageous adaptations will mean there's something we would call miraculous in the absence of knowledge of the process at hand".When I write search algorithms, the process repeats itself over and over. Yet when it reaches the goal, I don't say "holy crap, it's a miracle" because I understand how the process works on a generation to generation level.
What it shows is the arbitrary nature of any given particular belief. Of course it could be that one is true and correct and all others are wrong, but how can we make that decision at all when we base our religious decisions on the time and place of our birth? That's quite a lack of sarcasm detector you've got there. Usually when a paragraph starts with I've got to say I'm coming round to Pitman's Incompetent Designer hypothesis. I did have my reservations to begin with it is usually a sure sign that I'm taking the piss.Posted by: X-Lurker
|
September 23, 2009 11:12 PM
"Proven" to be of little value...? Well, I suppose so, if popular "scholarship" suffices as "proof". If you use actual scholarship, however, the picture isn't so cut 'n' dried.Of course, I suspect that any scholar I could cite would be dismissed, and only those who agree with your preconceptions would be acceptable to you and your ilk. And of course, you could accuse me of the same. In other words, it would degenerate into a pointless pissing contest.
The bottom line is that I have already investigated these claims, and have concluded that they're bogus. But I doubt I could convince you. Your mind, such as it is, appears to be quite made up on the matter, and closed.
So you start off by pontificating that "none of the things God does are the least bit likely to have happened", and end up with "key acts of God now have scientific explanations"!! So those things that allegedly didn't happen have scientific explanations as to how they did happen after all?? Contradict yourself much?
You truly are a comical character. You provide hearsay and call it "evidence", and make the groundless assertion that there is no evidence in support of the Bible. And elsewhere you have accused me of having a mind that was already made up! I doubt you can possibly perceive what an intellectual mess you are.
If you could be bothered to comprehend what I write, you might manage to figure out that I have made no such assertions.
Wow! I find it harder and harder to take you seriously. All you gave me were bare assertions. Calling bare assertions "evidence" doesn't make it so, at least not in the real world. Here in this echo chamber? Perhaps.
Well, for the sake of accuracy, I don't "grant" much of anything. I may personally believe that free will exists, but I have made no assertions to that effect, and that's one of the things that separate us, your eagerness to unwittingly make unprovable assertions and my reticence in doing so.
What evidence do we have to support this apparently untestable, and therefore unscientific assertion?
...we appear to have no way of testing that assertion you (and Dennett) make so easily, again indicating that it is not a scientific one.
Again, I am not making any such claim. What I am claiming is that you have thus far failed to support the counterclaim.
Well, how could we "know 'the' future" if we went back in time for the explicit purpose of changing that future? I mean, why else would we want to go back and make a different decision if not to cause a different outcome?
Well, some on your side seem to think so...
I have no Earthly idea how I would react, for time travel is well outside my day-to-day purview. Hypotheticals such as this one may make for fun mental masturbation, but they truly are meaningless, as there are too many unknowns involved to allow us to achieve a meaningful result.
You guys do seem rather desperate to force the preconceived conclusion that God and Free Will simply cannot co-exist, but forced is exactly how it appears. Time travel? Seriously? I thought this blog was about science, not science fiction.
Yeah, the type of "gradualism" that happens all at once...
I suspect you actually mean "moot". And the scientists I cited earlier seem to disagree with your raw assertion. In fact, Eldrege and Gould are the ones who coined the term "punctuated equilibrium", if I recall correctly.
Based on your flawed analogy, so my contention is (or should be) obviously tongue-in-cheek. The point, of course, was merely to illustrate the idiocy of your analogy. That you don't "get it" is hardly surprising.
And I haven't been making counter assertions either, so I guess we're even.
You mean, like, the multiverse??
Well, you can concoct any defintion of "faith" that you want, but that won't change the fact that you take the ability for natural forces to create a genome as an article of faith unless and until you encounter evidence to support the notion. Hell, I even have a video of Richard Dawkins admitting that certain aspects of natural selection are a matter of faith.
Well, if anyone is "confused", it would appear to be you. You even admit that you don't understand what I'm saying, but it's pretty simple: we can all conceive of things that don't make sense. However, you guys accept as "fact" something for which we have no direct evidence (natural forces can create a genome, the neo-Darwinian mechanism can produce phyla, etc.), which makes it an article of faith on your part, but you then dismiss faith as "not grounded in reality". You collectively shoot yourselves in the foot.
Well, you do seem to like arguing in circles; early on (post #184) I asserted that "the logical conclusion to this fairy-tale you guys believe in is that life itself has no point", which pretty much establishes that I have already dealt with "things as they are now without a god", and for the record, there is and was no "confusion" on my part at all. One can observe that something doesn't make sense without there being any "confusion" whatsoever.
I'm sure it gives your ego a woody to tell yourself such nonsnese, but I'm not the one making an assertion as if it were an establish fact. If you guys cannot prove X, you have no business asserting X as if it were an established fact, and whether it's a "negative" or not, if you do make an assertion, the onus is indeed on you to back it up. That's just the way debate works. I am under no obligation to "prove" the opposite unless I explicitly assert the opposite, which I have, in fact, not done. All I have done is state that you have failed to back up your assertions.
"Starting off with [a] null hypothesis" as all well and good, until you assert it as if it were an established fact. Once you do that, you are indeed obligated to support the assertion if called upon to do so. Whining that "you cannot prove a negative" only indicates your inability to think through your argument (and I use the term loosely), and frankly comes across as a concession on your part. Asserting that which you know you cannot substantiate strikes me as being reckless and foolish -- it certainly doesn't make you look like the superior intellect you guys often like to pass yourselves off as being.
No, you attacked me for equating the two. Now you're calling it "mixing? What, you're going to just keep swapping out verbs until you find one that "sticks"?
Well, I had hoped that my subsequent explanations would have mitigated ambiguity, but apparently not...
To reiterate: I "equated" the Darwinian and atheists world view (and yes, "non belief in interventionist deities" is a world view, or an aspect of such at the very least) at a very specific level, the level that fails to account for how and/or why an indifferent Universe would produce beings "wired to seek meaning". That part in quotes is not what I said. It's what YOU said.
Also, if you read what I have been writing these past weeks, you might manage to discern that I don't "dismiss 'evolution'" at all. I was specific in referencing something that was "Darwinian".
A google search on "xtreme" produces 24 million hits. A google search on "xtra" yields a miserly 14.3 million hits. "Xtraordinary" yields 392,000. "Xcel" a mere 1.86 million.
I suppose you could make the argument that in all those millions of cases, "x" means "unknown", but I doubt it would be a very convincing argument.
Also, for better or worse, we live in an age of text messaging, where such contractions are pretty much the norm. But if you've been living in a cave or under a rock this past decade or two, perhaps you would be blissfully unaware of such developments.
Besides, it wouldn't matter how "rare" it allegedly is. It's still a legitimate construct.
But do go on obsessing over my moniker. It pretty much establishes your inability to address the issues I have raised.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 23, 2009 11:18 PM
X-lurker, until you show physical evidence for your imaginary deity, it remains imaginary. All you do is babble. Put up the physical evidence or shut the fuck up. That is how science, which really gives answers works. No deities allowed either. So, either show your stuff or go away. Otherwise, all you have is the typical mental masturbation of delusional fools who think they can prove god. But somewhere, there is the false presupposition that god exists. Only between your ears.
Posted by: X-Lurker
|
September 23, 2009 11:25 PM
Cue mindless nonsense from "Nerd of Redhead"...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 23, 2009 11:30 PM
Only after you cued your mindless echo repetition of imaginary deities. Your god doesn't exist and your babble is a book of fiction. Show physical evidence otherwise, not just mental masturbation. What is your problem? No physical evidence for either? In that case, it is a real problem for you. May you should take your show elsewhere.Posted by: gyeong-hwa
|
September 23, 2009 11:34 PM
X-Lurker
What nonsense? Red is right. If you can't give us a shred of evidence to show that the bible is true then we cannot believe it or the deity that it contains. You've no basis to argue with us, especially when we've shown evidence for evolution to be true.
And so far the bible has been shown to be very inaccurate on many levels.
You can't seem to admit your religion is just as irrational as any other myth or belief.
Posted by: Kel
|
September 24, 2009 12:36 AM
Okay, so it seems that you're criticising people here for saying "God doesn't exist" because we can no more say that as a fact than we can say "Thor doesn't exist" or "Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist" or "trans-dimensional time-travelling coffee-drinking alien called Ziltoid does not exist"? There's an infinite number of things that could not exist, does one really need to go beyond all reasonable doubt before making a statement?We can say quite comfortably that the origins of the concept of God is the same as Zeus and Thor and is similar to the origins of Sauron and Lord Voldemort. We can talk of the way the brain works in order to see agency, how ideas spread culturally and evolve through generations. We can look to (almost) the beginning of time, and split the atom. Yet we have not found any interventionist deity. There may be God just in the way there is bigfoot. But the persistent searching for and not finding is evidence of absence. It's not an absence of evidence, we looked and there's no finding of any interventionist god.
Just how deep do you have to dig before you can safely say there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden? Before too long, one realises that any possible statement that there are fairies at the bottom is made up as opposed to being actually able to know.
You're nitpicking my use of verbs? I'm not swapping verbs until one sticks, I'm expressing what it seemed like you were doing. Does equating and mixing really conjure such vastly different imagery that it's necessary to make such a distinction? It's not a worldview any more than non-astrology is a worldview. As for wired to seek meaning, again I made the case that evolution does this.Sufficiently big-brained social animals with a sense of self and a need to form relationships with others - sounds like sufficient conditions for meaning in the sense that we know it. We have a strong (and universal) moral sense, a capacity to judge both behaviour and intent, detect agency, the capacity to seek out pleasure, learn causal relationships, etc. In short we are aware of ourselves and our environment. When we are wired for agency and physical causality, why wouldn't it be that we seek meaning?
And none of the traits mentioned above are unique to humans, it's just we have different levels of significance. So there's a sure indicator that such traits fit into an evolutionary context. We can see a selective quality to all the features presented, just as we can see that we should see creatures with a drive to survive.
In that case can you explain exactly what you mean by Darwinian? I took the meaning in the sense that it is used. Would Ken Miller's view count as Darwinian? Would Jerry Coyne's? Would Stephen Jay Gould's? What in your view makes someone's worldview Darwinian?Posted by: Feynmaniac
|
September 24, 2009 1:10 AM
X-Lurker,
If the evidence that the bible being historically accurate were overwhelming many here would change their minds. I admit I would. Feel free to make the case.
Note: being historically accurate means more than just mentioning the actual cities and names of rulers. Otherwise, the fact that Spiderman mentions New York City would mean it was a historical document. It would mean that there is good archaeological evidence supporting the document. An example of this NOT being the case would be the fact that there is no evidence that a large Jewish community were slaves in Egypt or that 600,000 Israelites spent 40 years in the Sinai desert.
"Happens all at once" in geological time, which would be tens of thousands of years and thousands of generations (obviously the number of generations varying from species to species).
Sigh...
"Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity. This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Common_misconceptions
I'd like to see that video.
No, it just means that life is inherently meaningless. We are free to choose the point our lives will have, rather than have it dictated to us by some control freak of a deity.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 24, 2009 1:35 AM
@X-Lurker Re: Your admission that a universe without a god is possible
I did not put these words in your mouth:
That is completely free of my touch, and it is an admission on your part that sentience could hypothetically arise without a god or god-given purpose. You have stated that you can picture it as a possibility. You have demonstrated that it is within your cognitive capacity to think of a scenario where there is no meaning or purpose behind anything that exists. Then you dismiss it as too much of a fairytale for your brand of faith.I'm not sure where you get off on claiming that sentient life would be any different in the hypothetical universe you posited above than to sentient life as you know it today. If there is life and sentient life in your hypothetical no-god universe, then that hypothetical universe fits well with the real one.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 24, 2009 1:46 AM
Crap, my last comment was already covered way up there. Sorry.
@X-Lurker Re: Pontificating
I could have put it better I suppose. The stories of what God did are not things that a being could do in this universe without violating physical laws; however some things that have been attributed to God's doing, like creation, healing, and floods can now be explained by science such as evolution, medicine, and geology/meteorology. So no, I did not contradict myself, I just didn't put it down well enough for you to understand.Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 24, 2009 1:54 AM
@X-Lurker Re: Hearsay or Fact
Carlie figured out where people like you are coming from earlier today on the Rapper thread: I didn't cite sources, but it is not all that hard to learn facts about reality and how no god is necessary to make the universe work the way it does. Facts are not hearsay. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Anyway, facts are on my side and you did say your mind was made up.Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 24, 2009 2:00 AM
@X-Lurker Re: Asserted Beliefs
Why did you even make any comments about anything then? If you're happy to believe whatever you want without evidence, that's fine by me. Please continue believing in free will, just keep it out of the discussion if you can't support it.Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 24, 2009 2:32 AM
@X-Lurker Re: Testing in Time
We can't test it yet, but we may be able to in the future without having to actually reverse time. Dennett already has the experiment laid out: take two configurable brains and make them play several games of chess starting from the same configuration each time. If we can make such brains, we will be able to run the experiment. If each separate chess game is perfectly repeatable given the same starting configuration of the brains, then free will doesn't exist. The key is being able to control all functional parts of the brains so that each brain starts a repeat match in the exact same configuration it started with before. We can't do that with organic brains.You basically missed the point of what Dennett was saying. We know that our brains are constantly changing and that allows for seemingly spontaneous will, and actually it is spontaneous because we can't control the changes.
The point is that free will causes a paradox and so cannot be possible. With free will, one point in time is generating multiple timelines and there is no way to decide which one is the right one. I don't agree about this one. It is essential to Christians to have free will or else they are not just "pets" as I characterized them but also "puppets" with zero control over their lives. As I said above, this is a testable hypothesis; we just don't have the necessary technology to carry it out yet (which would be configurable artificial brains comparable to ours in cognitive abilities).And anyway, don't go thinking I speak for anyone else here but myself. I brought up time travel, not the others.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 24, 2009 3:00 AM
@X-Lurker Re: Your Moniker
Not one of those X's carries the meaning of "former" as does your moniker. No, I would not make that argument because it would be obviously wrong. When I first saw your moniker, I thought your "X" did stand for "unknown" as in "some unknown lurker". I'm done obsessing now. Thanks.By the way, your posts have become something of a tornado. I'm not sure how much more of your IDiotic twirling I can take. I really could care less if you can't let go of your theistic beliefs or if you continue to be frightened of evolution. I don't even know what I'm doing responding to you anymore. It was fun earlier, but I think I'm done responding to you.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM
|
September 24, 2009 3:09 AM
Ah, another incarnation of the constantly-morphing 'god of the gaps' argument. Apparently, since we can't define what free will is (or isn't) that must mean the specific version of the Christian god that X-Lurker believes in must therefore exist and every single claim its adherents has ever made is true and valid.
I feel that describing such an argument as piss-poor would be putting it mildly.
X-lurker wrote, in an attempt (failed) to defend his ambiguous handle:
So, using your argument 'xtreme' means 'former treme', 'xtra' means 'former tra', 'xtraordinary' means 'former traordinary' and 'xcel' means 'former cel'?
I'm guessing no-one's going to describe you as an x-moron...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 24, 2009 7:26 AM
X-lurker, what are you really trying to do here? Convince us god exists? Then show physical evidence, evidence that can pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural, origin. The physical evidence is the only way to get us to change our minds about the existence of your imaginary deity.
I always find it amusing that idjit godbots like yourself have to come to an atheist blog to have your misconceptions about your babble and deity corrected. You aren't the first one to do so, or use the same inane arguments you are putting forth. We have SIWOTI syndrome, so we correct your mistakes. Which you mistakenly think we are considering your blather. Your chances of convincing us that your deity exists your sophist philosophical mental masturbations is zero. You are wasting your time here.
Posted by: Josh
|
September 24, 2009 8:23 PM
Wow. You and I have very different definitions for what constitutes all at once. Yes, I've been known to say things like "in a geological blink of an eye" to make a point, but the operative word in that case is geological.
Posted by: X-Lurker
|
September 25, 2009 10:16 PM
Well, the latest flurry of inane responses again confirms the echo-chamber status of this venue. Opposing views aren't actually engaged, they're merely caricatured and the caricature ridiculed, in typical straw man fashion.
[Pavlovian response from Nerd of Redhead in 5...4...3...2...]
Posted by: X-Lurker
|
September 25, 2009 10:35 PM
Well, of course it does, just as comparisons to Thor, Loki, Zeus and other out-of-vogue deities would. I mean, sure, I could just as easily conceive a similar conversation involving the electro-physical causes of lightening as it pertains to the alleged existence of Thor. What of it? Such question-begging comparisons between ancient polytheistic pantheons and current monotheistic religions may seem valid to skeptics itching to toss all theistic notions into the cosmic crapper, but they strike me as being superficial to extremes.
Does it not pique your curiosity even a little to consider why current monotheistic religions continue to thrive while so many of the ancient polytheistic pantheons are nothing more than history? Is it just because people remain "deluded", and simply aren't as smart as your bad-ass self? I do find it interesting that, rather than approach a monotheistic God on his own terms, you feel the need to substitute a member of an ancient pantheon in his stead to make your point.
Which suggests that this is how you view the Christian God, any subsequent denials notwithstanding. What is interesting from my perspective is how modern science is, at least in some ways, only now catching up with this Christian God (the Universe had a beginning, Time had a beginning, etc.). In addition, the wonderful, exquisite complexities of the cell defy a casual "Darwin of the Gaps" explanation, but that is precisely what atheists cling to in what appears to be white-knuckled desperation. The genome itself is but a small part of that architecture, but I have yet to encounter evidence that unaided natural forces can produce a genome from scratch, let alone all of the other transcription and construction machinery present in each cell of each phenotype.
But I already know the response: "That is an argument from personal incredulity. Science will find out the answers, some day..." Etcetera.
This is why I don't promote this as an argument. I merely observe that hard-core atheists cling to the neo-Darwinian explanation simply because they have nothing else, not because it truly is a satisfactory explanation. Well, perhaps that depends on how we define "satisfactory", doesn't it? And that could easily lead to a circular argument -- it's satisfactory to an atheist because it supports an atheistic view, and that's pretty much all that matters...
I didn't really expect you to get the subtlety of what I did, but I was using the caged rat's argument against him. It was he who initially claimed that "evolution still is atheistic in its mechanisms", not me. Check message #236 if you don't want to take my word for it...
Well, again, I'm not the one who initially made that claim -- it was the caged rat who made that assertion. I just tossed it back at you guys to illustrate your collective duplicity. I obviously have no need to "concede" anything, here, for it's the caged rat who's asserting that "evolution still is atheistic in its mechanisms", and you are merely building on your fellow atheist's assertion, again illustrating your collective duplicity. For the record, I never linked "evolution" to "atheism" in any way -- it's you guys who keep morphing the specific "neo-Darwinian mechanism" into the generic "evolution". The neo-Darwinian mechanism specifies random variation culled by natural selection, which pretty much takes intelligent agency of any kind out of the equation.
And I don't do this to "dismiss" anything, either. I merely do this to show inconsistency in thinking on your side. You guys demanded I have a "point" in posting here, and I merely responded that the whole Universe doesn't have a point (assuming there is no God), so why am I expected to have one? You then responded that we are "wired to seek meaning", and I subsequently asked, "How and why would an indifferent Universe produce sentient creatures 'wired to seek meaning'?", and observed that neither atheism nor Darwinian evolution (which is atheistic in its mechanisms) provide a solid explanation for that issue, which I called a conundrum.
I'm not "dismissing" anything here. You're just reading a whole lot of baggage into what I write, your mind perhaps engaged in slaying straw men of arguments past...
I suppose that would depend on how we define "divine creation". We don't have anything close to a viable abiogenesis explanation. Panspermia was once seriously considered, but that only pushes the problem back to some other planet somewhere in the cosmos -- it doesn't solve the problem. And the workings of even a simple, single-celled organism is extremely complex and sophisticated, defying a Darwinian explanation. Since we so often fall into hypotheticals, I admit that I sometimes wonder if Darwin would have still been able to publish his work had the scientific community at that time possessed the knowledge of molecular biology we possess today. Darwin himself was blissfully ignorant of the actual mechanisms of inheritance, and of the cell in general.
In principle, it simply cannot show that objectively. It can only "show" that if a materialist/atheist mindset is adopted up front, leading to a circular argument. You yourself said, "Evolution works with or without ultimate agency." If "ultimate agency" is involved, and happens to be of the "intelligent" variety, then observed design is obviously not necessarily an "illusion", as you would contend.
And I would assert the exact opposite, that the caged rat is merely misrepresenting what I am saying. That you would side with a fellow atheist is hardly surprising, but it doesn't do much to dissuade me from my initial impressions that this place is an echo chamber.
Your contention is noted. Perhaps you can note that what I "linked explicitly" was the Darwinian model and atheism, a model that you have repeatedly claimed to be atheistic at some level. Whether you care to admit it to yourself or not, saying that "evolution" (Darwinian evolution, to be more specific and accurate) is "atheistic in its mechanisms" is explicitly linking them. Again, you get to do that which you would forbid me from doing.
No, and here's why.
In one case, the one you quoted and to which you added emphasis, sentience arose from non-sentience. In the case where God exists, sentience always was, and is eternal. One case has something which always existed and the other has something coming from nothing, as it were.
Now, in the case where God exists, whether that sentience has a "reason" to exist simply becomes moot, because that sentience simply always existed.
You'd better be careful with such admissions, or your fellow atheist, the caged rat, will be accusing you of being "confused"...
Do you see that, caged rat? Your fellow atheist admits that the Darwinian paradigm doesn't make sense at some level. If you had any intellectual honesty, you would accuse him of being "confused", just as you so accused me.
Just so...
Are you kidding me? "Zeroed-in on Darwin"??? This is a Darwinian evolutionist's blog! Our very presence here "zeroes-in on Darwin"! That you would attempt to even make some kind of issue out of this is further evidence of your intellectual bankruptcy. You're looking more and more like the utterly vacuous Nerd of Redhead every day.
The Inappropriate Analogies continue...
Explain how a moth's flying into a flame can be reasonably compared to a sentient being seeking meaning. Is there even any reason to believe that a moth has sentience?
Don't you guys ever get tired of these semantic games? "Meaning" can be defined as "purpose" or "significance". What of it? The point is still that there is no point, which means there is no purpose or meaning. So how/why would a purposeless/meaningless/insignificant Universe produce creatures who seek after purpose/meaning/significance?
If the word "conundrum" is too advanced for you, replace it with the word "riddle". Or "puzzle".
And explain, in excrutiating detail, how the Darwinian paradigm addresses this puzzle. If you can.
For starters, where do you get the idea that Mao or Stalin needed to "justify" their actions? I never made any such claim. And the simple fact is that Karl Marx wrote that "communism begins where atheism begins". He also wrote that "the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness". So this would strongly suggest (to those with perception, anyway) that a Marxist communist state would have atheism as its foundation. In addition, Stalin, Mao, Pot, etc. were themselves atheists (forthcoming denials notwithstanding), so referring to Marxist regimes with atheist leaders at the helm as "atheist regimes" seems quite justifiable, your knee-jerk disagreement notwithstanding.
Your red herrings are noted and dismissed.
What makes you think God is under any obligations to perform as you personally think he should? The whole point of "free will", assuming it exists, is to allow man to commit his blunders to the fullest, so when "Judgement Day" arrives, God, if He truly exists, can point to history and say to us, "See? I told you so." The main point of the Garden of Eden story is that Man was given a choice, and Man chose his own intellect over God. To believers, the regimes I mentioned serve as an illustration of the consequences of such a choice.
You guys do love the straw man argument, it appears. I don't point to those regimes as "irrefutable evidence" of anything beyond the actual facts of history. I do make the inference that putting atheists in power is probably not a very good idea, but the main point is to counter the idiotic "religion == mass murder" false axiom you guys seem to so often cling to.
You are free to assume anything you want to assume, based on any straw man argument you may care to conceive. Again, I am not claiming anything beyond what the historical record shows. If you want to read straw men into that historical record, have at it, but I'm not interested in such tail-chasing myself.
I realize that being categorized (or pigeon-holed, if you prefer) makes you squirm uncomfortably, but then you guys don't seem to have much problem doing the same to others, especially "Darwin-deniers", "creationists", and the rest of the gamut of pigeon-holed populations who would dare to hold a world view that is not your own. Your impressive rant generated much heat, but no light. For example, I never claimed that atheism caused specific behavior, but the historical reality is what it is. For all your collective hand-wringing over the crimes of theism throughout the Ages, you sure do get bent out of shape when reminded of events from our more recent past.
Well, you guys don't seem to have much problem blaming theism for whatever theists do, even when those theists violate the teachings and tenents of the theism they've adopted. Therein lies the crux that you guys tend to avoid: When a Christian commits mass-murder, he is violating the teachings of Christ. When a Marxist, who also happens to be an atheist, commits mass-murder, he is not violating the teachings of Marx. In fact, I could argue that Marx did specifically teach that the abolition of religion was a requirement for the people to achieve "real happiness". Well, if that's a goal of a Marxist regime, the abolition of religion, and if accomplishing that goal requires killing all the religious leaders and a substantial portion of their followers, who is to say that this doesn't, in fact, comply with the teachings of Marx?
So why are you doing that, then? Remember, I came in here with a couple of assertions and one request for specific evidence. One assertion I made was:
Check message #184 if you have doubts...
It was you guys who subsequently brought God and Free Will and the afterlife and the Bible into this discussion, not me. You have yet to refute my assertion. You have all danced around it with varying degrees of success, but none of you have managed to provide any hard evidence against it. And for the umpteenth time, you guys fail to grasp why I brought it up in the first place.
That point is, quite simply, I don't need a "point" to post here, and your whines to the contrary illustrate your collective irrationality.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 25, 2009 10:37 PM
X-Lurker, you're funny.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
September 25, 2009 10:48 PM
Do you honestly think you're the first godbotherer to trot out these assertions to us? You're not even in the first hundred. Your attestations for The Big Guy In The Sky and your denials of reality are so old they've got moss growing on them. You're not original, you're not as clever or intelligent as you imagine you are, and you're too prolix to be readable. In short, you're a boring idiot. So it's not surprising your caricatures are ridiculed.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 25, 2009 11:12 PM
Yep. Your empty mind reappeared-peared-ered-ed. Your god only exists in the empty area between your ears, and your babble is nothing but fiction. You have demonstrated nothing to change those facts. You sophist mental masturbations you consider philosophy are irrelevant compared to physical evidence. Which you never present. So your empty mind-ind-nd-d keeps up a steady stream of nonsense. If you don't like our responses, you have the ability to just go away and stop wasting your time. You aren't wasting ours. And you are still as pointless as the day you first posted here. Without physical evidence, you and your ideas are just hot echoing air.Posted by: X-Lurker
|
September 25, 2009 11:16 PM
Oh, I am quite sure you could, quite comfortably, but your being "quite comfortable" does absolutely nothing to make your raw assertion true.
Are you sure you really want to?
So you're telling me that you have personally engaged in a "persistent searching for" God (or a reasonable facsimile thereof)?
Who are this "we" you speak of?
So were you seeking God, or were you seeking fairies?
Is asking a question now "nitpicking"? Sensitive much?
Hey, words have meanings (y'all ought to know, given your collective penchant for equivocation and semantic game-playing). Deal.
Just so.
Probably the same thing that Richard Dawkins means when he uses the term.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 25, 2009 11:31 PM
Yawn, nothing of substance to your last post. If your post never appeared, it would be as substantive as it was. You have nothing of physical or scientific evidence to offer us. So you have nothing but ill-formed opinion and sophist philosophy. Boring.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 25, 2009 11:37 PM
The caged rat here: tl;dr and *snore*
Posted by: Dania
|
September 26, 2009 6:08 AM
That's a strange thing to say, given that some of the strongest evidence for common descent comes molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics.
Unless you're not disputing common ancestry but you think that there's another mechanism driving evolution of which evolutionary biologists are not aware of. If that's the case, we can talk about that mechanism...
Let's see if you can do better than Sean Pitman...
Posted by: Dania
|
September 26, 2009 6:12 AM
Gah.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
September 26, 2009 7:05 AM
Yep.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 26, 2009 7:18 AM
@ 323,
Looking for what you want to find is what creationists do. Interesting slip.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 26, 2009 7:20 AM
Damn.Make that, "looking to find confirmation for you preconceived notions is what creationists do".
I must be suffering from Jadehawk syndrome, english language skills degradation.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
September 26, 2009 8:04 AM
Come on, Rorschach, you can write the English gooder than that.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 26, 2009 8:24 AM
*sigh*
Posted by: X-Lurker
|
September 26, 2009 9:09 PM
It's amazing how you seem to be so willing to cling to certain conjurings of my imagination because you apparently think it helps your case. I mean, I can also picture a world where pink unicorns shit rainbows and fart sunshine, so should we therefore draw hard and fast conclusions about "free will" or "meaning" from that? What you seem unable (or perhaps unwilling) to understand is that I consider a godless Universe creating sentient life to be a fairy tale, one that you guys seem quite willing to believe in.
Since I'm obviously going too fast for you, let me break it down -- what this means is that I am not "admitting" that "sentience could hypothetically arise without a god or god-given purpose" any more than I am "admitting" that pink unicorns really could exist, and could shit rainbows and fart sunshine. Or that Cinderella really wore glass slippers. Or that Jack really did climb a beanstalk into the clouds.
Thanks for admitting this. If Nerd of Redhead had even a scrape of integrity and consistency, he would chide you for failing to cite sources. Of course, he won't, because you're a fellow atheist. Echo chamber city...
Well, again, merely proclaiming something to be a "fact" doesn't make it so. You merely believe that "no god is necessary". Explain how this could be something that is objectively "knowable", especially in light of such things as the apparent fine tuning of the Universe, and the origin of life problem.
Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that. Repeat it over and over like the dogmatic mantra it is.
Well, if free will doesn't exist, I had no choice in the matter, did I?
You're kidding, right? Or Dennett is. He must be. What's comical is how you guys take this kind of stuff seriously. First it was time travel, now it's man-made (and conrolled!) brains...
And that should serve to suggest how bogus Dennett's "experiment" is. I mean, you're talking about nothing more than a deterministic algorithm execution device, also known as a computer, one that you, as the experimenter, have absolute control over ("The key is being able to control all functional parts of the brains..."). And this is suppose to demonstrate that free will doesn't exist? Pardon me while I laugh until I cry! I mean, obviously these brains won't have free will, if the experimenter is "control[ing] all functional parts of the brains".
Organic brains learn from their mistakes, which may explain why "our brains are constantly changing", and why "it is spontaneous because we can't control the changes". The brains in this bogus experiment would decidedly lack this capability; restarting them in the "exact same configuration" can easily be seen as starting out with no memory of the previous game, or the mistakes made therein.
Well, the real point is that time travel is not possible, so there is no possibility of such a potential paradox to manifest itself. Also, since we lack experience in time travel, pontificating about what would happen amounts to talking out of your ass about it, no matter what kind of intellectual credentials you may wield.
...because otherwise, none of us is responsible for his or her actions.
I'm curious, how do you guys reconcile this "personal meaning" you assign to yourselves with the alleged lack of free will? How "meaningful" could it be if the "meaining" you assign to yourself was not assigned as a concious, free will choice, but was determined beforehand by the laws of nature?
I came in here claiming that the logical conclusion to the fairy-tale you guys believe in is that life has no meaning or purpose. Explain how I am wrong if we do not have free will.
One thing at a time. I was addressing your specific statement from message #298:
Can you manage to comprehend that? "'X' as a shortening of 'ex'", nothing more.
Once we establish that (call it step 1 of a two step process), we can proceed to step 2, using "ex" to mean "former", as in "ex-wife" or "ex-husband" or more simply "my ex..."
I cannot help it if your collective mentality cannot grasp a two step process, and must confine itself to a simplistic one step reading of what's going on.
So you jumped to the wrong conclusion, then got your feathers ruffled when I corrected you.
I cannot "continue" something that I haven't even started, but your continuous jumping to erroneoous conclusions hasn't lost an iota of its entertainment value.
I agree. Describing your straw man "argument" as piss-poor would indeed be putting it mildly.
Well, again, your inability to comprehend written English reveals itself. Like I patiently explained above, I was addressing the caged rat's specific conjecture:
Again, consult message #298. I was merely disabusing him of his misguided notion.
This, coming from someone who has just demonstrated an inability to comprehend written English. Amusing!
Well, sure, grown-up talk is bound to make the kiddies (and ADD sufferers) bored and sleepy, but such cannot be helped...
Are you saying that you don't "look for what you want to find"?? Ever?
It certainly was.
And Darwinian evolutionists -- I am witnessing such before my very eyes.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 26, 2009 9:19 PM
Echo...cho...ho...o..You posted again dipshit, so the echo gets loud in here when that happens. No citations of the peer reviewed literature. So you said nothing of interest. No proof for your imaginary deity or fictional babble. What a waste of a post by an empty headed idjit....Posted by: X-Lurker
|
September 26, 2009 9:28 PM
And you think you are??!?
And just how "clever or intelligent" do I imagine I am? Impress us all by demonstrating your mind-reading skills.
In truth, against the likes of you guys, I really don't need to be too terribly "clever or intelligent", do I?
Which obviously explains why you guys have been falling all over yourselves to respond to my postings thus far.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 26, 2009 9:36 PM
X:
Nope, you came here to make a counter-factual statement (belied, ironically, by itself):
Note that lack of belief in unsustainable and unevidenced propositions is not belief in a "fairy-tale", it is a lack of belief in such.
Note further that you're making a conclusion from a straw-man position, i.e. that atheism is a positive belief.
Depends on your definition of free will.
We have the perception of free will; however if an omniscient entity did exist, then it would've known every thought and action we'd have before such occurred. In which case our choices would be ineluctably deterministic.
Indeed, that contradiction applies to the omniscient being as well, since it (definitionally) must know what its own choices will be, vitiating the very concept of choice.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 26, 2009 9:39 PM
X-lurker, if you deity doesn't exist, so your whole free will argument is nothing but mental masturabtion on your part. Nothing there of substance. Just like your ignorant sophist philosophy...
Posted by: Sastra
|
September 26, 2009 9:51 PM
X-Lurker #333 wrote:
As John Morales points out, there are different ways to understand the ambiguous phrase "free will." We have it in some meanings of the word, and not in other meanings. The way we do have it, is the way that really matters.
Where does nature end, and we begin? We do not have our choices made for us by forces beyond our control: we, and all our choices, are included in the stream.
Posted by: amphiox
|
September 26, 2009 10:24 PM
"I came in here claiming that the logical conclusion to the fairy-tale you guys believe in is that life has no meaning or purpose."
Meaning and purpose are the products of intelligence. Humans are intelligent. Ergo, meaning and purpose in life has existed at least as long as humans have existed (and have been intelligent). So your claim is not only illogical, it is flat wrong.
As for free will, or course it exists. It just happens to be constrained by the laws of physical reality (just like everything else). Just because it isn't absolute doesn't make it any less valid or real.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
September 26, 2009 10:41 PM
Let me get this straight - your inability to grasp the inherent ambiguity of your own handle, which you then attempt to defend by citing a Google search for words using the prefix 'x' - which, as I pointed out, comes back with several terms none of which use 'x' in the way you use it, i.e. to mean 'former', is somehow indicative of my issues with comprehension?
With that kind of limited processing power on board it's not much of a shock you're a Christian.
Argumentum ad populum. Besides, Hinduism's been around a lot longer than Christianity; are you going to start worshipping Vishnu because of that?
What 'terms'? When has your god ever communicated anything to us that any of the other ancient pantheonic gods haven't? If you have evidence to the contrary I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to hear it.
Since there is no evidence for the existence of the Christian god, and anything describing his qualities lacks verifiability, how he is viewed is unrestricted. If I want to say the Christian god appeared to me in the form of a giant duck that speaks Swahili what right do you have to say that I'm wrong?
I merely observe that hard-core
atheists cling to theneo-Darwinian explanationunsubstantiated, superstitious claptrap simply because they have nothing else, not because it truly is a satisfactory explanation.Fixed it for you.
Evidence of the existence of this god you speak of, please. Oh, and if your god can exist without requiring something to create it, why can't the universe?
WHOOSH! I guess we're going to need a pilot's license to check exactly how far over X-lurker's head that point went.
And possibly some help from NASA for this one.
Good grief; there's so much weapons-grade stupid in X-lurker's post that I've run out of time to mock as much of it as I'd like. But there's enough for just one more:
Er, because the god you believe in is defined as omnipotent (all powerful) and omnibenevolent (all-loving); ergo, allowing vast numbers of people he loved die at the hands of unbelievers doesn't fit with a being possessing both of those qualities. If you wish to admit you don't agree with one or both of those qualities then you don't have to worry about; it would, however, make what you believe quite distinct from standard Christianity.
But hey, when's that ever stopped anyone? 38,000 sects and growing, after all. It's fascinating how a supposedly perfect god can inspire something so open to interpretation that it's virtually meaningless.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 27, 2009 1:36 PM
Why?Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
September 27, 2009 5:44 PM
Unknown Lurker #335
Moreso than you. Granted, that isn't hard.You think you're clever and intelligent enough to carry on a conversation with us.
See, this is proof you're not as clever or intelligent as you think you are. For some reason you think you're holding up your end of the argument.
If you'd noticed (that is, if you were smart enough to notice), you'd see that this is the third time I've responded to you in three weeks. That's hardly "falling all over" myself. The rest of the people discussing things with you suffer from SIWOTI syndrome.
Posted by: Kel
|
September 27, 2009 5:57 PM
So every other deity is a product of a human mind, but the one you happen to believe in is not? Got evidence? Go ahead, we've seen galaxies 13 billion light years away, split the atom, cracked the human genome - yet not a single verifiable observation of an interventionist deity. Prove me wrong. I've searched for the truth of this reality, yes. But your point is mute, why does it have to be me? Do I need to crack the human genome for the event to have taken place? Do I need to have done the experiment where a hammer and feather are dropped in a vacuum? Humanity as a whole. You don't have any empirical evidence for your god, only anecdotes. You have no positive evidence for any god existing at any time - and any claims as such have turned out to be mundane causes (as opposed to magic)Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 27, 2009 6:21 PM
Kel, OM speaks wisely:
Your problem X-Lurker is that scientists are trained from day one in graduate school to be ethical. Go with the evidence. If there is no evidence, nothing exists. If you have no evidence, don't push your ideas beyond looking for evidence for them. Also, put up or shut up based upon the evidence. Now, X-Lurker you can't put up physical evidence for your imaginary deity, only presuppositions, which are always false, that he/she/it/them exist. You can't shut up either, which tells us your lack of ethical character, integrity, and honesty. Because those who can't put up or shut up are nothing but con-men, it tells us all we need to know about your lack of character.So, what is your purpose here, and what do you want to accomplish? You should be able to state this in two or three clear declarative sentences. Or, you just prove your lack of integrity and honesty.
Posted by: Jim
|
September 28, 2009 6:48 PM
You might have noticed, X-Lurker, that Nerd of Redhead's contributions to a debate are much like the contributions a turd makes to a punchbowl. Unsurprisingly, that wins him plaudits on Pharyngula.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 28, 2009 6:54 PM
Drink the Kool-Aid, Jim. Drink it...Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 28, 2009 7:08 PM
Jim, what debate? X-lurker is being a turd himself by not presenting any physical evidence, just unsupported presuppositions and philosophical sophistry based upon those presuppositions. So he is preaching at us. Proselytizing is a bannable offense. If X-Lurker wants to debate, he must consider the non-existence of his deity, which then takes away his inane philosophical arguments. If you have any physical evidence for said deity Jim, please present it. Otherwise, all you have is smoke and mirrors like X-Lurker...Posted by: X-Lurker
|
September 30, 2009 9:02 PM
Well, it ain't surprising that you would think so...
And to me, when someone starts saying, "I'm more mature than you" in any form, it rather belies any claim to advanced maturity. Indeed, it sounds like what school children might say to each other in the yard at recess.
No, what I'm basically saying is that a teenager who thinks he knows more than his parents is delusional. Not surprising that you would bollix that up.
But this insipid analogy again assumes, without proof, that God "isn't real". As adults, we are keenly aware that we are basically lying through our teeth to our kids when we tell them about such characters as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. This simply isn't the case with religious things. An adult telling her child about God or Jesus or whomever, generally speaking, sincerely believes that which she is telling her child.
The point is merely to show that the analogy doesn't hold, but you will no doubt misconstrue this as an attempt at "proof" on my part. Listening, and comprehending, are things you consistently show to have problems with.
Courage? It takes "courage" to say, "Hell cannot exist, so I can do whatever I want in this life with no eternal consequences"??
It takes "courage" to emptily boast, "I'm more mature than you"?
Keep telling yourself whatever you want to hear.
I am not the one who brings it in to the discussion. That would be your fellow atheists, but it ain't surprising that you would blame me.
I was using poetic license, but the point is that the evidence shows abrupt changes, as opposed to gradualism, at least according to the scientists I cited in message #266, and even the link provided by Feynmaniac stated the following (emphasis added):
Consider their example, even (emphasis added):
What this tells me is that gradualism is assumed in spite of the actual evidence. The theory drives the interpretation of the evidence, rather than the evidence driving the theory. That is what I meant by my "all at once" remark -- the evidence shows an "all at once" (or "abrupt") change, and the gradualism is merely superimposed.
As a collective, you guys affirm that observation with consistency.
Such as the belief that lifeless matter can produce life, unaided. Or that natural forces can produce a genome, unaided. Like I've said before, I consider that to be a fairy-tale, and you guys don't have evidence to conclusively support those claims.
Yeah, I know you guys try to sell atheism as a benign lack of belief, but your collective behavior belies such a claim. When you assert that there absolutely is no god, no afterlife, no free will, etcetera, it certainly comes across as a positive, assertive believe in the lack of things. In other words, it ain't a lack of belief, but a belief of lack. At least, that's how it comes across.
As I explained before, what if, in this eternal realm where this God allegedly resides, Time simply doesn't exist, and terms like "before" or "after" simply have no meaning? After all, we are all pretty much in agreement that "before the Big Bang" doesn'thave any meaning, because Time began at the Big Bang. It would be like saying "north of the North Pole".
I submit that we simply cannot make any hard and fast claims about that which lies beyond Space and Time, at least not with any certainty. We are trapped in what appears to be a linear time-line; we simply cannot grasp any aspects of reality that may exist outside of that.
So now it's an "ambiguous" phrase or term? How convenient. Besides, again, it's you guys who keep bringing it up, not me.
Assuming this is true for the sake of argument, what this means is that for the vast majority of the Universe's history, meaning and purpose did in fact not exist, and when life on this Earth goes extinct, meaning will cease to exist along with it. Intelligent life has only existed for a blink of an eye, cosmologically speaking (unless, of course, we find evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence). If "meaning" or "purpose" exist for only a couple of eyeblinks in this vast Universe, I submit that "meaning" itself is meaningless.
Yeah, this should be good for a hearty belly-laugh, at your expense of course.
Which, of course, explains why I took steps to resolve said ambiguity. If I ruffled a few feathers in the process, well, I was under the impression that you were big boys, but perhaps I was mistaken.
I was responding to a specific claim:
Can you manage to comprehend that? "'X' as a shortening of 'ex'", nothing more.
I realize that such abstract concepts as "context" must be utterly bewildering to minds as simple as yours, otherwise you wouldn't be so adamant about avoiding such.
I never made the claim that they did, nor does my argument require that they do. Like I said before, I used a two-step process. The first step was to use X to mean "ex", and that is pretty well supported by the Google searches I posted.
The second step is to use "ex" to mean "former", which is also pretty standard.
Now, I realize that you, quite simply, will petulantly refuse to accept this argument, but that hardly matters. The simple fact is that you guys jumped to an erroneous conclusion as to what my moniker means. Of course, "unknown lurker" would be redundant, as the very act of lurking is to remain unknown. Also, it would be contradictory for a "lurker" to be posting; once a lurker starts posting, they, obviously, are no longer lurking. They are an ex-lurker.
The way you manage to mangle my argument is indeed so indicative.
The irony continues, full-bore.
You mean, like your mangled argument against my use of "X" as "former"? Besides, I wasn't making an argument. I was asking a question.
Which might explain why I said, "so many of the ancient polytheistic pantheons...".
If you'd noticed (that is, if you were smart enough to notice), you'd see that I did in fact qualify my statement in such a fashion, and did, in fact, not claim that "all ancient polytheistic pantheons" were history.
More evidence of your "issues with comprehension"...
I never claimed otherwise. I can't even make a simple observation without upsetting your delicate sensitivities, apparently. Not that I give a care, just making yet another observation.
Wow, did you think that up all by yourself, or did sis help?
There. Fixed it for you.
So which of those 38,000 sects represents "standard" Christianity?
Moreso than you. Granted, that isn't hard.
But that's just it -- I don't think much "intelligence" or "cleverness" is required to chat with you lot. It ain't as if you guys are displaying such...
If you'd noticed (that is, if you were smart enough to notice), you'd see that I used the plural form -- "you guys have been falling all over yourselves" -- which should suggest that I was speaking to and about a collective, as opposed to an individual.
I don't recall claiming that any deity was "a product of a human mind". That is your claim.
Got evidence that lifeless matter can produce life? Got evidence that natural forces can create a genome? Remember, I asked first.
Just as soon as you prove that lifeless matter can produce life, that natural forces can create a genome.
What does that mean, exactly? Does it mean that you have personally engaged in a "persistent searching for" God (or a reasonable facsimile thereof)? Or does it merely mean you've searched for vindication of your pre-existing world-view?
Well, this strongly suggests that you were not looking for God at any level, which was my question. Your answer is a complete non sequitur.
So you claim to speak on behalf of humanity when you rant that we "don't have any empirical evidence for [our] god, only anecdotes. [We] have no positive evidence for any god existing at any time..." And yet, right or wrong, large segments, perhaps even the majority of that humanity seems to have found God in some form or another, alleged "lack of evidence" notwithstanding.
Of course, this doesn't prove that God exists, but I'm confident that such a knee-jerk miscontruing of my words is at the tip of your virtual tongue. No, the point is that you are merely being arrogant in presuming to speak for all of humanity.
Echo chamber much? I mean, this is the epitome of what it means for a venue to be an echo chamber, one person quoting another merely to agree with what was quoted.
Utter nonsense. I was a grad student myself, studying applied mathematics. The concept of "ethics" was never mentioned. Ever. And if you seriously believe that your dismal behavior here represents ethical behavior, all I can say is that you're seriously deluded.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 30, 2009 10:18 PM
*looks up at X (as in former (heheheh)) Lurker's tl;dr post*
*yawns*
*leaves*
Posted by: Kel
|
September 30, 2009 11:30 PM
The fact that life exists and the non-infinite regress of the 4-dimensional bubble universe we reside in shows that one can go from non-life to life. How is the question, to which I cannot give an answer. Can you give an answer? Can you show evidence to support such an answer?
Yes, it's been discussed already. You even agreed that it would work. The problem arises in how genetic life started in the first place and I've already said I don't know that. Evolution can build the genome, it cannot build the DNA. The process by which genetic life started is still unknown. How did this happen? Got any evidence?
Are you going to be like that? Even if you've asked first it doesn't stop you from having to answer such questions. If you're only trying to berate others, you don't do anything to promote your own worldview. Even if we were wrong, it still doesn't make you right. A Muslim might be able to smack down a Buddhist, but I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't take it to mean that the Muslim was right... What world-view? What it means is that I was seeking answers and I went out to look for them. You don't think that enough? Then fuck you! I really fucking struggled through that time in my life, yet because I didn't come up with your beliefs somehow I must have hit on my pre-existing worldview? I explained that I changed, I came out the other side with a whole new perspective. But no, I went in as an atheist and came out as one, so despite me having a radically different outlook on nature itself it must have been that I validated my pre-existing worldview. Fuck you, you condescending shit! You're a fuck, did you know that? My answer isn't a complete non-sequitor, I was explaining why your question was absurd. Did I look for religion? I did. I sought truth in whatever form it takes. I didn't find the Christian deity despite the insistance of many people I interacted with - which is not surprising being in a predominantly Christian society. I did look, I didn't come up with Christianity. So despite the encouragement of those around me, despite growing up and being taught Christianity, I didn't find to be anything more than childish myth. The question is, why Christianity as opposed to Islam or Norse or Buddhism or Scientology? If you can't give a compelling reason as to why Christianity wins out over all other religions, then how the fuck could you expect me to find God? Note the word empirical. Can you show me one example in the history of the world of any empirical validation that any supernatural agent has acted in the world in regard to this species? So despite billions of people worldwide believing in god, the best they ever do is infer agency - and that's normal. Yet why is there the need for missionaries? Surely eskimo tribes can sense that Yahweh exists on their own. Nomadic tribesmen in Siberia recognise God as opposed to what we would call animist beliefs. That in tribal africa people wouldn't see ancestor spirits but would only see The Holy Spirit, that wiches are just the faith healers of the area.Throughout the world we see different ideas of the supernatural, and the experiences they claim to be divine have turned out to have completely naturalistic explanations. The only way you're ever going to be a Christian is to hear the word, without it no-one would ever know that salvation is through vicarious atonement on the cross. No-one would know the moral commands of Yahweh. Yet the aboriginals in Australia have existed for 40,000 years with the giant rainbow serpent as the creator of the lands. So I ask again, why Christianity? Why not the Giant Rainbow Serpent? Why not the bunyip? With the bunyip, aboriginals can point to the bones... (for anyone interested, the bones are an extinct species of giant wombat)
Wow, someone agrees with someone else therefore this place is an echo-chamber? I sometimes agree with what others say, sometimes I take issue. So when I agree this place is an echo chamber and when I don't, then what? Got confirmation-bias? Fucker!Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 30, 2009 11:35 PM
Yawn, tl;dr. X-Lurker, you deity doesn't exist and your babble is a work of fiction. You have presented no evidence to the contrary. Science and scientists have no need to share your inane and insane delusions. Just another wasted post for the delusional fool.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
October 1, 2009 12:13 AM
(e)x(crement)-lurker shows us just how much intellectual honesty we can expect from Christians - goalpost shifting, god of the gaps - and throws in misogyny to boot; to whit:
and
What a charming, woman-hating scumbag you are.
Then there's this:
Please cite the number of the post where someone wrote 'there absolutely is no god, no afterlife, no free will etcetera...' It's certainly not what I believe - and nor would I say it's what most atheists believe. We lack belief in your god because we see no reason to believe - there is neither compelling evidence to believe in your god nor persuasive argument to overcome that lack of evidence.
We also don't believe in all the other gods - the same ones you yourself don't believe in.
Are you saying you're not a Christian? Are you claiming your god doesn't love you? Or are you arguing that the words omnipotent and omnibenevolent don't mean what they're accepted to mean? Or are you claiming that your god isn't either (or both) of those things?
Not that I'm expecting you to answer - or, at least, answer honestly; by cowering behind half-revealed truths and vague sectarian sophistry you can continue to whimper that the logical impossibility of your god existing can be avoided - just as long as you continue to redefine the aspects of your god and the tenets of your religion in order to dodge criticism.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 1, 2009 7:21 AM
OK, I just can't help myself, but that kind of mashed-banana logic is exactly why I find it mostly pointless to continue arguing with you.
Yes! You actually got that one right IMO. No human brains (or their equivalent), no meaning. Simple. What's so awful about accepting meaning as something created through culture and personal experiences (sometimes in the form of *gulp* religion and spirituality)?
And more mashed-banana logic.
Holy Santa Claus Shit! X-Lurker got another one right in the middle of an e(x)crement sandwich. But X, look more closely at the analogy. The know-it-all child really truly believed Santa was real before finding out he isn't real. This child assumed, without proof, that Santa "was real". You'll have to explain why it "simply isn't the case with religious things" [emphasis added].
You're looking at it all wrong. OK, go back to the Santa analogy that you apparently hate so much. You are the only child in your class at school of 20 children who knows Santa isn't real based on evidence that Santa is your father (or mother). Would it not take courage to tell some of the other children they are all mistaken in their belief that Santa is real?Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 1, 2009 7:24 AM
Sorry, I forgot to add that my last comment is full of quotes from X-Lurker and directed at X-Lurker.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 1, 2009 8:07 AM
X-Lurker, tell you what. I'll consider your god if you consider the non-existence of god for the same time. I considered god for the first 14 years of my life. Then I read the bible cover to cover, and decided Yahweh was one sick MF, and slowly became an atheist. You need to consider the non-existence of your imaginary deity for at least ten years. Then, and only then, we can debate the subject. Right now you are just preaching (proselytizing), and doing a piss poor job at it.
Posted by: Kel
|
October 2, 2009 6:45 PM
One of the great things about being brought up in a secular household is that right and wrong were never tied to God. Thus I have never been able to understand those theists who argue that I'm atheist because I want to act in consequences free from God. Does this mean that theism comes down on the side of the Euthyphro dilemma that morality is an arbitrary construct of the gods? That right and wrong are merely what an amoral entity decided what is best for us to do?So no, I've never understood what it means to say "I can do whatever I want in this life with no eternal consequences", especially as there are non-eternal consequences. Though consequences aren't the only reasons to mandate behaviour, we have a brain nicely wired to have a moral conscience.
Posted by: Jim
|
October 2, 2009 8:00 PM
X-Lurker: "The theory drives the interpretation of the evidence, rather than the evidence driving the theory."
As you may know, X-Lurker, the case for Darwinian evolutionary theory has long been plagued by theoretically self-referential (or circular) reasoning. Consider, for example, the labeling of "transitional forms" in the fossil record. Unless one first assumes Darwinian evolution, he has no reason for labeling any fossil a "transitional form." Indeed, it is quite senseless to speak of "transitional forms" (in a Darwinian sense) without first assuming that Darwinian evolution occurred, and that such evolution was capable of effecting the kind of major transformations needed for all complex life forms to have evolved from the first "simple" life form. Yet Darwinian evolution and the transformative changes it can effect are the very things in question. One can't simply assume that such transformative evolution in fact occurred and then look for fossils that could be labeled "transitional forms." In reasoning of that kind, the theory informs the labeling of "transitional forms," which in turn "confirms" the theory. One doesn't need to be a logician to know that such circular reasoning can't confirm anything. Thomas S. Kemp (Curator, Zoological Museum, Oxford University) explained the problem this way (in "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist 108, Dec. 5, 1985: 66-67):
"A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"
The circularity in reasoning that Darwinists apply to the fossil record is palpable, but they seem to be entirely oblivious to it, probably because their deep devotion to their theory blinds them to any theoretical or evidentiary problems with it. This willful blindness (which is regularly demonstrated by the Pharyngula choir) brings to mind something physicist Richard Feynman once said, to wit: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
Posted by: IaMoL
|
October 2, 2009 8:10 PM
Jim. you're obviously not. I'm surprised you can even figure out which buttons to push on your keyboard. - Loved the strawchoristermen fallacy, you must be so proud.Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 2, 2009 8:25 PM
Jim #357
Another idiot creationist with a caricature of the theory of evolution. I wouldn't mind creationists quite as much if they were arguing against evolution rather than the strawman they pretend is evolution.
Posted by: Jim
|
October 2, 2009 8:37 PM
WowbaggerOM: "Please cite the number of the post where someone wrote 'there absolutely is no god'..."
Post 121: "Your god doesn't exist..." - Nerd of Redhead
Post 233: "Your deity doesn't exist..." - Nerd of Redhead
Post 293: "Your god doesn't exist..." - Nerd of Redhead
Post 303: "...the false presupposition that god exists..." -Nerd of Redhead
Post 351: "...you (sic) deity doesn't exist..." - Nerd of Redhead
Post 225: "...you and other theists believe a fictional character (no more real than Harry Potter) gives your lives meaning." - aratina cage
Posted by: Kel
|
October 2, 2009 8:42 PM
Okay, how about you show a fossil that is out of place in the fossil record? Are there any mammals in the precambrian rocks? Are there any birds in the Cambrian? Are there any reptiles before amphibians? No, we don't see any of that in nature. So while geologists use a variety of techniques for relative and absolute dating of rocks, somehow evolution becomes circular even though what is predicted to be in the rocks fits the pattern.In rocks older than 370 million years there are no tetrapods. So to look for transitional forms between lobed-finned fish and tetrapods, evolution predicts that such creatures would be found in rock ~375 million years old. Palaeontologists go and look in rocks of that age and find the transitional fossils that were predicted to be there. Yep, totally circular.
The only way it could possibly be circular if the geological column was sorted by what we should expect to find in evolution. But that's not how the geological structures work. Until a few weeks ago, the only dinosaurs found with feathers were younger than archeopteryx. So why if the argument is circular wouldn't the palaeontologists say that the younger rock where the feathered dinosaurs were found was older than the rocks in which archeopteryx was found? Maybe it's because evolutionary theory is not how geologists determine the relative and absolute ages of rocks.
But that of course is my circular argument. ;) Of course even if the argument is circular, it doesn't mean that the fossil record doesn't fit evolution. It just means that the pattern I'm imposing on it is based on a conclusion I've already drawn. The fact that scientists can predict what fossils to find in what rocks, including transitional forms shows that it's not circular. But don't let that stop you dismissing it. It just shows further that God is nothing more than a placeholder for human ignorance so that science and God are intrinsically opposed.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 2, 2009 8:44 PM
And your point is what, Jim? You got any evidence that your god exists? We didn't think so. No evidence, no god. That's called the null hypothesis. If you were half the logician you pretend you are, you'd know that.
Posted by: Jim
|
October 2, 2009 8:48 PM
"Tis Himself: "Another idiot creationist with a caricature of the theory of evolution."
What caricature is that, you insufferable ass and colossal ignoramus? (I hope I've met the low-level of discourse that is de rigueur here.) Are you suggesting that Darwinian evolutionary theory doesn't explain how complex life forms evolved from the first "simple" life form?
Adios. My brief stop here is over. I don't know why I ever check in on Pharyngula, aside from the pleasure I get from watching PZ Myers and his amen chorus make asses of themselves.
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 2, 2009 8:48 PM
Jim, (any god) ≠ (your god).
Universal vs. particular.
You've cited examples of the latter, Wowbagger asked for the former.
Care to try again?
Posted by: gyeong-hwa
|
October 2, 2009 8:51 PM
Bye, as you already made an ass of yourself by failing to provide any evidence for your god or creation.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 2, 2009 8:54 PM
Jim, please. Scientific theories—all of them—are either confirmed by the evidence, disproved by the evidence, or not applicable to the evidence. It is crucial that the theory fits the evidence, and when you have a good theory, it continually fits the applicable evidence. The theory of evolution fits the fossil record astonishingly well. This is not circular in the least.
Say you plan to go hunting, and you test out your gun-sight. You find out that it is off by x-amount from repeated testing. So you decide to always fire your gun to compensate for that factor; you call it the theory of compensation for my little gun. Then you go hunting. You aim your gun at the target through the gun-sight using the compensation factor you calculated in your theory, and it works. You inspect the kill and find out you hit the target point dead-on. Your theory is confirmed once again by reality. How is that circular reasoning?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 2, 2009 8:57 PM
Wrong Jim, you have shown no evidence for your imaginary deity. Big time failure on your part. You and the amen chorus of creobots always fail at the evidence point. This isn't a philosophical discussion, but a scientific discussion, where the evidence always wins. A million or so scientific papers in the peer reviewed literature support evolution directly and indirectly. Zero papers support creationism. In order to over through evolution those papers must be refuted in the scientific literature. Where are those papers Jim? So who really has egg on their face? It isn't the scientists. Idjits like you Jim.Posted by: Josh
|
October 2, 2009 8:58 PM
Jim won't answer your question. He has already played the creationist card of declaring victory and walking away.
Oh, sorry. I guess that was an...echo, right?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 2, 2009 9:00 PM
*headdesk* Doh, Friday night after dinner, the old typing skills go down. #367, In order to over
throughthrow evolution...Posted by: Josh
|
October 2, 2009 9:03 PM
Ha. I know that feeling.
Posted by: Kel
|
October 2, 2009 9:06 PM
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
October 2, 2009 9:11 PM
John Morales, #364 - exactly. Typical limited Christian reading comprehension at work - not to mention small-minded religiocentric thinking. Jim obviously isn't clued in enough to realise that other people believe in gods other than his - and have identical reasons for doing so.
Posted by: X-Lurker
|
October 3, 2009 1:27 PM
Well, obviously. The question is, how? Can non-living matter, all by itself, create life? That was my question.
Finally!
I could give you an answer, obviously, and just as obvious is that you would reject the answer I gave.
Support? I don't know. In theory, I could, but not in a blog sound bite. It would take a while to build the argument, and it would take an open mind on your part. (Go ahead, call me a fucker again. Child.)
And you could simply reject anything I submit, as a matter of course.
Where, allegedly? Provide a quote, and say which message # it comes from.
Well, you guys don't give me much choice, do you?
To repeat yet again...
I came in here with a couple of observations, and a challenge. One observation was that this place is an echo chamber, which you guys substantiate over and over again. Another observation was that the Universe doesn't have a "point" if there is no God (but try to comprehend the fact that I never claimed that there was a point if there was a God -- I only claimed that there wasn't if there wasn't), therefore, demanding that I have a "point" when posting here is irrational.
Those were the observations. We have gone 'round and 'round on them already, I have had to repeat myself numerous times because you guys don't listen very well, and/or you don't comprehend very well. What is comical is how often you guys reveal your intellectual laziness with "tl;dr" replies, and then apparently get so miffed when told you don't listen/comprehend. Yes, when you guys repeat the same lame "criticisms" of my arguments over and over, and I find myself repeating the same defenses over and over, I think "echo chamber", and I find myself thinking "these guys don't listen/comprehend".
And the challenge was for you to provide evidence that natural forces could produce a genome. The best I got was (Message #249):
"Have certain structures that give survival advantage"? How, exactly? Magic? Random chance? Unfortunately, the vast majority of random chance mutations are detrimental. Only a small number are beneficial, but if you need a trillion beneficial mutations, you need to go through "a few trillion" detrimental ones to get there. I don't off-hand recall by what ratio the bad outnumber the good, but I do recall that the ratio made the feasibility of the whole enterprise quite questionable. But I digress.
The point is that it's easy to say, "have this" necessary item without explaining how to get it.
"...hey presto you have a process capable of generating genomes."
That part in italics is typically what an actual magician might say during his act, whether you meant it that way or not. Also, the ev program you cited doesn't create genomes, yet you implicitly claim that it is enough to show how a natural process could create a genome.
Throw Time at the problem ("Repeat the process a few trillion times..."), magically invoke advantage, ("...have certain structures that give survival advantage, and hey presto..."), and add a copious amount of faith to the mix, and voila! a process that can generate a genome.
Well, to me, that again sounds like a fairy tale, a fairy tale for atheists. You later admit that you didn't know how nature could create a genome (message #301):
Well, it's good that we've made this much progress, but the point, of course, is that you will stubbornly hold that "no God is required", even though you implicitly admit that you have no evidence whatsoever of non-living matter creating life unaided, or of natural forces creating a genome (which includes the genetic code and information content encoded by that code).
When you believe an assertion without evidence, you are no longer in the realmof science. You are in the realm of faith.
When I go back and review the discourse, this is what I find:
Now I realize that you guys aren't very big on context, but frankly, that's your problem, collectively speaking.
When answering my specifically God-oriented question, you stated that you "searched for the truth of this reality", and immediately followed that up with, "your point is mute (sic) -- why does it have to be me?" You even emphasized the word "me" in your reply, suggesting that anyone else but you could do what I was asking about. The fact is, however, that only you can seek "God" -- no one else can do so on your behalf. This suggests rather strongly that searching for God was not what your answer was about.
You then followed that up with a couple of scientific references. "Did I have to crack the genome? Did I have to drop the hammer & feather in a vacuum?"
Well, whether you like it or not, you created a context of science/materialism with your reply. Dropping a hammer and a feather does absolutely nothing to address whether a God exists. Likewise, the act of cracking the genetic code does nothing to address whether a God exists. So your examples steered the discussion away from God and toward science, which, in message #278, you stated, "All science is atheistic in its mechanisms."
I asked you specifically whether you personally searched for God, and your reply had a decidedly materialistic/scientific context to it. Absolutely nothing about your reply even hinted at any kind of spiritual soul-searching or spiritual quest of any kind. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch.
Am I going too fast for you?
You replied that you searched for the truth of this reality, but the "this reality" you were talking about seemed very much to be a materialist reality. The fact that you replied "I've searched for the truth of this reality, yes.", as opposed to, "I've searched for God/the trancesndent/enlightenment/whatever, yes." again suggest materialism at the outset.
That is why I replied:
If comprehending written English, and grasping concepts such as "context", make me a "fuck", well, so be it.
So now you ccme crawling back with your "I really fucking struggled through that time in my life" in some attempt at guilt-tripping? Sorry, not gonna buy it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 3, 2009 1:40 PM
X-lurker, still no physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Philosophical sophistry, which you specialize in, won't cut the mustard here. Until you present that physical evidence, the null hypothesis is that your deity doesn't exist. Occam's razor, or parsimony in action. So, either show some physical evidence or go away.
Posted by: X-Lurker
|
October 3, 2009 1:57 PM
I have to admit that you guys are starting to wear me down. There is only so much irrational, childish behavior I can put up with, and the fact is I've done what I've set out to accomplish, which was simply to illustrate how irrational you lot truly are, any pretense to "reason" notwithstanding.
But there are only so many temper tantrums I am willing to entertain, and I have reached my quota for now. The emotionalist noise certainly does drown out any atttempt at actual discourse, which was my belief going in.
Now, before you all congratulate youselves in yet another disturbing circle-jerk display, understand that I am not done here. I am simply taking a break of a few days. There are still some issues I want to address.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 3, 2009 2:07 PM
You aren't the adult here, we are. You are childish as you haven't put away your belief in imaginary things like deities.No, you simply showed how irrational you are.Unless you have physical evidence, don't bother coming back. That is the only thing that will sway us.Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 3, 2009 2:17 PM
What you've actually done is shown how irrational and ignorant you are. You came to an atheist site run by a biologist and tried to push a creation story based on religious myth. You started out by sneering at us. Now you're whining that your arrogance was not greeted with the humility you apparently felt it deserved.
I told you once before that you're not as clever as you think you are. Thanks for providing further evidence to support my point.
Posted by: Dania
|
October 3, 2009 2:22 PM
Why am I not surprised that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?
Posted by: Mr T
|
October 3, 2009 2:59 PM
You'll only accept "physical evidence", Nerd? That's so irrational and childish. The emotionalist noise and circle-jerking in such an echo chamber as this is disturbing ... I'll be back! *cue ominous music*
Playing godbot mad-libs is sort of fun, but I feel dirty now. The irony is starting to get to me.
It's hard to even imagine what could constitute non-physical evidence, but it would be refreshing if X-lurker and other IDiots could at least avoid whining about red herrings and strawmen. Just produce whatever evidence you think there is to support your own claim! Of course I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: X-Lurker
|
October 3, 2009 3:19 PM
Dania (#378)
I guess Richard Dawkins "doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about"??
http://www.arn.org/docs/dawkins.mpg
He says, and I quote, "...most mutations are bad."
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 3, 2009 3:22 PM
Well X-lurker, you don't know what you are talking about either. Try the peer reviewed scientific literature. It has answers for your sophomoric questions.
Posted by: X-Lurker
|
October 3, 2009 3:32 PM
And it would be even more refreshing if you guys could at least avoid using them with such reckless abandon...Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 3, 2009 3:42 PM
Just to show what a liar and bullshitter you are, you promised you would be away for a few days. Typical of ignorant godbots like yourself. They never tell the truth. Which is why we call them Liars for Jebus™. Of course, they claim they never lie, which is another lie...Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 3, 2009 3:53 PM
He says, and I quote, "...most mutations are bad."
sounds like a quotemine to me, but everyone says things that aren't accurate.
most mutations, by orders of magnitude, are neutral.
...of course what simpletons, or the ignorant, don't get is that when we say "random mutations", we mean wrt to fitness itself.
IOW, the probability of any given mutation occurring is generally not affected by whether or not it would affect fitness.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 3, 2009 3:55 PM
I've done what I've set out to accomplish, which was simply to
illustrate how irrational you lot truly areattempt to falsely validate my own preconceptions, any pretense to "reason" on my part notwithstanding.fixed.
Posted by: X-Lurker
|
October 3, 2009 3:57 PM
And you merely assumed that the break would start immediately. Sorry if you're heartbroken because I haven't left yet.Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 3, 2009 3:59 PM
Absolutely nothing about your reply even hinted at any kind of spiritual soul-searching or spiritual quest of any kind. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch.
go figure. All of that is subjective. It's not science, none. zip. nada. zilch.
none of it is independently reproducible. none of it is falsibiable.
that you don't grasp this simple fact is why you continue to fail to understand how science works, and why it works.
...and why religion and "spirituality" fail to explain anything.
there's a reason science has grown so much as not only a field of endeavor, but has been gradually more and more incorporated into people's worldviews, displacing relgion:
It just fucking works.
Posted by: X-Lurker
|
October 3, 2009 4:00 PM
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 3, 2009 4:02 PM
And it would be even more refreshing if you guys could at least avoid using them with such reckless abandon...
yet another religiotard, projecting as a form of apologetic.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 3, 2009 4:04 PM
doctored to say what I want it to say.
I'll let others be the judge of that.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 3, 2009 4:04 PM
X-lurker. It is evidence that separates science from philosophy. Philosophy without physical evidence is sophistry, as you kept proving above. Physical evidence grounds science in reality, which is what makes is useful to mankind. Science will keep improving mankind in many ways into the future. Religion and imaginary deities tries to drag mankind back to the Middle Ages.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 3, 2009 4:16 PM
a long ways back, a moron said:
In principle, this record [the fossil record] simply cannot show us how evolution took place. It cannot tell us what mechanism created them; random variation filtered by natural selection is merely assumed to be the primary mechanism.
This has to have been said by someone who has never actually looked at any given evolutionary sequence recorded in the fossil record.
there are many fine-grained sequences we have seen, where the changes recorded do indeed reflect exactly what we would expect, also knowing from independent evidence what the local changes in climate and other environmental variables were during the same time periods.
In fact, this is exactly how we figured out how to use fossils to look for deposits of oil.
your ignorance of what we actually do know wrt to the fossil record simply makes you look like an fool when you state things that simply aren't true like this.
...and you have the gall to say we are producing strawmen armies??
like I said, it never ceases to amaze me how much the religious are literally forced to project their own folly onto others, simply in order to maintain a defense for their own failures of reason.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 3, 2009 4:20 PM
...btw, should you actually choose to repair your ignorance on this issue (or for anyone who wishes to do so, in fact), this is an excellent book on the topic of fossil series and the mechanisms of evolution:
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624
very enjoyable and well written. I wish I had it when I was a teenager just starting to learn about paleontology and biology.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 3, 2009 4:34 PM
Well, obviously. The question is, how? Can non-living matter, all by itself, create life? That was my question.
1. define "life"
is a virus alive?
2. If you wanted to find out how life came about, how would you go about doing it such that you would have an answer that actually worked?
would you:
read an ancient cobbled collection of goatherder stories?
would you:
look inside yourself and rely on all your vast experience to invent an answer?
or would you:
attempt to actually go and develop hypotheses based on what we actually DO know, and then proceed to try and test them?
which one of these things do you think would be the most productive method of answering your original question?
if you think anything but the last method would work, get your ass on out there and fucking well prove it then.
science is around because it's the ONLY method that's been actually proven to consistently provide reliable and predictive explanations for the questions we ask of the world around us.
period.
you can masturbate yourself until your dick falls off, that simply ain't gonna change the facts on the ground.
Posted by: Dania
|
October 3, 2009 4:59 PM
That sounded like a quote-mine to me too, so I did some digging and...
First, the whole thing. That clip X-Lurker linked to leaves out an important part of the question posed to Dawkins.
Here's the relevant quote, beginning at 11:43 (emphasis added):
So, Dawkins did say that most mutations are bad. That's wrong. Most mutations are neutral.
But let's look at the context. What was he talking about? He was talking about "fruitful novelties upon which natural selection exerts it's pressures". And, obviously, neutral mutations do not produce novelties upon which natural selection can exert pressure. So, maybe when Dawkins said that "most mutations are bad" he thought it was implicit that he was talking about mutations that can be selected for or against by natural selection, that is, non-neutral mutations. I think this is a fair interpretation of Dawkins' words, given the context.
But of course nothing of this matters to whether most mutations are deleterious or neutral. As Ichthyic said, everyone says things that aren't accurate, and Dawkins is no exception. I just thought it would be fair to give some context to that small phrase quoted by X-Lurker...
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 3, 2009 5:07 PM
So, maybe when Dawkins said that "most mutations are bad" he thought it was implicit that he was talking about mutations that can be selected for or against by natural selection, that is, non-neutral mutations. I think this is a fair interpretation of Dawkins' words, given the context.
yup, and exactly what I figured having read Dawkins on the subject for literally decades now.
It should demonstrate to the likes of x-lurker why it's not a good idea to rely on "direct quotes" from places like ARN or AIG or the Disinformation Institute, but fuck me if these folks don't really give a shit whether what they quote is accurate or not, so long as it supports their preferential preconceptions.
as Kel pointed out early on, it's intellectual dishonesty at its finest, and it's so common with religiotards that I have to believe there is an underlying psychological malady.
Posted by: Dania
|
October 3, 2009 5:32 PM
Careful, Ichthyic. You quoted me to agree with me* and then you agreed with Kel on the same post. OMG it's an echo chamber!!!!1!!11!!
*What do you mean it wasn't only to agree with me, it was to make your own point? If X-Lurker says it is an echo chamber, then it is an echo chamber.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 3, 2009 5:34 PM
Another problem idjits like X-Lurker have is that they tend to think of science having its "authorities", who everyone else bows down to. Like Darwin for evolution. Scientists acknowledge two things about Darwin. First, he did an exemplary job of gathering together disparate pieces of evidence from biology and geology, based on the work at that time, and put them together in a way that made sense of the fossil record and life on earth. Second, he mangled a few ideas, such as he had no good hypothesis for heredity, which came later. Now, 150 years later, we recognize both his genius and his flaws. Appealing to Dawkins was an appeal to authority on X-Lurkers part. We knew Dawkins was strictly wrong (the scientific literature), so appealing to his authority did nothing. So Dania investigated further, getting the full story, and find Dawkins is correct in what he said based upon the bigger picture of his responding to a particular question. In reality, scientists are a very smart and independent bunch, and realize some of its most respected members can go off the deep end on occasion. At the end of the day, every scientist makes decisions based on their own background, and the trust in the methodology of science.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 3, 2009 5:44 PM
*What do you mean it wasn't only to agree with me, it was to make your own point? If X-Lurker says it is an echo chamber, then it is an echo chamber.
Helloooooo!....
Hellooo...
helloo...
hello...
hell...
...
Posted by: Kel
|
October 3, 2009 6:39 PM
How does it work? Quite simple, any variation giving an advantage exponentially flows through the subsequent generations, so even if advantageous mutations are rarer over the time scales we are talking about they will quickly accumulate.By the way, what may be harmful to some can be advantageous to others. I remember Sean Carrol in a lecture talking about Channichthyidae and the mutations they have acquired for living in antarctic waters. Those mutations if they cropped up in other species would be downright fatal, but because of the environment the species was in the mutations were advantageous.
Okay, can you explain to me exactly what the God hypothesis adds to the origin of life? What does it tell us scientifically? How did the origin of life happen? You don't know? Good, then you're on the same boat as me. I don't know, I'm betting no-one knows yet (though there are biochemists who know far more about the topic than I). Do I have faith that God wasn't involved in the process? Not any more than I have faith that The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, Thor, or Ziltoid The Omniscient weren't involved. It's not that I have faith in the not, but I don't have any faith that any of them were. Ooooh, the positive requires faith so the not-positive requires faith!!!I didn't say I had faith in not-God, I said I don't know. Please show some intellectual honesty in this situation, instead of trying to score semantic points. I don't know how the origin of life started. It could be a seemingly infinity of things. So if you have any evidence that it was the Judeo-Christian god, please present it. Because until you do, or scientists show how it happened in the lab, I'm sticking with the null hypothesis. I don't know how life began. You don't know how life began either so don't pretend that you do. Saying "God did it" explains nothing about how life began and the only reason to say such a thing is for the ethical and existential implications of saying such a statement!
Posted by: Kel
|
October 3, 2009 6:45 PM
I seek the truth, whatever form that may take. You're still an absolute fuck because you're completely misrepresenting what I had to say. My point was that while I didn't crack the genome, that came into my thinking. How old the universe is, not my work at all, yet that came into my thinking. My thinking was tying what I've learned altogether. If my answer came up with God - the Judeo-Christian construct, not any gods, but God - then so be it. But it wasn't a search for your deity, it was a search to understand reality. I didn't find your God by looking at reality!Posted by: Kel
|
October 3, 2009 7:07 PM
I said I searched reality, if the spiritual didn't lie in reality then I didn't find it. Are you saying that theism is wrong? Thank you, you've validated my point. I searched for understanding the universe and my place in it. If you god is not part of the universe, then you can hardly fault me for not finding it. I thought you believed in an interventionist deity... I thought all Christians did. Funny thing was at this point in my life Christians tried to convert me, yet every time they did they pointed at elements that were fundamentally at odds with how the universe worked. What does that say about theism?What you fail to appreciate is that materialism can be spiritual, that the worldview doesn't exclude gods by definition but rather hasn't found a single one. Just say tomorrow we see hundreds of stars exploding that said "Yahweh Is Lord" in the sky. Now has anything immaterial happened there? No, it's still stars exploding - a completely materialistic phenomenon. Yet it would be pretty unambiguously the work of the Judeo-Christian construct of god.
When you seek truth, you need to look at science. If you don't look at science, then you are engaging in sophistry. Science is the context by which to put everything by. Science is an atheistic process in that it doesn't consider supernatural causes. But that doesn't mean that the universe stops being 13.7 billion years old just because science didn't consider that the big bang was caused by God. It doesn't stop the fact that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old or that life evolved.
See, I'm here talking about a really difficult time in my life and you're interested in playing a game of semantics? You're an absolute fucker!!! I lay out my personal story and you twist my words to dismiss what I had to say. It couldn't be that I didn't find an interventionist deity, it couldn't be that despite the trying of many, I didn't become a Christian, it must be that I didn't really look. That way you fucker you can dismiss whatever I have to say. Seriously, fuck you! I tried to open up to you, to explain myself as a person, but no. You just dismiss it out of hand because I didn't do it the way you expect me to do. Fuck you!
Posted by: Mr T
|
October 4, 2009 9:10 AM
X-Lurker, let's take this one step at a time.
A) You believe "God" exists.
B) You want to know if most mutations are good, bad, or neutral.
C) You want to know the mechanism for abiogenesis, which in case you don't realize is a separate issue than evolution.
D) You apparently don't know or care much about the universe prior to the beginning of life on Earth.
We've addressed B, and C to some extent, but this raises some extremly important questions for intrepid theologians and godbotting trolls alike (please show your work):
1) What evidence is there that any sort of supernatural being exists or has ever existed? Ignorance is not evidence. For that matter, has anyone ever seen any kind of disembodied intelligence generate matter, or hasn't it always been our experience that matter generates intelligence? Without such experience, how can it even be plausible to infer that a disembodied intelligence created everything? Did "God" himself invent the special pleading fallacy?
2) Are most supernatural beings good, bad, or neutral? This includes gods, demigods, angels, demons, souls, etc. Do they ever change or appear to act randomly?
3) What is the mechanism by which this "God" arose from either inanimate matter or nothing whatsoever? If abiogenesis is improbable, then theogenesis is infinitely more improbable... Did "God" by any chance find its way here by riding a pan-dimensional comet from another universe? Were "God's" various attributes formed in magical stars via divine fusion, and released with the spiritual explosions of super-supernovae?
4) Is your answer for the entire universe also "Goddidit", or is this "God" only capable of piddling with primordial soup on this one tiny planet to magically create life? If you assume "God" created the entire universe (apparently some 13.7 billion years ago), then what reason is there not to assume "God" lets natural forces do all the work without intervening?
Posted by: Rev. Dr. Stephens Hawkings 386sx III½ Jr., Esq.
|
October 4, 2009 9:26 AM
Well, the logical conclusion to this fairy-tale you guys believe in is that life itself has no point, so it's irrational for you to demand I have one.
Yes X-Lurker, life itself has no point, therefore we can define point as the same as pointless. Makes complete sense...
Yes X-Lurker, if life does not have one specific point that X-Lurker wants it to have, then that means it has no point at all, simply because it doesn't have one point that X-Lurker wants it to have. Makes perfect sense...
Must be a Sunday...
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 4, 2009 2:59 PM
@X-Lurker
Maybe it's you, not us.
And only so much you can dish out.
Irrational enough to not let our minds become banana mush.
Thank you for stopping your tantrums.
Hypothesis confirmed. Science! There is still hope for you.
We display it with pride to make theists understand we are not staying silent on these topics and will take a stand against nonsense being promoted as reality.
Bring 'em on. We appreciate the comedy act.Posted by: X-Lurker
|
October 11, 2009 4:31 PM
Well,like always, it's hard to know where to begin with this latest avalanche of mindless drivel from the atheist circle-jerk...
Another graduate of the Pee Wee Herman School of "Debate".
Well, one out of two ain't bad, I guess. I did indeed come to an atheist site run by a biologist, but that last part is nothing but your hallucination. As I have stated several times now (again demonstrating that you guys Just Don't Listen), I didn't bring God or the Bible or Free Will or any of that "religious" stuff into the discussion. YOU. GUYS. DID.
Typical that YOU GUYS bring up some issue and then try to blame it on me.
Pointing out that this place is an echo chamber and that you guys are duplicitous is "sneering"? Well, if so, my alleged "sneer" is with good reason, obviously. And besides, this whole venue is a gigantic sneer against all things religious in its own right, so your self-righteous indignation rings rather hollow, and is more illustration of your duplicity.
Utter nonsense. I never expected any of you guys to be the least bit humble, on any level whatsoever. On the contrary, your collective (emotionalist and irrational) behavior is exactly what I expected.
And yet you continue do as I expect you to do...
Whatever floats your boat, bud -- keep telling yourself whatever you want to hear.
Too bad you couldn't have taken that stance prior to your doctoring my words. If you expect "others" to "judge" in your favor, that would rather (again) suggest that this place is nothing more than an echo chamber.
Well, you guys excel in needing the dots connected for you...
Obviously, if there is a "fine-grained sequence", it's legitimate to infer the Darwinian mechanism, but the simple fact is that we don't have "fine-grained sequences" between, say.lizards and birds. No, we have gaps. Big ones (in terms of evolutinary steps required). And when we look at phenotypes at each end of one of those gaps, there is no evidence there to indicate that the Darwinian mechanism is what allows us to bridge that gap. No, that Darwinian mechanism is merely assumed to be the bridge.
That is the point. Not surprising that you didn't get it.
And the irony continues, at a feverish pace.
"Fine-grained sequences" generally don't cross genus or class or phyla lines, but obviously something had to cross those lines.
It doesn't take much "gall" on my part, given that you've just provided an actual example.
And it never ceases to amaze me how much raw irony you guys can produce.
These kinds of misrepresentations abound, and I'm sure they give the atheist a raging woody for a second or two, but they certainly aren't accurate, and reveal flagrant ignorance on the part of those who wield them. If this place wasn't such a blatant echo-chamber, such two-dimensional caricatures would make you look like a fool, but since we are in an echo-chamber, they no doubt make you appear "cool" and even "heroic".
Well, in case you haven't noticed, monotheism is "still around" as well, in spite of atheists giddy predictions of its demise, which have been going on for centuries, now. Judaism dates back to the dawn of written history, and yet is still with us, while so many of the ancient polytheistic pantheons are nothing more than historic curiosities.
Gotta love the duplicity, which is exactly what I expected. When I say something that's incorrect, well , that "proves" that I "don't know what the f*ck I'm talking about", but when a fellow atheist says basically the same thing, well, er, uh, "everyone says things that aren't accurate"...
Besides, my main point was in the sentence immediately following, that the beneficial mutations are in a definite minority. Again, rather than engage my overarching argument, you guys play the "gotcha!" game to score points. Whether the majority of mutations are bad or neutral doesn't matter, because either way, good mutations are comparatively rare, and that was the point.
If this is the case, then that would strengthen my argument, because that would mean even if we eliminate the neutral mutations (which are the majority), of the ones left over, most of those are bad, which would make the population of good mutations even smaller, comparatively speaking.
The man said what he said. If he meant that most selectable mutations are bad, he could have easily said so, to avoid ambiguity, but it doesn't matter. The reason I brought Dawkins up was to give you guys another opportunity to demonstrate your collective duplicity, which you have done quite spectacularly.
It ain't an echo chamber because I say so, I say so because it is, as you guys repeatedly demonstrate.
Right. You don't know. But you do "know" that no God was involved, right? You "know" that with as much "certainty" as you can "know" anything.
That's my point, you think you "know" something you cannot objectively know. The truth is that you take it on faith that no God was involved, whether you care to admit it (to yourself) or not.
Lord, Love a Duck. Tu quoque, much?
My only point is that you believe certain things without evidence. Period.
I realize that you wanna put it back on me by demanding I "prove God", but that was never my intention. I admit that I cannot "prove God", especially to a mind closed on the matter.
(rolling eyes) Yes, yes, of course. Move on.
If I am ("IF", he said), it certainly isn't deliberate. I even reproduced a section of the dialog and provided a blow-by-blow accounting of why I responded the way I did, but obviously, that wasn't "good enough" for you. Not that it matters -- I can only go by what you actually write, and you never said anything about "struggling through that time in your life" until message #350, after your first "fuck you". Prior to that, you did mention a bit of teenage angst in message #230, specifically, "(the pain and isolation of) Meaningless Existence", but many teens go through such angst. You think you were alone in having some rough times as a teen? I had rough times in middle school, high school and college. I could go into details, but let's remember where we are.
The point is, I sure as HELL ain't gonna try and lay some stupid-assed guilt trip on you because I had rough times in my life, and I sure as HELL ain't gonna hurl 4-letter epithets in your direction because of it.
In addition, while you've got little ol' me allegedly misrepresenting what you're saying, I'm dealing with half a dozen of you clowns misrepresenting me rather aggressively and persistently, but I have yet to throw such a tantrum and call people "fucks". Go figure.
Of course, we are wading hip-deep in your collective duplicity, the latest round being over whether the majority of mutations are detrimental or neutral, and therefore it's safe to conclude that just about everyone else here sympathizes with you and probably agree that I am a "fuck", but if I were to hurl such childish epithets in your general direction, I'd hear no end to how childish I am in acting that way, etc.
Yeah, I get it. To "misrepresent" you again, you sought the "truth of reality" in science. I mean, that is what I get when you talk about the age of the Universe and the cracking of the genome. I ask you if you searched for God or a reasonable facsimile thereof, which I meant to be anything beyond the merely physical. It could have been Buddhist enlightenment, or some other Eastern outlook. Your reply, again, was, "Yes, I looked to science, and science, and science, and science, and didn't find any God(s)". And again, in message #278, you proclaimed that "All science is atheistic in its mechanisms."
If you truly believe that science is the only legitimate method to seek truth, then no, you will not find any reason to believe the Christian God exists. Of course, that doesn't prove He doesn't exist, it doesn't "prove" anything, really, but it's fallacy to believe that science is the only possbile way to "truth", especially when, as you proclaim, it's atheistic in its mechanisms.
Let's "misrepresent you" some more...
From message #230 (bold emphasis added):
Again, what this tells me is that you kept God at arm's length the whole time you were "searching for truth". Again, your primary guide was science. When looking at "religion", you did so through the mind of a secular scientist.
You said you searched for "the truth of this reality". Well, if going out the gate,"reality" is defined as the merely physical, then it stands to reason that the merely physical is all you're going to find.
When looking at the problem of the origin of life, since the merely physical is your baseline, you have no choice but to presume that there is a merely physical explanation for life's origin. Regardless of how many times you may shout from the rooftops that you don't have faith in "non-God", you again simply have no choice but to have faith in non-God. Sure, you can try to mitigate that with superficial comparisons to non-Zeus and non-FSM and whatnot, but in this context, non-God and the merely physical are the same thing.
If no God exists, life had to come from non-life. Sentience had to come from non-sentience. Intelligence had to come from non-intelligence. Three cases (at least) where something had to come from nothing, as it were.
If the Christian God exists, life, sentience and intelligence have always existed, "before" this Universe was ever started.
What you asserted just above is the equivalent of saying, "What you fail to appreciate is that black can be white...", or "What you fail to appreciate is that night can be day...", or any of the Orwellian 1984 slogans, such as "War is Peace".
Materialism is the theory or doctrine that matter is the only reality, there is no soul, no supernatural realm, no spirit, no nothing beyond the physical, material reality we experience directly with our five senses. So asserting that materialism can be spiritual is to utter forth a complete oxymoron.
Posted by: X-Lurker
|
October 11, 2009 4:34 PM
Well, you didn't find God, that much seems certain, but you merely assume that you looked at "reality". Again, you seem to define "reality" as that which is empirically quantifiable, but what if reality encompasses more than that? How does one empirically quantify such things as "love", "devotion", "hope", or even "truth"?
Nope, but this misrepresentation isn't surprising.
Well, if we did see such a phenomenon, it would undo what we think we know about a star's life cycle,unless we could show today that such a pattern of stars exists today which have the potential to go supernova. Otherwise, yes indeed, the laws of physics may very well be violated. Stars don't just explode. They go supernova at a specified time in their life cycle, and this only happens with high-mass stars, so again, unless we could conceivably show that there are millions of high-mass stars out there facing their deaths, and the pattern of these stars spell "Yahweh Is Lord" from our vantage point, you haven't shown this to be a "completely materialistic phenomenon" at all. Quite the contrary, you have stars exploding for no apparent reason, contradicting what we know about star life cycles.
Of course, the reality is that, in order to witness such a phenomenon tomorrow, the stars in question would have had to have exploded millions of years ago for the light of that explosion to reach us tomorrow. Also, since these stars would likely be various distances from us, they would have to have exploded at different times in the Cosmos's history for the light to reach us at the same time as the light from all of the other explosions.
But these kinds of contrived examples are merely tedious -- why would God write His message in English, as opposed to French or Hebrew or Greek? Or all of the above? No, this only demonstrates your own particular cultural biases, and how you pretty much would expect God to dance to your partuclar tune. It doesn't prove much of anything beyond that.
What you proclaimed up above is sophistry in its own right -- this notion that we can arrive at "truth" only by science is pure fallacy. If the truth is that God does exist, and if science refuses to consider that possibility, explain how science could ever arrive at that truth.
Back in January of 1997, Richard Lewontin did a review of Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark for the New York Times, in which he makes a number of interesting observations about science and the scientific community. Among those are this admission to an a priori materialist view, which is no doubt responsible, at least in part, for your own "All science is atheistic in its mechanisms" proclamation from message #278 (underlined emphasis added):
As far as what Lewis Beck says, I find just the opposite to be true -- one who is not willing to accept the possibility of God's existence is indeed willing to believe anything, no matter how absurd, as long as no God is necessary. Hence we have lifeless matter creating life, in spite of a complete lack of supporting evidence. Likewise for non-sentient life begetting sentient life, and for non-intelligent life begetting intelligent life.
In addition, it was Francis Bacon's belief that God created Order in this Universe that initially kick-started the scientific enterprise, so Beck's fears seem rather groundless, or at least premature.
Another interesting tidbit from that review is this (emphasis added):
So this idea that science is the sole gateway to "truth" is simply not tenable, unless, of course, Lewontin is again "saying things that aren't accurate"...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 11, 2009 4:40 PM
tl;dr, your imaginary deity doesn't exist and your babble is a work of fiction. Prove me otherwise with physical evidence and shorter posts.
Posted by: Kel
|
October 11, 2009 4:58 PM
i.e. you throw out insults and people act insulted. I don't define reality as what is empirically quantifiable. I define reality as what is real. What exists. God is either real or not, if God is real then there are implications on what we should expect to see when we look at the cosmos. We don't see them. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you look and don't find.Posted by: Stanton
|
October 11, 2009 5:07 PM
Among other things, birds and lizards are two groups of reptiles are distantly related. If you actually bothered to read about vertebrates, you would have realized that crocodilians, and not lizards, are the closest living relatives of birds.
That, and there are already a large number of bird fossils, as well as dinosaur fossils with feathers or anatomical features for the growth of feathers, that demonstrate birds being descended from dromeosaur dinosaurs.
So, before you intend to lecture us on the futility of Evolutionary Biology, it stands within reason that you should first educate yourself on Evolutionary Biology before you embarrass yourself by posting a long-winded, condescending screed that demonstrates you known nothing about the topic you're trying to disparage.
Oh, whoops.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 11, 2009 5:07 PM
Again, you seem to define "reality" as that which is empirically quantifiable, but what if reality encompasses more than that?
prove that it matters IF it does. Give evidence that incorporating the idea that reality could be anything has relevance or pragmatic value of any kind whatsoever.
go on.
I dare you.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 11, 2009 5:13 PM
but the simple fact is that we don't have "fine-grained sequences" between, say.lizards and birds.
so, how fine grained did you need?
We have many sequences of fossils of things with larger numbers, shorter generation times, and live in areas that result in decent fossilization.
so, since those "fine grained" sequences exist, why do you make it a particular problem that we can't find them in the same vein for things that have long generation times, are much less common, and lived in areas that aren't readily conducive to fossilization?
It's exactly like saying you can't find good sequences of fossil jellyfish, without noting that jellyfish don't actually fossilize to begin with! The best you ever get with a soft-bodied critter is an impression.
does that mean jellyfish never evolved?
That appears to be the conclusion you're trying to make with your fossil-gap argument, and it's utterly inane.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 11, 2009 5:14 PM
The whole time you wanted a photo of a crocoduck? (Follow that link for the image you crave.) Why didn't you just say so to begin with?Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 11, 2009 5:25 PM
Poor, poor X-Lurker: convinced that without his imaginary sky-daddy his life would be meaningless.
Free yourself, X-Lurker: you don't have to be so scared. I have been an atheist from the age of 12, and have lived and am living a full, meaningful life with my family, friends, fulfilling work that may even be useful to others, and a deep fascination with the world around me. The fact that the universe does not have a pre-defined meaning is not a threat: the welfare of those I love, and of others in general, is meaning enough.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 11, 2009 5:34 PM
These kinds of misrepresentations abound, and I'm sure they give the atheist a raging woody for a second or two, but they certainly aren't accurate, and reveal flagrant ignorance on the part of those who wield them
...says the man who then fails utterly to defend that statement.
If you actually meant what you said, you'd immediately be able to show how I was wrong in characterizing it as such.
And the irony continues, at a feverish pace.
seriously, you don't know what irony means, and you don't know what a strawman is. You do make an excellent parody of yourself in attempting to try and project your failings, though.
It doesn't take much "gall" on my part, given that you've just provided an actual example.
case in point, nothing I said in what you quoted was a strawman of YOUR argument. Thus, you look like a complete idiot for claiming such.
Well, in case you haven't noticed, monotheism is "still around" as well, in spite of atheists giddy predictions of its demise,
project much?
Now here is a great example of a strawman of my argument, which was actually that religion has produced nothing of value wrt to explaining the world around us, ever, while science has a long history of doing so.
that religion still exists is simply due to conmen, and the conned, like yourself.
Gotta love the duplicity, which is exactly what I expected.
hello? I don't think you understand what that word means, either. It's hardly duplicitous to explain that you were quotemining Dawkins.
When I say something that's incorrect, well , that "proves" that I "don't know what the f*ck I'm talking about",
We don't claim error of wording from you, but error of though, so, essentially you are correct in stating you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
you don't.
Besides, my main point was in the sentence immediately following, that the beneficial mutations are in a definite minority.
irrelevant.
Again, rather than engage my overarching argument, you guys play the "gotcha!" game to score points.
YOU were the one who quoted Dawkins, you fuckhead. This is another great example of projection on your part. You're the one who is trying to play "Gotcha".
Whether the majority of mutations are bad or neutral doesn't matter, because either way, good mutations are comparatively rare, and that was the point.
you have no point, and it DOES matter. suggest you actually read a genetics text sometime.
Moreover, even if you want to create a strawman of how genetics actually works, and claim "good mutations" are relatively rare, it hardly says fuck all about whether selection can act on them, now does it.
So, maybe when Dawkins said that "most mutations are bad" he thought it was implicit that he was talking about mutations that can be selected for or against by natural selection, that is, non-neutral mutations. I think this is a fair interpretation of Dawkins' words, given the context.
If this is the case, then that would strengthen my argument, because that would mean even if we eliminate the neutral mutations (which are the majority), of the ones left over, most of those are bad, which would make the population of good mutations even smaller, comparatively speaking.
No. it doesn't matter, since selection doesn't act for the benefit of a species, but rather only acts on individual fitness. It doesn't matter if most of the mutations are even bad, it only matters that some grant fitness benefits over others within a given population.
Your argument, even taking the strawman tack it has, is still irrelevant to the operation of selection as a mechanism, and evolution as whole.
The man said what he said.
no, you quotemined him, which is why we took time out to explain what his actual position is.
The reason I brought Dawkins up was
... to play gotcha, the very game you projected onto us, you fucktard.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 11, 2009 5:36 PM
Another Wall o' Text from the guy who denigrates evolution while showing he doesn't understand evolution.
Posted by: Dania
|
October 11, 2009 5:37 PM
Uh, lizards and birds? No, I don't think we have any kind of sequence, fine-grained or not, between lizards and birds. Why should we?
Everyone says things that aren't accurate. You said something that wasn't accurate and I have good reasons to believe, based on your posts on this thread, that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about (I could be wrong, but that doesn't seem to be the case).
Dawkins, on the other hand, knows a lot more about this stuff than this mere undergraduate biochemistry student, so I'd be more cautious before saying he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. It has nothing to do with him being an atheist. My reaction would be exactly the same if we were talking about, say, Ken Miller.
Which is irrelevant, given that we know of a successful mechanism that permits their accumulation over time.
No, I merely pointed out a mistake you did. You were wrong, I have SIWOTI syndrome...
Except that it's not. A group of people who are not science deniers and realize that there's no evidence for God ≠ echo chamber. It's not like we agree on everything... *points to Nicholas Wade thread*
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 11, 2009 5:39 PM
Also, who doesn't understand that evolution will stand until he can provide a scientific, but not religious, alternative. Still waiting for his evidence...Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 11, 2009 5:42 PM
Ichthyic could equally well point to dozens of other recent threads where atheists have been furiously arguing with each other. Your claim that this is an echo chamber, X-Lurker, is a barefaced lie - no surprise from a godbot, admittedly.
Posted by: Stanton
|
October 11, 2009 5:44 PM
Why don't you take up a hobby while you're waiting, like knitting piano cozies or afghans for Clydesdales?Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 11, 2009 5:45 PM
Ichthyic could equally well point to dozens of other recent threads where atheists have been furiously arguing with each other. Your claim that this is an echo chamber, X-Lurker, is a barefaced lie - no surprise from a godbot, admittedly.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 11, 2009 5:47 PM
419 and 421 PROVE THIS IS AN ECHO CHAMBER!!
!!!
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 11, 2009 5:47 PM
Whoops - sorry for the double post.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 11, 2009 5:49 PM
Ichthyic@422,
You're absolutely right!!!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 11, 2009 5:52 PM
I like your suggestions, but I don't really expect an answer, so I'm just trying to catch up on my backlog of tasks.Posted by: Dania
|
October 11, 2009 5:54 PM
And he calls himself an
Xex-Lurker. Anyone who has actually lurked around these parts for some time would know that Pharyngula isn't an echo chamber at all. When Pharyngulites disagree, they disagree. Vehemently.Posted by: gyeong-hwa
|
October 11, 2009 6:12 PM
Actually, I think that this part of a fundamentalist Christian movement to be "X" everything that is against fundie ideology. e.g. ex-gay, ex-atheist, ex-rebel, ex-abortionist and so on. I know folks from high school that is part of this "X" movement.
By X lurker, I believe he's trying to say that he is not part of the community that reads these sciency stuff as science would be against his religion.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 11, 2009 6:22 PM
Very insightful, gyeong-hwa. "Christian"-Lurker may have been one of his ulterior motives for picking that pseudonym. The "ex" also makes much more sense looking at it from the fundamentalist Christian ideological standpoint.Posted by: Wowbagger, OM
|
October 11, 2009 6:39 PM
(e)X(crement)-lurker came back for another ass-paddling? It's fascinating how many Christians are masochists in that regard.
So, you claim that something lying outside of quantifiable reality exists, and that something is your Christian god. Which wouldn’t be a problem for us except that you also claim that this god acts in certain ways (somehow communicated to us despite his lying outside of quantifiable reality) and demands certain behaviours of humanity.
What makes it really complicated is that Orestes - the Ásatrú who lives down the road - believes that his pantheon of Norse gods created the world, and they live outside of quantifiable reality, and they also act in certain ways and demand certain behaviours of humanity.
And - just in case you were going to try the 'oh, but all gods are really my god in disguise sidestep', those behaviours are incompatible to the point of being mutually exclusive; i.e. there's no way that one belief system is just another version of the other.
So how, considering the lack of objective support for either, am I to determine – should I wish to take up religion – who is correct?
You could illustrate your point by trying to explain exactly why it is you accept your unverifiable belief system while simultaneously rejecting Orestes’s Ásatrú – or Islam, Hindusm, Sikhism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Voodoo and so forth – all of which have adherents with exactly as many reasons and arguments and logic and justifications to support why they hold their beliefs as you do.
Ah, the old ‘humans have come up with terms for abstract concepts; therefore, the Christian god must exist and all the claims made by those who worship the Christian god must be true’ argument.
Say, have you ever heard an atheist who does not deny the existence of an abstract concept claim that that abstract concept is capable of healing the sick, raising the dead or unjustly sentencing a person to an eternity of torment for a minor infraction of rules that the abstract concept wasn’t capable of expressing clearly?
Posted by: Kel
|
October 11, 2009 6:46 PM
Considering what we know about supernovae (~1 per galaxy per 100 years), for millions to suddenly explode would be in what I said is extraordinary evidence that matches the extraordinary claim. It may have a material explanation, that it was just chance (the process not being chance, but seeing such a thing from our vantage point), but the extreme improbability of such an occurrence combined with the pattern we are looking for - such an occurrence would be powerful evidence not only that there is a god but it's the Judeo-Christian construct of god.But if you want to nitpick examples, here are a few more: staves turning into snakes, water turning into wine, the sun standing still in the sky, etc. All these would be violations of natural law yet purely material occurrences. If the contents of my water bottle spontaneously turned to wine, then that's a violation of natural law yet it's still measurable.
The point in all this being that we live in a material reality. If you want to posit that there are immaterial events then you first need to show that the immaterial exists. Without doing so, you have nothing.
So you're taking an example of a possibility of what would be a material occurrence that would clearly show that God does indeed exist is just asking God to dance to my tune? Wow, just wow. It was an example of a possibility, not me setting exact criteria. I can pull out miracle after miracle in the bible that is a violation of the laws of physics, would they be better? Water into wine - perfectly material yet a violation of the laws of physics. By everything we've measured, it can't happen.Methinks you are overreaching.
I'm willing to accept the possibility of God's existence, I'm still waiting for the evidence. It's funny that you're dismissing entire lines of evidence by pure definitions. Why do we know that life came from non-life? Because the universe is finite. It started with simplicity and became more complex. Life had to have a starting point logically, and on this earth that happened sometime between 500 million years and 1.5 billion years after the earth formed. How do we know this? Because it's there in the fossil record. As for evolutionary sequences, it doesn't help to use discrete traits when discussing traits that have a continuum. Consider non-intelligent life begetting intelligent life - in the example of human evolution, one way we can track this is to look at the use of tools. The smaller-brained ancestors had very primitive tools, and as the species became bigger brained, the tools got more and more complex - they became more specialised. We can see primitive tool use in our closest cousins, social intelligence and complex behaviours like hunting.Your incredulity at evolution taking place does not mean that the evidence doesn't support it. It also doesn't mean that anyone who supports it is grasping at the absurd in order to dismiss the possibility of god. The fossils, the genetic code, the biogeographic distribution of life, experiments showing adaptation through selection, acquiring new and novel traits, and speciation - all these clearly show that evolution happened. You call it absurd, yet it's what the evidence supports. If I were a theist, I'd still support evolution - just as many theists, scientists, religious leaders, and theologians do today. Why do they support it? It can't be that they don't want to consider the possibility of God...
Posted by: Kel
|
October 11, 2009 6:56 PM
I've explained already. Science doesn't refuse to consider the possibility - you're conflating the application by some scientists, while others consider that god is a scientific question. Possibly the best book on this matter is Victor Stenger's God The Failed Hypothesis, where he talked about the scientific implications for an interventionist deity and what the science shows.The simple fact is that if you're positing an interventionist deity (as theism dictates) then you're positing an observable god. The fact that we haven't observed observed such a god demonstrates that god isn't there. Why don't we see miracles akin to the bible in an age where we can actually measure reality? Surely if water turned to wine, that would be extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claims.
You're trying like nothing else to dismiss what I'm saying on an a priori assumption - that I'm defining God out of existence where time and time again I'm asking for the same level of evidence as I would when asking on any extraordinary claim. I've asked several times what reason should I believe in God any more than any deity of any other religion? What makes Christianity any more plausible than Hinduism? You haven't answered that.
I've made my case as to why I don't believe, you're not answering my objections - instead you are complaining that I'm dismissing God on an a priori (which couldn't be further from the truth) and ignoring my reasoning on the matter. If you're not going to address my actual objections to belief, then how do you expect to do anything other than antagonise me into insulting you?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
October 11, 2009 7:18 PM
If the truth is that God does exist, and if science refuses to consider that possibility, explain how science could ever arrive at that truth.
If the truth is that amoebic unicorns DO exist, even though I just made it up, explain how science could ever arrive at that conclusion...
ok, I substituted one fairy tale for another, and yet there is still THE OBVIOUS FUCKING ANSWER:
regardless of what one might make up on the fly, the only way TO discover if something has an effect on reality as we observe it IS through science.
that someday science may be able to prove an amoebic unicorn actually does, in fact, exist, would only BE because only science COULD say reliably that something does or does not exist and have measurable impact.
so, essentially what you've admitted to is that you yourself realize that indeed science would be the ONLY way to reliably demonstrate that your deity did, in fact, exist.
otherwise, could be just a man behind a curtain...
Posted by: Kel
|
October 11, 2009 7:36 PM
To clarify the distinction between beliefs and a priori assumptions: at one point in my life I used to believe in ghosts. Now I don't. Why did I change my mind? Because when I considered the evidence I found it lacking. Now to an observer, it would seem that I dismiss ghosts as an a priori assumption. Yet it just happened that I didn't find the evidence very convincing for and very convincing against. That it was more likely that ghosts were constructs of the mind than the mind's observation of reality.
Likewise for gods. I was born without any beliefs at all. As I grew up I learned about gods, in school I was given a very liberal christian education and I was immensely fascinated with mythology as a child. I would love to read about the Egyptian and Greek gods especially.
When I first became an explicit atheist, I had no knowledge of Humean scepticism, I wasn't familiar with methodological naturalism, or Occam's razer. Rather I found that the evidence for God didn't stand on its own merits, it told impossible tales that didn't have sufficient evidence. I didn't reject God through science, though now I use science to understand the universe - because as a tool of inquiry there's no better tool out there.
And this is not to say I'm locked in for all time, I'm more than willing to change my mind if there is good reason to. I have done in the past, and I can't see why that would change now. Yet because I'm now firmly a materialist (at one stage I wasn't) to an outsider it would so easily seem that I dismiss concepts on pure definition alone - and that completely misrepresents the process I took to get to where I am today - and where that could go in the future.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 11, 2009 7:47 PM
X-Lurker, this is why I demand physical, not philosophical evidence. That is the only way you can change, not only my, but many atheists mind. And it is absolutely one thing you can't offer. And you wonder why we blow you off? Put up or shut up. Welcome to real science....Posted by: Kel
|
October 11, 2009 11:09 PM
Big g or little g? There's a difference. If you're just talking about the Judeo-Christian construct of God, then I can pretty safely say that it's a made up entity. It was a tribal god made up in the time when natural forces were attributed to the supernatural, which has evolved over the ages to be the One True GodTM. As an idea, it has no evidence supporting it, lots of evidence against it, and it is as plausible as Brahman, Isis, Odin, The Giant Rainbow Serpent or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.You accused me of being culturally biased, but the entire reason you are a Christian is because of culture!!!
For the Christian God? No, the hypothesis doesn't match the evidence. But for gods in general, I can't rule them out though I have no reason to believe in any of them. There's the difference that you don't discern. You're asking me about a specific deity with specific attributes then conflating it with the abstract concept in general. Be specific, if you're asking me why I don't believe in the trinity, it's very different to asking me whether I believe in the notion of gods in general.
And I take it on faith that no time-travelling dinosaurs were involved either... this is what you fail to grasp. You're ascribing to me the negative positions and claiming I have faith in the negative. I have as much faith that God didn't make the universe as I have that Thor didn't make the lightning. You're looking at what I don't believe as positive beliefs as opposed to negative beliefs and ascribing me faith in those. It's not whether I want to admit it or not, you're trying to push me into what you conceive of me thinking is an irrational position.Can you ascribe that the universe didn't pop into existence fully formed 5 seconds ago? You can't (in your twisted logic) it's a matter of faith...
...this reasoning of course is entirely useless, I can't say that rainbows aren't caused by leprachaun gold, I can't say that rainbows aren't caused by the ripping of the fabric of space-time, I can't say they aren't caused by angels dancing on the head of a pin (and so on ad infinitum). What does that tell you about how rainbows are formed? Nothing. Rather my view is that rainbows are formed by light diffracting through water vapour in the air. And even if I didn't know how rainbows are formed, I have no reason to assume that they are caused by leprachaun gold for any reason other than cultural myth.
Well of course, I'm human. What does this point mean? Absolutely nothing. It speaks nothing of the beliefs themselves, nor does it speak of the desire to have evidence - or even dismiss beliefs on the basis of evidence. Hell, it seems like you are conflating belief and knowledge, but I won't dwell on that. Of course I didn't think I was alone you fuck! Are you that petty that you're trying to dismiss what I actually went through by me thinking that I'm somehow special? I'm calling you a fuck because you're trying to dismiss my endeavour as me conforming to some a priori assumption instead of actually looking at the process of what I went through. I'm not hurling fuck at you because I had some hard times, I'm hurling it at you because you're so ideologically driven that you're willing to dehumanise me in order to dismiss my position, reducing me to a set of ideas and coming off as "well you weren't really looking anyway". I'm not laying some guilt trip on you, I'm angry at you for being so ideologically-centred that you're willing to dismiss the fact I didn't find your god when I went in search of understanding. Point taken, you're still a fuck though. Your first post here accused this place of being an echo chamber, you've shown from the start that you don't take this as being anything more than a battle of ideology. So instead of learning something about what it means to be an atheist, all you can do is troll. Actually at that time I got pretty heavily into Buddhism, but don't let that stop you from thinking I only looked to science. I brought up that scientists have looked where I haven't for things such as the number of galaxies in the sky or the number of species on this planet. But no, you've taken that comment and ran with it to only assume that I used an ideology to guarantee I didn't find God, thus making my supposed rejection of God a proof by definitions. I believe now that science is the only legitimate method to understand reality. It's not the only means to seek truth, but the only one capable of measuring the universe. I didn't always hold this view, I used to be all about the NOMA. I came to this view not because science is perfect, rather that the other means of inquiry were so inept that they were useless. Science works.Though one minor point. The way I was taught about Christianity was that God was a part of reality. He intervened in the world, listened to prayers, healed the sick, etc. As far as I'm concerned, theism is the hypothesis that there is a divine force acting in nature. To the point that the absence of such a force is evidence against theism. Not deism, not pantheism, but theism. I'm an atheist, not-theist.
Posted by: Kel
|
October 11, 2009 11:54 PM
I didn't keep anything at arm's length, and if you're not going to use science then all you've done is engaged in sophistry. Like I said, I used to subscribe to NOMA. Different ways of knowing and all that. Are you saying you don't take scientific thinking into account when you make philosophical conclusions? Are you saying that God isn't a force in this world? I came to that conclusion, wasn't a proof by definitions, but an honest assessment of the evidence. If I don't find an interventionist deity, I'm going to conclude that one isn't there. You're right. And on the topic of how life began, I'm going to loudly shout it I DON'T KNOW HOW LIFE BEGAN. Do you? I'm betting not. I know that life began on this planet sometime between 4 and 3 billion years ago, as to how I have no idea. Now I'll ask you the same question. What is the origin of life? I'm betting you don't know either. Rather you are substituting human ignorance for a deity. Was it a physical process? I'm betting that it was, and I can give an analogy as to why. 300 years ago, Newton when writing on the laws of motion talked about needing God to make the planets. It turns out now that we have a pretty good idea of how stars and planets form - no god required.By using God as a substitute for human ignorance, all you do is make a god of the gaps argument. We don't know how phenomena X happened, so God is the cause of X. what happens when we find an explanation for X like we have done with stellar and planetary formation? The fact of the matter is I don't know and I want to find out, you're claiming that God is the default which makes your deity a substitute for human ignorance.
Life had to come from non-life anyway - you're not positing an infinite chain of life. I just don't have any reason to believe that because life came from non-life it means Jesus died for my sins.As for your analogy, matter came from non-matter (e=mc²), stars came from non-stars, organic material has come from non-organic material (see Urey-Miller experiment) - all something from nothing by your argument.
Fixed Nope, completely wrong. What I asserted is nothing of the sort. The human condition is the human condition, we are moral beings and that fits with materialism too. Just because we are clumps of atoms acting according to purely mechanistic means, it doesn't take away from us being moral creatures. We experience being the key words there. Think this through a little more...Again, you're showing that God is simply a substitute for human ignorance. Stop with the god of the gaps argument.
Posted by: Mr T
|
October 12, 2009 12:47 AM
X-Lurker: You sure do know how to type profusely without saying anything. All this time, and I still haven't gotten answers to my questions @ #403 (especially the questions under heading #3, because it's always fun seeing theists/deists scramble for a response). Of course it is patently absurd to expect a description or evidence for any sort of supernatural being, but really you could at least save me the trouble and admit that. The first step is admitting you have a problem (not an actual endorsement of AA, or similar programs).
For the record, I personally would accept as evidence a group of stars exploding to write a message in any language. It could come in a form less biased toward our culture and species, maybe in an arrangement that looks like a geometric proof, or anything along those lines that is independently verifiable -- by this I mean I will not just accept a schizophrenic's word for it that he or she has spoken to Jesus or Cthulhu. Of course the point is that a God could do whatever it wanted if it actually existed, but we have not found any evidence of it communicating any sort of message, nor even evidence of its existence. People have been searching for millennia and have found nothing substantive. That itself is data that you should be open-minded enough to consider.
On the other hand, presuming that the existence of God is not empirically testable is moving the goalposts, completely misuses ideas like "existence" and "reality". I'd argue that kind of belief is so undefined as to be utterly useless. If this "God" is indistinguishable from nothing, then a belief in whatever-you-think-it-is is not a belief worth having, and not even capable of being compared to other such beliefs in (by all appearances) nothing. That kind of belief is based upon no experience of the object of the belief. It has no logical or experiential foundation, and has no value for the believer because it lacks any substantive content.
If the belief is the completely unfounded speculation that "God = Creator (presumably of everything)", then pretty much anything beyond that is also pure speculation. Nothing supports the belief, and nothing can follow from it -- nothing that one could reasonably call a "meaning" for one's life. An understanding of nature doesn't follow, because it's "beyond nature". A system of ethics doesn't follow, because it's "beyond any conception of human thought". Not the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, etc. I simply don't consider that worthwhile or meaningful, even though I fully admit I can't offer any reason why it must be false. I do accept it is possible that some kind of [insert noun/verb/indescribable-something here] might exist, but I fail to see how that belief gets us anywhere. If you propose something that is logically contradictory, or contrary to empirical evidence, then there are of course reasons not to believe.
It's about time I hurl a profanity into the echo-chamber: Fuck that.
Posted by: gyeong-hwa
|
October 12, 2009 1:55 AM
X-Lurker,
If ever there was a proof that this isn't an echo-chamber, it is here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/equality_everywhere_for_everyo.php
You'll find that atheist/agnostic have very big differences amongst each other.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
October 12, 2009 3:53 AM
Then you agree that God, and the Bible, and Free Will, and religion are all unnecessary?
Gee, I can say that you're a lying, hypocritical invader from an IDiot echo chamber, and it's not a sneer? Good to know, you lying, hypocritical invader from an IDiot echo chamber. ← Not sneering!
But it's a gigantic sneer "with good reason, obviously". So that makes it OK!
So when you behave badly, it's not duplicitous and self-righteous?
So when you're arrogant, it's a good thing?
A concession! Ye cats!
So if you see snapshots of a tree as a seed, a sapling, and then a "jump" to a giant towering tree, normal growth is merely assumed to be the bridge?
I ask only for information.
No, you're right. They are not the ancient cobbled collection of goatherder stories; they are an ancient cobbled collection of heavily edited relgio-political nationalistic propaganda stitched together to support the monolatry of (several factions of) a particular controlling priesthood and a particular ruling dynasty.
There's probably a goatherder story or two in there, but by and large, the collection is far more cynical than anything that a few goatherders could come up with.
So too Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. Does longevity alone make something true?
Largely because of the violent efforts of Christian monotheists -- remember, the ones you claimed were "violating the teachings of Christ" in their mass-murders.
I note, buried in there, a concession that you were incorrect.
Your point is that evolution by random mutation and natural selection works exactly as evolutionary biologists have been claiming all along?
It isn't an echo chamber because your own sophistry, insipid denialism, and pathetic contrarianism has been permitted to continue uncensored for weeks.
Your blasphemous invocation of divine bestiality is noted.
You mean like you believe, without evidence, that magical pixies do not paint flowers?
I know. And I admit that I cannot prove that magical pixies do not paint flowers.
You mean, even if I provided really clear pictures of magical pixes painting flowers, your mind would be closed and you would disbelieve?
Tch.
Are magical pixies a reasonable facsimile of God?
Hurrah! Another concession!
It proves that if God does really exist, he's either infinitely weak, or a ruthless dick.
I keep waiting for one of you post-modern sophists to come up with a non-empirical way to truth, and you never have anything.
If God were actually real, then God would be able to provide empirical evidence of his own existence. Is God too weak to overpower the atheistic mechanisms of methodological naturalism?
How do you count three, there? How is "sentience" distinct from "intelligence"?
Arguably not life. Or do you think God metabolizes?
We have more senses than that. Sense of balance; sense of heat; sense of cold; sense of hunger; sense of wonder; sense of humor (well, you lack that one); sense of fair play (oops, you're missing that one too!); sense of empirical correctness (hm, you probably lack that as well); etc.
Do emotions not have empirical correlates?
Does non-empirical truth have any meaning at all? How would you know?
Indeed, why not all of the above, and many many more? The sky is big; lots of languages could fit.
I know. Expecting God to not be weak and not be a dick is just too much to expect, right?
You never prove this, but merely assert it. I suppose you can explain how we would know that truth had been arrived at without empirical verification?
If God exists, and is not weak, and is not a dick, then God could provide scientifically testable demonstrations of his knowledge and power. How hard is that?
Except that it's not absurd. We do have supporting evidence: Life is made of non-life; it takes in non-life and grows and reproduces by turning non-life into itself and into its descendants. Life evolves; every feature you can claim as being so inexplicable exists in partial form in other living things. Some life evolves to having better qualities of those features because of random variations in offspring and ruthless selection by the environment: this is an inference backed by the evidence.
Posted by: frankosaurus
|
October 14, 2009 4:22 AM
X Lurker Said - "How does one empirically quantify such things as "love", "devotion", "hope", or even "truth"?"
Oh, and why would you want to quantify those things? So you can manufacture them, and sell them, and exploit them and people? I notice you didn't list "death" because I bet you've already quantified that in racist death camps you memorialize, you sicko. The only thing unquantifiable is your bigotry, you cucumber
Posted by: Jim
|
October 14, 2009 10:08 AM
You're casting your pearls before swine, X-Lurker.
Posted by: Sean3:16
|
October 14, 2009 11:28 AM
jim = x lurker. sock puppetry here
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 14, 2009 11:52 AM
I don't think Jim is a sockpuppet Sean. He has commented here before.
Jim, X-lurker has no pearls. Just garbage, which repeats like we never heard him (or 20 of his predecessors) the first time. Jim, if you have any physical evidence for your deity, why don't you present it? Or, like X-Lurker, you have nothing but your inane opinion?
Posted by: X-Lurker
|
October 14, 2009 11:22 PM
Could somebody, anybody, kindly point out where I ever claimed that evolution didn't or doesn't happen?
Anyone?
Anyone?
That particular straw man is getting tiresome.
Posted by: X-Lurker
|
October 14, 2009 11:35 PM
This group does have a remarkable talent for Not Getting It.
(shrug) I rest my case.
Since God doesn't perform the way Kel demands, God is "weak" and "a dick". If only God would perform a parlour trick for Kel, then Kel might believe. Maybe.
Or he might simply spend the rest of his life trying to find the "true" scientific explanation, even if a thousand stars exploded tomorrow.
And you guys still believe things on faith, whether you admit it or not.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 14, 2009 11:36 PM
Sure. Your post #184:Evolution is a fairytale = it is fictional = it is not real. Slamming the evidence for evolution = denying evolution happens.Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 14, 2009 11:40 PM
You said it, it must be true!Posted by: X-Lurker
|
October 14, 2009 11:43 PM
Oops, that should be Owlmirror in the previous post, not Kel. Gee golly, another mistake. Let the feeding frenzy begin.
Posted by: X-Lurker
|
October 14, 2009 11:46 PM
Figures you'd screw it up. The fairy-tale is the belief that random mutation is all it takes for NS to act on. "Evolution" obviously happens. If you bother to read and comprehend my posts, you'd find that I've already said as much.
Way to quote-mine, caged rat.
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 14, 2009 11:47 PM
X:
What you deny is evolution by natural selection.
Here're the first three instances of this:
@184: And as far as "evidence" is concerned, where is your evidence that natural forces can produce the equivalent of computer software?
@194: Of course, "the equivalent of computer software" represents the genome and its information-rich DNA, and you utterly failed to provide even a shred of evidence in support of the idea that natural forces can produce it.
@209: Your subsequent explanation quoted above still falls into the trap of assuming the "truth" of the Darwinian model and offering that assumption as evidence.
Posted by: X-Lurker
|
October 14, 2009 11:48 PM
Oh, and I thought the caged rat said he was through responding to me, and done obsessing over my moniker.
0 for 2 ain't bad, I guess...
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 14, 2009 11:48 PM
Don't be such a dolt, X-Lurker. You are telling me that "this fairy-tale you guys believe in" means random mutation? Bullshit.
Posted by: X-Lurker
|
October 14, 2009 11:51 PM
Since when is asking for evidence == denial?Try again.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 14, 2009 11:53 PM
Sorry, that is why we have evidence, preferably physical evidence. Unlike you, who can't provide any physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Just bad sophistry, which is why they call them apologetics. The logic is so bad you need to apologize for using it.No, we get it, you don't. No evidence for your delusional god, or your babble being anything other than fiction. You have done a piss poor job of showing otherwise.And since you lie about your deity existing, everything else you say is considered a lie. And when looked at that way, you have nothing cogent to offer.
Posted by: X-Lurker
|
October 14, 2009 11:55 PM
Besides, one of you guys said that I was asking for evidence for the origin of life, which supposedly has nothing to do with "evolution" per se.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 14, 2009 11:56 PM
No you try again. You have to convince us. You always get things backwards. And by lying, or believing without physical evidence, you are not convincing. We await your presenting the eternally burning bush...Posted by: John Morales
|
October 14, 2009 11:58 PM
X:
You're asking for evidence for something you characterise as a fairy-tale held on faith.
That implies you deny it.
Do you now deny that you deny it? ;)
PS I haven't missed your backpedalling:
From: ... where is your evidence that natural forces can produce the equivalent of computer software?
To: The fairy-tale is the belief that random mutation is all it takes for NS to act on.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 15, 2009 12:02 AM
Caught squatting in public with his pants around his ankles, X-Lurker starts to cook up a story of how things got that way. How embarrassing.Posted by: John Morales
|
October 15, 2009 12:06 AM
X:
Yes, when you introduced the topic thus:
Posted by: Kel
|
October 15, 2009 12:18 AM
That was me. I claimed that through observation, experiment and simulation natural selection has been shown to make adaptation, "increase" information and build from randomness into function. What I then claimed that your issue is not with natural selection, rather it is with the origin of the genetic code itself - which is a different question to evolution by natural selection.Evolution can build with a genetic code and produce vast volumes of "information", your objection to Natural Selection is unfounded. As for abiogenesis, it comes before evolution in the same way that planet formation comes before plate tectonics. How did the planet form? I have little idea beyond the basics. I certainly don't know the fine details of how there is a crust / mantle / core / etc. but that doesn't mean that plate tectonics is weakened by the lack of explanation of how this planet formed. Just as abiogenesis is a precursor to evolution, it is a necessary event* but the lack of an explanation as to how we get digitally replicating life does not inhibit in any way the evidence supporting natural selection on digitally replicating life over time.
To make it clear, I was showing that evolution by natural selection can account for the size and what we see in our genomes, but it cannot account for DNA itself - that's abiogenesis. How did it all begin? I'll freely confess to not knowing much on the matter. All I know is that there must have been a beginning, because the earth is not infinite and the universe is not infinite, and according to the fossil record that event happened between 3.9 and 2.9 billion years ago.
Posted by: Jim
|
October 15, 2009 4:55 PM
You should be delighted, X-Lurker, that Nerd of Redhead disparages the things you write. Based on his critiques of your writings, you'd have reason to doubt the quality of your thinking only if he agreed with you.
By the way, you're quite right that the Pharyngula Choir has a knack for "Not Getting It." Chalk it up to their addiction to the Darwinist Kool-Aid.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
October 15, 2009 5:17 PM
Dear Brother Jim @ 461,
Thank you for the display of Christian solidarity you showed by supporting X-Lurker in his fight against the forces of reason and science. As God's appointed missionary to the atheists, I also find it much less lonely knowing that I have the two of you with me. Indeed, I feel as good as Christ did, dying on my cross, but lifted in my soul by the assurance that I'm flanked by two thieves.
Brother Jim, I thought that your double-quoted swipe at the thinking people for "Not Getting It" was a fantastic riposte that Zorro would have been proud of. With debating skills like ours, we'll have those high-sugar Darwinists scampering in no time.
What's say we all get together after we've thrashed their heretical asses? I know a nice little Christian pub with pole dancing Nuns where we could sit in an intimate booth and compare Bibles. Seriously. I'll show you mine if you show me yours. We could call ourselves the tree Christketeers: Smogthos, Lurkthos, and Jim-amiss
Three for Christ, and Christ for All! (and pass the crackers)
Smogthos
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 15, 2009 10:32 PM
Hey Jimmy me boy, speak about not getting it, you have presented no physical evidence for your imaginary deity. No deity, ergo no Creotor and/or no Intelligent Designer. (See how simple it is to refute you.) Which makes you a delusional fool, just like X-Lurker. That is the problem when dealing with evidence based people like scientists, and not faith based people, who you can testament to. It is hard to bullshit us since your testament is worthless, which is all that you and your friend have, and all you are doing. You are right in one thing. You are both wasting your time here.Posted by: Kel
|
October 15, 2009 10:47 PM
Okay Jim, show me where I'm not getting it and why it's down to evolution by natural selection. PLease show me where I'm wrong or ill-informed.Posted by: Owlmirror | October 17, 2009 3:22 PM
Fixed.Pay attention, you illiterate and illogical moron, I wrote: "Expecting God to not be weak and not be a dick". Since ~(~p ∧ ~q) = (p ∨ q), it logically follows ∴ that God is weak or a dick.
God might well be weak and a dick -- at least one apologist has gone with this interpretation -- but it is only logically necessary for one of the cases to hold, not both.
Fixed.
Writing in human languages with distant supernova wouldn't convince you that God (whom you presumably believe exists, or might exist, or whatever) was demonstrating omnipotence and omniscience?
Of course, it wouldn't have to be something so spectacular. I would be persuaded by God speaking for itself and providing clear evidence of omniscience. If for whatever reason it did not want to mess about with blowing up stars, it could give absolutely accurate predictions for events that as best we can tell are completely random, such a nuclear decay, gamma-ray bursts, or worldwide lottery drawings (or even mathematical hashes of those drawings, so as to avoid people taking advantage).
You mean believing in basic logic?
You're not an illogical moron because you misread and/or mistyped. You're an illogical moron because you reject logic when applied to God.
Hypocrite. What is an atheist but someone who asks for evidence of this alleged "God" of yours?
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 18, 2009 10:25 PM
Parlour trick? The simultaenous observation of stars dying across the cosmos that comes in a clear and unambiguous manner for humanity is not merely a parlour trick. It's showing how material explanations can point to such a being. But no, I'm not asking for a parlour trick, just sufficient evidence that would establish what should be a common part of reality. The fact of the matter is that an interventionist deity that has an interest in the human race should be obvious - it should be seen acting in reality and should be scientifically observable. If it's not scientifically observable then it is either too insignificant to make note of, or absent. And this isn't just the Judeo-Christian God, but all ideas and claims to reality.The problem is that you're applying special pleading to a deity as to why we shouldn't see such a being yet at the same time making claims about reality that involve said deity. This is having your cake and eating it too. If God was involved in the origin of life, then that is a scientific claim. If God interferes with the process of evolution, then that is a scientific claim. You can't have your cake and eat it too!
I'll lay out my case in simple English for you... Throughout the bible there is testimony to God's hand on earth - everything from causing floods and plagues, partaking in battles, killing invading armies, responding to prayers, etc. God is an interventionist deity who is supposed to take particular interest in the human race. Yet in stark contrast to the bible, God is absent when we go looking. Why can't we see God when God is supposedly a force on this planet?
But don't feel bad, this isn't against Christianity. It's just one of many religious belief systems that fail in the modern era of actually understanding nature. I asked you for specific evidence for not only gods but the particular deity you believed in, I asked why Christianity above all others? Why not the Norse gods? Why not the Hindu pantheon? Why not Ziltoid The Omniscient? You couldn't give me an answer, instead attacking me on the foundation of my approach (which you completely misrepresented).
To make it very clear, if there were sufficient evidence, I would believe. You're not making the case for Christianity, even if my view was on faith (it isn't) it wouldn't make the case for Christianity. There's no evidence of any interventionist deities, hence I am an atheist. If you have sufficient evidence to the contrary, then I'll change my mind. But it serves no purpose to construct me as me rejecting your beliefs on a priori when I've done nothing of the sort. You could stop this whole conversation now by showing sufficient evidence that a) gods exist, and that god is the Judeo-Christian deity. You won't present evidence, and I find that quite telling.
I would? That's being very presumptuous about my nature. But by all means keep pushing the straw man that I'll never believe no matter what I see, it means that you can dismiss the question without considering the substance.
Are you actually going to address the questions I've asked earlier (that form the basis of my atheistic position) or not? You can keep saying I address things on faith, but the fact of the matter is that I'd be a believer in God if there were sufficient evidence. You're characterising me as dismissing God a priori and that couldn't be further from the truth. But no, persist with your attack on my character instead of addressing the substance of my inquiry. It makes it so much easier to ignore any legitimate points I raise.Posted by: Stanton | October 18, 2009 10:48 PM
So can you please show us exactly where God left His fingerprints in Lenksi's citrate-metabolizing Escherichia coli strains, or amongst the nylon-eating bacteria, perhaps?Posted by: X-Lurker
|
October 19, 2009 9:14 PM
If that's how you wanna see it, but I consider calling this place an echo chamber an example of calling it like *I* see it. If that "insults" you, well, too bad so sad, but the afore-mentioned behavior only serves to reinforce the way *I* see it.
Denial noted.
Correction: YOU personally don't see them. That doesn't mean that nobody else sees them, and it doesn't mean they aren't there. Many people do see them. Antony Flew looked at the evidence, including cosmological evidence, and decided there was some sort of Creator. Others have done likewise.
So this would apply to the origin of life problem as well, then. We have looked for evidence of natural forces creating life, found none, so we must conclude that natural forces didn't create life.
And again, you focus on minutiae in order to avoid the actual argument.
And again, the actual mechanism of random variation culled by natural selection is assumed, not demonstrated.
Again, you demonstrate that you don't listen, collectively speaking. I never said that evolution didn't happen. I merely contend that you take some things on faith, since there is no direct evidence of some things.
Yeah, better luck next time.
Apparently, you do not comprehend the two words, "what if".
Do those sequences cross class lines? Genus? Phyla?
IOW, convinced of the truth. Except for the "imaginary sky-daddy" part, of course. It's amazing how you guys always picture the Christian God as living "...in the sky...". It illustrates your limited thinking.
The logical conclusion is what it is -- that it doesn't sit well with some of you is irrelevant.
Good for you, but you'll be dead some day. All your memories will be gone (assuming no afterlife). If you have any kids, chances are that their great-grandchildren will never even know your name.
Like I said, the logical conclusion is what it is.
On the contrary, it is you who classified it as such, so the onus is on you to support your claim. So go ahead and prove to us that the Bible is nothing more than an "ancient cobbled collection of goatherder stories". It's funny, you make the claim, but "failed utterly to defend that statement". If you actually meant what you said, you'd immediately be able to show how you were correct in characterizing it as such.
...says the man who then fails utterly to defend that statement.
If you actually meant what you said, you'd immediately be able to show how I don't know what those words mean.
On the contrary, my point was that there are indeed gaps in the fossil record. Pointing out places where gaps are not utterly fails to disprove that there are places where gaps are. So maybe you're right, maybe "straw man" isn't the best description. Maybe "red herring" is better.
Regardless, what you said certainly doesn't disprove the existence of straw man arguments on your side of the aisle...
You said that it was "still around", and you gave your highly-biased yet unsupported reason as to why. My point is that the mere fact something is 'still around" doesn't mean anything, in and of itself, and yes, I used religion as my foil, not because I think religion is meaningless, but because you do. And, as I've said before, science has given us a lot of things, such as bioweapons and nukes and gas chambers. As far as "nothing of value wrt to explaining the world around us, ever", well, that is your personal opinion on the matter. That many others share that opinion doesn't make it true. It merely makes it popular within certain circles.
I note yet another personal opinion, being passed off as a "fact". Talk about "con men"!
It is duplicitous to treat his error with kid gloves, and to try an mitigate it, while utterly failing to even consider doing so in my case.
You claim more than that...
Translation: Got'cha!
The thing is, you guys demonstrate that you simply don't listen to what I say. Of course, when I make a mistake, you DO listen, and then y'all pounce, which is fine, but this forced conclusion that I don't know what I am talking about is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. Like one of you guys said, we all say things that aren't accurate. That includes you.
See what I mean?
In response to YOUR got'cha game. Like I said, the main issue was not which mutations were in the majority, but which ones where in the minority. It's very telling that you try and dismiss that main issue as "irrelevant".
Yeah, we've already been over this. I explained how that interpretation actually supports my argument, but you simply deny it's relevance.
Just so. Throw enough Time at the problem and anything can happen. Except you still need a certain number of beneficial mutations to get from Phenotype X to Phenotype Y, but have a limited amount of Time between those Phenotypes.
I posted a video of him. If that's a "quote mine" then just about any cite can be dismissed as a "quote mine". Like I said, if he wanted to avoid ambiguity, he could have easily stated that most selectable mutations were bad. But he didn't.
Well, you can certainly dish it out, can't you? But you obviously can't take it.
Just so. The mechanism exists, ergo it has to be sufficient. No evidence necessary, and by evidence, I mean each and every phenotype between the one at the beginning of a gap and the one at the end of a gap.
Insinuating that I am a "science denier" only reestablishes the echo-chamber status of this place.
You really think that's all it takes???
You guys do the honors for me, continually.
More evidence that you guys don't listen. Also more evidence that this is an echo chamber.
Have you read Antony Flew's There Is A God? Or is your reaction merely to dismiss it as an old man being manipulated by creationists, or otherwise simply losing his mind?
You can follow him on his journey, and see if it takes you where it apparently took him. Or you can find reasons to dismiss it.
That was never my question. My question was, how do we know that natural forces are sufficient?
I suppose I should just give up on the apparent pipe dream that you guys will ever actually listen...
Well, according to Richard Lewontin, you're simply wrong. So either you are wrong or he is.
Of course it means "nothing" when talking about you and your fellow atheists, but it seems to mean a great deal when talking about me...and that's merely assuming "no evidence" on my part.
What I am dismissing are your attempts to lay guilt on me. I have already explained myself, not to your satisfaction, obviously, but the simple fact is that you are moving the goal posts. Like I said, you never mentioned "struggle" until after your first "fuck you". And we all go through teen angst, but I'm supposed to feel guilty because you mentioned something about yours, but nothing in #230 seemed out of the ordinary for a teen finding his way in this world.
I mean, we can go 'round and 'round on this, giving you yet another excuse to hurl epithets, which mean nothing to me.
Assuming this is true for the sake of argument, explain how this is any different from your collective behavior toward me...
On the contrary, don't let me stop you from moving the goal posts. Again.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 19, 2009 9:19 PM
X-lurker, tl;dr. Your deity exists only between your ears, your babble is a pile of fiction, and you have no physical evidence for anything, which is required for us to believe you. In other words, you have nothing but sophistry and blather.
As if you never moved them. They are in constant motion from your lies.Posted by: Kel, OM | October 19, 2009 9:39 PM
What goal posts have I moved? Where from and where to? I have not read it. What arguments does Flew make that are compelling towards theism? From what I've heard about Flew, his new-found god is nothing like a theist god, rather it seems to be a desitic entity that started the whole process. And his understanding of abiogenesis is flawed - but I can't confirm these, it's only from what I've read. If I'm wrong, please correct me.But if you would be so kind as to bring out the main arguments, that would be appreciated. I won't dismiss Flew on the basis of senility, it's the arguments and evidence that should be addressed.
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 19, 2009 9:58 PM
How about we stop all this antagonism and work to a static set of goalposts. I really thought I had a set position - positive claims require positive evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and without sufficient evidence to match the claims the null hypothesis should be preferred.
Do you find this criteria fair? That any idea should be subject to a certain level of evidence before it should be adequately accepted, and that in the absence of evidence it is best to wait until there is sufficient evidence before gravitating towards an idea?
Are there any other criteria you would like to add? Should I modify my criteria in any way?
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 21, 2009 2:28 AM
What? You must be attempting snark. That is totally out of line with what you previously said and what you say afterward. More to the point, so what? It never stopped any of the theists from thinking life was precious even though the same thing you describe happened to most theists.
You have aptly demonstrated you don't know what you are talking about, and when we respond, you twist your prior words into knots and bandy about accusations that have nothing to do with your poor arguments against atheism and your incomprehension of scientific facts about evolution. For example, how does saying "this place is an echo chamber" support your points at all?
What a laugh, and a sad laugh at that. Flew was 80-years-old when he converted to deism, not theism. Since then he has flopped about like a fish out of water on his reason for conversion to deism, and with each new revelation he admits it is because he swallowed blinkered unscientific notions hook, line, and sinker. The book you cite was not even written by Flew but by a ghostwriter named Varghese, which has been confirmed. Put yourself in that position of a strong atheist turned deist turned fake author and tell us again how sharp your mind is. But hey, don't worry X-Lurker, "all [Flew's] memories will be gone" and people "will never even know [Flew's] name" in a few millennia, am I right?Posted by: Kel, OM | October 21, 2009 11:03 PM
Yet their existence (the great-grandchildren) are entirely contingent on his existence, and while the actual genetic component passed down will be slim, if it weren't for him they wouldn't exist.Though the big question remains. Why should a species who lives for at most 100 years need an eternity for the meaningful? This notion you keep pushing of needing an infinity in order to have significance defeats what it means to have meaning. The universe has so far existed for about 1011 years, humanity has existed for about 105 years, we are best get 102 years. Now why does anyone need life to have a 10∞ process for there to be any significance at all to anything they do? Surely when there is such thing as an eternity, the significance of any particular act becomes infinitesimal...
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 22, 2009 11:56 PM
I would just like to note that regardless of whether Flew was being manipulated and/or losing the razor edge of his incisive wit, I completely agree with him in that if God exists, God most definitely is a dick.
(From Wikipedia)
But I'm afraid that the conclusion must be that Flew lost something if he does not recognize that everything that he supposedly found convincing towards deism is either an argument from ignorance or an argument from incredulity, or both.
A bit sad, really.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 23, 2009 12:16 AM
Fixed. (Sorry)
H. sapiens, that is. The genus Homo has existed for an order of magnitude longer.
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 23, 2009 12:28 AM
Shit, off by an order of magnitude, that's embarrassing. And yes, I was referring to homo sapien as opposed to the homo genus. I don't want to infer too much about our pre-sapien ancestors for obvious reasons (i.e. I don't really know)
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 8, 2009 4:14 PM
X Lurker, are you ever going to come back and share Flew's revelation?