Stephen Meyer

I read through about half of Meyer's book while sitting in Border's the other day (yeah, I was freeloading, sue me). If it makes you feel any better, he understands information theory about as well as he appears to understand biochemistry and biology.

If you're going to write like a 8th grade boy trying impress the locker room crowd at least get your facts straight.

Please do not make false claims. You are either lying, or uninformed. The videos in Dr. Meyer's presentation are not from PBS or anywhere else, they are 100% original and copyrighted by Discovery Institute. I suspect you just didn't know you were watching this video. http://www.journeyinsidethecell.com/

Please, try to keep the debate and discussion somewhat civil.

Robert Crowther-- Oh Im sorry, you dont like it when people apply Teh Design Inference? Why doesnt everyone look at both of those animations side-by-side and let them decide for themselves!

TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!

Susana Manrubia? inside joke?

Susana Manrubia kicks ass. Shes doing some kick-ass research, and Meyer, supposedly talking about 'origin of life', hasnt mentioned any of the research I find stock-standard. I was pointing out one of her papers to Ian, and lulz ensued.

Its like Meyer made this presentation 15 years ago.

Ugh. Probably the most annoying thing about IDiots like Meyer is that they use the word "information" when what they're actually using is just the most elementary probability. But information just sounds so much more technical and sciencey! It impresses the flock of antievolutionist Christard believers, which I'm pretty sure is enough for them.

An infinitely more satisfying science video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBCmt_pJTRA

Sorry, I know the ID arguments get dull.
So, find any good porn?

Alternatively, I'm off to find papers by Manrubia.

READ THIS ONE!!!

Its like Meyer made this presentation 15 years ago.

He probably did, with minor changes.

I was reading the ID blog, something about the statement: âThe creation of new information is habitually association with conscious activity.â Seems completely WRONG! I can thing of thousands of events that generate information that are not due to conscious activity. Actually, one of them would be the physical process of the sun fusing hydrogen into helium and then fissioning helium into hydrogen. Wouldn't you agree that there is no conscious agent regulating that process, which of course, informs us of its occurrence via the transmission of electromagnetic radiation? That is to say, because we see the light from the sun we are obviously being informed of it's existence and that process is most definitely not by a conscious agent. Additionally, every other star in the universe is doing exactly that same thing when we view it at night. I suppose you could argue that the NEW information generated by those processes might outweigh all of the conscious agents currently alive on this planet. Dunno... wat u think?

Meyer doesnt know what a ribozyme is.

He wrote a book about cells and...never mind, I confused him with an actual scientist for a second. Won't do that again.

"That is to say, because we see the light from the sun we are obviously being informed of it's existence and that process is most definitely not by a conscious agent."

You're entirely correct. In Shannon theory this would formally correspond to a reduction in entropy caused by a string sent through a communication channel. Thus a completely non-conscious process has generated "information."

The typical IDiot response when dealing with such trivial counterexamples is to say that they're not talking about Shannon information (or Kolmogorov complexity), they're talking about "specified information." Of course, "specified information" has been a moving target since Dembskifag coined the term 15 years ago, and as far as I know has no rigorous definition a la Shannon or Kolmogorov, which is probably why it's impact in the world of real informatics research has been precisely zero.

Hey, Crowther . . .when you wiggle your ears, does your anal sphincter feel a tickle?

Just wonderin' . . . .

Meyer doesnt believe in ERVs, Alus, or pseudogenes.

Are you having fun at our expense or what? I find this kind of...of...of...well, I'm going to go sit in a corner and think about that for a bit. I seem to be having trouble wrapping my brain around that statement.

Q: The scrabble example is overestimating the probabilities.

A: Recomends Doug Axeâs work. The amount of information isnât governed by the number of letters in the alphabet. The plausibility of chance needs to account for the number of combinations attempted. The probabilistic resources are lacking to produce even a modest protein.

I'm really starting to wonder if this guy isn't retarded...
If the amount of information is independent of the number of letters in the alphabet, then how much information can be generated in an alphabet of one character. For example, let's say our alphabet is just the character 'a'.... Oh wait, yes in fact it is governed by how many letters are in an alphabet....

7.40-- Bored. Now watching porn.

Skipping to this and staying there would have been orders of magnitude more informative.

You still around? Just want to come say a hi. I was wondering why you weren't asking anything. Sally Kern explains it.

'7.40-- Bored. Now watching porn.'

The greatest evidence for ID and against evolution that the DI had was that ERV had flipped Casey Luskin hence ID = twue!!!! Now they have another.

"The amount of information isnât governed by the number of letters in the alphabet. The plausibility of chance needs to account for the number of combinations attempted. The probabilistic resources are lacking to produce even a modest protein."

Aside from the fact that he's once again conflating ordinary probability with information, the fallacy here is obvious: he's overlooking the fact that deterministic physical processes underlie the noisy data you observe. There are things like, you know, selection!

Here's a trivial example to illustrate what I'm talking about. Try "randomly" popping balloons filled with hydrogen and oxygen, and determine what the probability is that they will all "randomly" form the same molecule (H2O). Why, the probabilistic resources just aren't there! There must be supernatural intervention!

I don't think you people understood his argument. At least I see nothing here to indicate that you do.

7.40-- Bored. Now watching porn.

As opposed to the twat on stage?

I don't think you people understood his argument. At least I see nothing here to indicate that you do.

Jay, I don't think you know or understand anything about science in general, or biology specifically.

A seventh grade science course would do you wonders.

I don't think Jay understands how to submit a comment. At least I see nothing here to indicate that he does.

I don't think you people understood his argument. At least I see nothing here to indicate that you do.

Ok. Point out a scientific error in Meyer's talk. A scientific error. Not a failure to mention a cool scientist doing awesome research.

BTW, I saw cameras in the crowd, and I heard Meyer grant the reality of some junk DNA, and he specifically mentioned retroviruses at least once (so stop lying to readers who were not there. Meyer clearly "believes" in ervs).

I think there is significant evidence to indicate that Jay is a bot.

Jay,

Assuming you can read a comprehend semantics it should take you all of two seconds to locate this in ERV's post:

"7.18-- Proteins are 'precise three-dimensional structures'. News to HIV-1 env, which is not at all precise. Flutters. Pulsates. Causes a lot of trouble, actually... As someone who deals with protein structure and AA neutrality and evolution, this is a very bizarre portion of the talk (as if this whole thing isnt going to be a drug trip LOL!)"

Which describes a scientific error. You fail, unsurprisingly.

I don't think you people understood his argument. At least I see nothing here to indicate that you do.

Why don't you explain it then?

Thanks for coming out tonight, all those that did. Meyer did speak under the crowd at times and over at others, but overall handled questions and such exceptionally well (especially in the post lecture huddles at the front of the auditorium).

Dr. Westrop's lecture tomorrow night should be really interesting as well. PLUS Wells and Meyer will be there for more conversation and questions.

I know that when someone points out the willful obfuscation of a sophist online (such as my pointing out that Meyer's did not deny the existence of retroviruses) the general response is to insult them but ...c'mon, I was being serious, I do not see Meyer's argument being dealt with anywhere on this blog.

Azkyroth wants me to explain it (I really doubt that) and apparently I am a Bot who cannot read because I did not hear Meyer claim that all Proteins are precise three-dimensional structures. But now that I have learned Science from ERV and her science buddies, I now know that the HIV-1 virus is a Protein. Thanks for educating me on that.

7.40-- Bored. Now watching porn.

PROOF POSITIVE that evolutionism causes rank immorality!

I'M really glad that Ian took your keys to keep you from going after Silly Sally Kern. Did you forget that she always packs a pistol? TWICE she entered the Capitol with a weapon and did not get arrested.

I now know that the HIV-1 virus is a Protein.

Maybe you didn't notice the "env" part of the "HIV-1 env". Poe's law strikes again...

I now know that the HIV-1 virus is a Protein. Thanks for educating me on that.

Sir, you just went full retard.

Skim this over and feel ashamed at your lack of basic understanding of what is being discussed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_and_genome_of_HIV

Thanks 386sx. However, I think you may be mistaken on what a parody is and who is and is not a fundamentalist.

I do have another question. Was that guy who asked the first question during the QandA correct when he later blurted out that the "vast majority of DNA is Junk" ?

Also, when the young fella in the back asked the question about Miller's discovery of amino acids in his experiment, I noticed that that same guy blurted out "What?!!!" as if he couldn't believe the young man's words.

I know the question was off-base because Meyer wasn't talking about the Origin of amino acids (but their sequencing) and nobody holds to the Miller scenario anymore... but was the guy in the front right unable to ascertain the fact that the kid was trying to critique Meyer, just as he was, ... or what. Maybe he was just some crazy guy off the street (?), but sitting near him was incredibly annoying. Oh well to each his own. i took notes, he murmured. I guess my trying to think through a lecture might be as annoying to him as his murmuring and whispering was to me.

Okay sorry Jay maybe you're not a parody, but who else besides a fundamentalist would think that Jesus "poofed" the proteins? :P

Glad to see somebody learned somethin though. Always remember...

"If we're made in Gods image, God's made of gag, pol, and env!"

My knowledge increases even more!!!!

The wiki link says "the proteins of HIV have been the subject of extensive research"

"the" "proteins" ... so is it each protein that "Flutters. Pulsates. [and] Causes a lot of trouble" or is it something about their assemblage.

I really don't know. Educate me. Is the HIV-1 env "a" protein, "a set" of proteins, or what?

But back to what I am really interested in. If more and more identified "junk" DNA turns out to be functional DNA. Will this matter to any of the anti-ID folk. Won't you guys just turn somewhere else?

And It would be great if someone could answer my simple Q above concerning the claim of Questioner number 1. Is the "vast majority of DNA", junk? Or did that guy misspeak?

George #11,

I wrote a post on this because that exact topic has come up a number of times recently. Lots of things encode information. It doesn't take intelligence to encode something. It takes intelligence only to understand the code.

Wait a second, who claimed that "Jesus "poofed" the proteins?" I didn't here that from anybody. Oh, I get it, that is your recapitulation of Meyer's argument. I thought it was more complex than that. Well you know us old folk.

But that reminds me, I sure didn't here much about religion from the creationist in the lab coat. I heard a rather sophisticated philosophical argument about the nature of scientific methodology and its application to questions concerning the origin of sequence specificity.

Oh, and another thing. not to be too pedantic or belittling but ERV's little, "If we're made in Gods image, God's made of gag, pol, and env!" is pretty ridiculous. For one thing, no Christian Jew or Muslim has ever considered G-D to be a material being made up of things... and another, adherents of these faiths have fully recognized for the past two thousand (more and less) years the fact that the world is fallen, and bent out of its proper shape as a result of the sin of mankind. This is plain and simple knowledge. (The catch-line to this blog reminds me of the ignorance and straw-man reasoning employed by that sham fundie Richard Dawkins. Oh wait, I bet she would take that as a compliment. Your welcome.)

ERV's catch-line also rests upon the most simple and childlike understanding of the word "image" conceivable. No serious theological minds chalk up the image of G-D to molecular material. How funny that intelligent people think the toddler that runs this blog is clever. Wait, she is clever, just lacking in wisdom and the department of clear reasoning.

Please don't kick me off, this is my first time here and I have already learned so much from and about Darwinian Fundies.

Wait a second, who claimed that "Jesus "poofed" the proteins?" I didn't here that from anybody. Oh, I get it, that is your recapitulation of Meyer's argument. I thought it was more complex than that.

Okay yeah it's a little more complex than that.

The odds of a protein "poofing" itself into existence is something like a gazillion billion to one. So, therefore, by process of elimination, Jesus "poofed" the proteins. Correct me if I'm wrong! Thanks!

So I guess everybody has gone to bed. If anyone wants to post here whether or not the Questioner who stated that the vast majority of DNA is junk was correct or not, I'll check back tomorrow afternoon. I am just trying to learn from the, what are we supposed to call them here? evilutionists?

(The ID guy claimed that there was "some" junk DNA and a lot of formerly thought to be junk DNA that turned out to be functional, and that ID "predicted" to be functional,... but that questioner who said that ID was false because it wasn't falsifiable, claimed that the vast amount of DNA was Junk. Who is right on this?)

Before I hit the sack, I do want to relate my favorite part of the night though. As I was leaving I heard some old bald guy call some young fella who asked him a question an asshole. Good answer sir. Well played. You showed him.

Sleep well Darwinists those IDiots are have way done with you.

he he... "have" way done with you. I got to go to bed.

BTW, wikipedia is willing to claim that much of the DNA out there is junk.

ID predicts otherwise I suppose. Oh wait, ID does not put forward any predictions. Oops.

Seriously this time. I click post, I go to bed.

I have heard a lot of objections to ID arguments from the HIV research community. This is because HIV is the fastest mutating "organism", if you will, that we know. HIV simply has vastly larger probabilistic resources than most biological systems. So undoubtedly it can perform vastly greater structural computations than most other stuff can.

I'm going to stick with the original request to provide an error in Meyer's talk which Tyler Dipietro started to answer by pointing to where he said proteins have to have a well-defined structure. I'm not an HIV expert, but my impression is Abbie was pointing out that the Env protein does NOT have a well defined structure. There's two ways that I can see this being the case, though I'm not certain which Abbie was referring too.

First, all proteins aren't stuck in some single shape, they're constantly moving around. I may be biased by my own work, but I'd say that these motions are the most important part of how proteins work. Which is why there are people that spend all their time looking at these "wiggle movies" as one of my friends called it this weekend.

The second possibility is that some proteins aren't just wiggling around, they're normally disordered. I know some people who are working on designing antibodies that will recognize HIV and are having problems since they're trying to get it to bind to a protein that doesn't actually have well-defined shape to bind to. This might be the same env protein that Abbie was talking about. And this isn't even a weird thing to see. The first sentence of one of the papers in my to-read pile is "Intrinsic protein disorder is a widespread phenomenon, characterised by a lack of stable three-dimensional structures, and is considered to play an important role in protein-protein interactions." If you really want to educate yourself you might want to take a look here. (though like I said this is still in my to-read pile, so I won't vouch for it's quality)

There's also a third way Meyer could be wrong that seems a bit different from the way Abbie responded, and from what I've seen before is probably closer to Meyer's point. That's the fact that while some single shape for a protein may be difficult to evolve (but still easier than the ID people try and say) there's usually lots of ways for a protein to find a way to work. As I told my students that got confused about some enzyme working in a weird counterintuitive and inefficient way - evolution doesn't find the best way to do something, it just finds a good enough way. And there's usually a bit of wiggle room in what's a "good enough" way.

Don't worry, Jay, they won't kick you off, but they will treat you with extreme disrespect and high amounts of insulting and obscene language, and if you stay on long enough, if you stick to your guns, and if your arguments are sound, then they'll eventually tire of you and ignore your actual points. When all else fails, ERV commenter-minions attack.

On a related point, I was acutely embarrassed by how crappy Sally Kern's husband's question was. But I didn't know who he was. Now that I know, I guess that does partially explain it.

Finally, it was a pleasure talking face to face with Abbie last night, and she and Dr Broughton were kind enough to talk through some of their objections in more detail. I didn't understand all of it, not by any stretch, but while parts were lost on me, parts were very interesting.

See you tonight!

Peace,
Rhology

As I was leaving I heard some old bald guy call some young fella who asked him a question an asshole. Good answer sir.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that said "old bald guy" was eminent Professor Emeritus V(ic)Hutchison. A friend of mine was having a pertinent convo in the back with a Darwinian and told me that Professor Vic would occasionally interpose thoughtful half-comments like "...and b/c you're not a biologist, you can't understand that". The sheer weight of the argumentative force is about to cause my spleen to hemorrhage.

Was that guy who asked the first question during the QandA correct when he later blurted out that the "vast majority of DNA is Junk" ?

For humans at least, yes. I don't know what the estimates are now, but I recall an old figure of 90% junk. But the amount varies hugely between species.

If more and more identified "junk" DNA turns out to be functional DNA. Will this matter to any of the anti-ID folk.

No. We never thought that all junk DNA was useless. Even 20-30 years ago, when we knew very little about what junk DNA consisted of, the assumption was that some of it was used by the cell. We just didn't know what for.

The idea that all junk DNA is useless is a common misconception. For the general public, it's understandable but for someone like Meyer, who should have studied this, and I'm sure has been corrected many times, it's either dishonesty or selective blindness.

Please don't kick me off, this is my first time here and I have already learned so much from and about Darwinian Fundies.

You're going to be mocked for that, I'm afraid. But you've clearly come here trolling, so you're not going to be taken seriously. If you want a serious discussion with us about the biology, don't start off by attacking us.

READ THIS ONE!!!

Nice paper! I think this might make a good analogy for periods of stasis and change in the fossil record. Of course that thought is probably already floating around in the literature. BRB, PUBMED fishing.

Also here's one to keep handy for the Junk DNA crowd.

"Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15496924?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSy…

I fail at HTML linkage. How to do?

Oh wait, ID does not put forward any predictions.

then what the fuck is it good for?!

@ mcmillan

Another good example are the stochastic movements that many (possible all) proteins go through when moving around to carry out their functions.

As beautiful as the Harvard "The Inner Life of the Cell" was, it was completely unrealistic. Protein movements are a mess of jerky, spazzy jumbling around to find active sites or binding sites largely due to Brownian motion. There is no smooth snapping together. Some proteins will bind quickly, some will bump around for a while until a site is found. Sometimes they even go back a step or two! Life can be as messy as a couple of drunk virgins fumbling around in the dark.

There is great movie demonstrating this with actin and myosin but I can't seem to find it at the moment. Ill put it up later if I do.

I did find this though.
"Dynamics of Myosin-V Processivity"
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1305171

Hey Jay,

If you're assuming we're here to educate you, you're wrong. If that happens, it's by random chance, or the kindness of someone's heart.

If, you want education, post on Pharyngula. They're much more helpful and respectful to assist you in acquiring knowledge.

My dear Robert Crowther, aka Bob the Crow,

Yo, 'sup Crow-boy? Oh, my bad, talkin' like an 8th grader.

Ahem.

Tell you what, Bob, let's invite Larry Flynt to make copies of Hustler magazine available to your church youth group and vacation Bible school. Whaddya think about that? After all, Mr. Flynt has actually won First Amendment cases, unlike you creationists.

Hustler magazine will definitely provide a religious experience for your church youth members and youth ministers alike. I can guarantee that attendance will be UP.

What's that, Bob? You don't like Mr. Flynt or his disgusting, pornographic magazine? Are you being uncivil to Mr. Flynt? Actually, I can quite imagine how you feel about Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine.

Well, that's how I feel about the intellectual pornography spewed out by the Discovery Institute and you, Crowther, are my Larry Flynt.

Civil discourse? I don't think so.

FO, Bob-O.

#49. Your limb just broke and you fell off! As an old bald guy, I did not call anyone an a-hole and the FEW discussions I had after the lecture were respectable on both sides and from what I observed that was true for the other discussions I heard.

Also, I did NOT say ANYTHING about not being a biologist, etc.
Be sure you are correct before posting such nonsense. Not being a biologist does not prevent someone from having some knowledge of the subject or from giving their opinion.

vhutchinson,

I was talking with two gentleman and you occasionally leaned over into our circle and made comments. Once you remarked, "he [Meyer] isn't a biologist, he doesn't understand." Granted, I don't have any sort of recording of you doing it; but it stuck out clearly in my mind and I am certain of you saying it.

Nomen Nescio @52:

Actually, if I read jay right that was an attempt at sarcasm. I think he thinks ID predicts most or all junk DNA is functional.

I've never really understood the creationist obsession with junk DNA. Yeah, "God don't make no junk," but that doesn't mean they'd have to find clear functions for it. They could just wave it off as having some ineffable purpose beyond our puny human understanding. It would only be the umpteenth time apologists did that.

Perhaps it has to do with the standard desire to claim errors in evolutionary biology as evidece for creationism, but that also seems so silly. As others have said, it's those danged evilutionists who suspected not all junk DNA was junk from the start, and who did a lot of hard work trying to find out what it did or didn't do. Creationists didn't do a damn thing but whine about how the evilutionists were squeezing their god too much by filling the gaps THEY'D put him in.

it seems remarkably hubristic for a creationist to assert that it would be unintelligent for a Designer to allow or design junk DNA. But then, it seems remarkably hubristic for them to try to prove their god's existence in the first place.

I agree with Vic on that point at least.

Discussion after the event WAS very respectful. I was glad to talk to several CFI members without even once having to debate the John Edwards-likeness or even the punchability of Meyers' face. Thank you all for promoting this conversation in a professional manner.

I hope that you won't treat the anomalous hostile individuals on both sides as representatives for the whole.

Um, Jay... the word you were looking for is "hear" not "here" and "half" not "have" and it's "I've got to go to bed." You seem to think you're just a wiki article or two from figuring this all out, but let me let you in on a little secret... you're too ignorant to know you're ignorant.

"Dembskifag"

Tyler, what does this mean?

"As opposed to the twat on stage?"

Paul, that's not very enlightened, nor is it funny ...

Sorry to be such a pedant, but seriously guys, your (unexamined?) prejudices are showing, and isn't very pretty.

Actually, if I read jay right that was an attempt at sarcasm. I think he thinks ID predicts most or all junk DNA is functional.

i considered that for a moment, too. but then i thought, "how would ID make a prediction?", as well as "would most ID proponents think it significant if such a prediction turned out wrong?", and decided folks who can't easily be satirized should not really be allowed the use of sarcasm, that being too sharp and pointy a thing for them to be safe with it.

rrt @59,

In my experience, DARWINIANS bring up junk DNA, and creationists and ID-ers respond to it. Physician, heal thyself.

You said "gaps", and that's funny to me, b/c a common Darwinian argument is that junk DNA has no function, and why would a Designer create stuff that has no function? Same with "vestigial" structures. This is Darwinism-of-the-gaps. Everyone's got their 'gaps', so just leave it alone, seriously. The sooner everyone does so, the further the conversation can advance.

Finally, it seems remarkably hubristic for a Darwinian to assert that it would be unintelligent for a Designer to allow or design junk DNA. But then, it seems remarkably hubristic for them to try to prove that evolution from common descent is the best explanation in the first place.

Tyler DiPietro (#6):

Ugh. Probably the most annoying thing about IDiots like Meyer is that they use the word "information" when what they're actually using is just the most elementary probability. But information just sounds so much more technical and sciencey!

Indeed. What Dembski calls "information", anyone with an education would recognize as just probability measured on a logarithmic scale.

rx7ward (#62):

"Dembskifag"

Tyler, what does this mean?

In some regions of the Internet, "fag" is a term of general disapproval, indicating a large degree of disdain. "Dembskifag" translates, roughly, to "Dembski the blithering idiot with delusions of grandeur and a moral vacuum where his heart should be".

"As opposed to the twat on stage?"

Paul, that's not very enlightened, nor is it funny ...

Actually, it's very funny.

Sorry to be such a pedant, but seriously guys, your (unexamined?) prejudices are showing, and isn't very pretty.

It's not pre-judice, it's post-judice. We've been watching creationists deliver the same, gobsmackingly stupid bilge for years, vainly hoping that one day, they'd understand something. No such luck. All we get are endless recyclings of the same long-since debunked canards.

Heh. True enough, Nomen... :)

Brian Biggs, Vic stating to someone that 'Meyers isn't a biologist and (Meyers) doesn't understand', which is patently true, is not the same as Vic dismissing someone who asked him a question for not being a biologist and doesn't understand. The latter is what our good old and not so honest friend Rhology appeared to be claiming, or lets be generous and assume that Rhology simply misunderstood what his friend said or his friend misunderstood who Vic was talking about. For even you said he was talking about Meyers. Though it does get hard giving Rhology the benefit of the doubt after a time, due to the number of times he always manages to get the wrong, i.e. negative, end of the stick when relating or narrating almost anything about 'Darwinians'.

@Jay, do yourself a favour and look up the Dunning-Kruger effect. It applies to you.

rho:

It's true that I've seen some evilutionists overselling the "ALL junk DNA is junk" thing, but that still was a misrepresentation of the state of the science.

But the point stands. Junk DNA and vestigial structures, though not essential, can be evidence for evolution in general and specific possible evolutionary mechanisms and histories. We bring up junk DNA because it contradicts specific conceptions of a Creator most commonly used by creationists. I explicitly chastised those creationists for doing so. Of course junk DNA doesn't disprove god! ...unless you've defined your god in such a way as it would. And I do believe a number of theologies warn against doing precisely this.

If the creationists were more like you, arguing for a Creator who had no problem with junk DNA being junk and vestigial organs being vestigial, I wouldn't be using junk DNA as a weapon.

John Phillips,

You are assuming Vic meant A and B, rather than A ergo B. The latter seems more likely given the context of the discussion; either way, he is certainly linking not being a biologist with not understanding. In the context of the discussion it seemed to be a very derogatory and dismissive comment.

I did not originally intend to bring this comment up on this blog; however, that changed after Vic wrote: "Also, I did NOT say ANYTHING about not being a biologist, etc."

@Jay, do yourself a favour and look up the Dunning-Kruger effect. It applies to you.

He doesn't even have to look it up - I've written a nice blogpost on the subject which he can read. He just need to click here. Who knows, he might even learn something.

Brian Biggs, I see that I shall have to apply the same generosity to you as I do to Rhology. Good to know, especially as I went by your own words of what Vic said. I.e. that Vic did not use the words in relation to the person asking him a question, Rhology's claim, but about Meyers. But hey, by now we are used to Rhology twisting in the wind so you are welcome to join him and add to the hilarity.

John Phillips, FCD @67 -
--our good old and not so honest friend Rhology

Ah, well let me add to my list from comment #48:

they will treat you with extreme disrespect and high amounts of insulting and obscene language, and if you stay on long enough, if you stick to your guns, and if your arguments are sound, then they'll eventually tire of you and ignore your actual points and engage in unjustified character assassination.

Got an example of my being dishonest? Direct quotes will suffice, and misunderstanding when I engage in argumenta ad absurdum doesn't count.
Sheesh.

Rhology, it is only character assassination when not true. Your post here about what Vic said and to who is testament enough. As to any other examples, the wealth of times you have been corrected on this blog and yet keep on trotting out the same old, same old, a bit like Meyers in fact. That is either dishonest, or see post 68 and 71, which is the other option to dishonesty.

John Phillips,

I see that I shall have to apply the same generosity to you as I do to Rhology.

Are you then including me in your accusation of "twisting in the wind"?

I have no problem with Vic clarifying what he meant. I am certainly glad he thinks that "[n]ot being a biologist does not prevent someone from having some knowledge of the subject." However, when the comment was made, that was not the impression given. Then, to go on and say that he "did NOT say ANYTHING about not being a biologist" doesn't seem very genuine.

However, you seem to be fine with Vic's comment and upset when Rhology didn't get the quote exactly right from a story relayed to him, giving a different impression. I find it likely that I will have to show generosity to you...

If you're going to write like a 8th grade boy trying impress the locker room crowd at least get your facts straight.

That's an excellent point. You can't really have one without the other, can you? It just doesn't work.

Seriously, dude: Huh?

"... 'fag' is a term of general disapproval, indicating a large degree of disdain"

Blake, do you approve of this usage? What if the preferred term was n*gg*r instead of fag?

"Actually, it's very funny"

Um, right. 'Cause sexism is sooo hilarious ... Do you call people you dislike cunt and bitch also? How about "stupid cow of a woman"? Is that too much?

"It's not pre-judice, it's post-judice"

Thanks for the correction. I should have said "bigotry" in place of "prejudice" I suppose.

Rhology said,

You said "gaps", and that's funny to me, b/c a common Darwinian argument is that junk DNA has no function, and why would a Designer create stuff that has no function? Same with "vestigial" structures.This is Darwinism-of-the-gaps. Everyone's got their 'gaps', so just leave it alone, seriously.

I'm calling you out.

1. If you look at my post at #51 I link to a paper where MILLIONS of base pairs of DNA are deleted from mice with no effect at all. (A) Explain it using your creationist worldview. (B) Your hypothesis must be based on observable phenomena that demonstrates an explanation for part A clearly. In other words NO making shit up. ALL scientific explanations are based on observations, which are then tested by experiment.

2. (A) Explain to me your understanding of the "God of the gaps" fallacy, and what vestigial structures are because your statement leaves me to believe that you have no idea what it means. (B) After the explanations demonstrate why the creationist and evolution supporters both have gaps, why they are the same using specific examples, and why the example of vestigial structures are not problems for creationism.

Just talking crap demonstrates nothing. Show us you are capable of more. If you only answer the parts with an "(A)" after them, that counts as just talking crap. All of the "(B)" items are where you do your work. You have an argument. Like everyone else in the world with an argument the burden of proof is on you.

ERV is awesome for posts like this. The lack of critical thought deserves to be called out like this, and I think you did an excellent job live-blogging it. Cool read; thanks!

lol thanks, Ethan, but I havent really done much but laugh at Meyer :P Honestly, if he was a Creationist fourth grader in 1996, I would have thought he did a real nice job. But hes, like, a grown up. So I got lots of fun ideas for educational posts via Meyers stupidity, eg the importance of RNA structures, evolution of RNA populations, etc.

Also, Jay, yes, Meyer did mention 'retroviruses'. In a later answer, 'correcting himself', in response to our laughter at his initial comment about Alu/ERVs/pseudogenes at 8.22. The guy has a superficial understanding of biology. If he were just some dude, Id just smile, politely correct him, and forget about it. But hes not. He stood up there and presented himself as an 'expert' and made an ass of himself.

"You said "gaps", and that's funny to me, b/c a common Darwinian argument is that junk DNA has no function, and why would a Designer create stuff that has no function? Same with "vestigial" structures. This is Darwinism-of-the-gaps."

No, it isn't Darwinism of the gaps. Darwinism of the gaps would imply that one is making an argument from ignorance. However, there is significant positive evidence that most DNA in the genome is junk.

Perhaps you disagree. Scientific knowledge is, after all, tentative. If you want to refute it you could start by answering T. Ryan Gregories challenge: what possible reason is there for an onion to have a larger genome than a human?

ERV said:

What a waste of time.

Big surprise...NOT.

man. I thought that was tonight. I was thinking of sitting in the back and laughing in strange places. oh well the museum is still free tonight

There are so many comments here I feel like this one will get overlooked, but I watched the linked 'stolen' video, and it reminded me of one question I always had learning biology which was something to the effect of 'how do the little things in the cell know where to go and when?' Now I'm a chemical engineer and creeping flow affected by attractions between molecules explains pretty much everything for me, but how does one explain that to a non-engineer/biologist type person?

Also, if anyone knows of an excellent and straight forward evolution explanation/book/learning tool, I would love you if you told me about it, because I keep getting the "but we are just too intricate and amazing! How could that just appear?" defense and all I can say is "wow, you really don't understand evolution at all." I'm not a very good at teaching apparently.

Dembski and Meyer have earned disdain. To complain about the tone and even the lack of immediate full-bore addressing of their "new" arguments is to pretend Dembski and Meyer somehow deserve respect anew each and every time they open their mouths, as though they had not mightily crapped over science and education in past, as though they had not fomented disrespect, as though every encounter should be a tabula rasa cleared of every iota of bad faith they engendered.

Respect is earned. To complain about the lack of it when respect has already been legitimately lost is disingenuous. Misplaced concern will not earn respect, and reacting to that with even more concern will not earn it back.

With that off my chest, ERV, is there anyone or any place that has a few more details on Meyer's presentation? I'm just interested in particular in what he's been repeating, and how much is right out of things like AiG's playbook of late.

Joshua White @78 -
OK, sure.
A) Fine, that would be evidence in favor of THAT SECTION of DNA having no function. So what?
B) ALL scientific explanations are based on observations, which are then tested by experiment.

Oh, like claiming that unicellular organisms have become kiwis and people, then claiming "that's science"? Right.
I'm more interested in logic.

Explain to me your understanding of the "God of the gaps" fallacy, and what vestigial structures are

God of the gaps is a critique leveled against ID-ers and creationists by evolutionists, mostly, wherein they claim that God simply fills in a lack in current understanding, with the expectation that it will one day be understood by natural processes, like claiming Thor is responsible for thunder when in fact it's masses of air colliding.
Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms which have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution. (source)

Now, a question for you. Please describe what "Darwinism of the gaps" means. Why might I have used that term?

why the example of vestigial structures are not problems for creationism.

B/c some of them have been found to have function, and b/c there's less than zero reason to think that God would have some sort of prejudice against creating them. *I* don't bring it up; Darwinians do, and I respond.
Also, Joshua, take a deep breath. This is just a combox. It's not the end of the world, nor is it Pharyngula, K?

Tyler @81,
However, there is significant positive evidence that most DNA in the genome is junk.

OK, but the common Darwinian claim is "junk DNA disproves design". If you want to qualify that, feel free. I prefer advancing the conversation to repeating the same tired things over and over.

what possible reason is there for an onion to have a larger genome than a human?

No idea. God didn't grace me with that knowledge.
Now, so what?

"OK, but the common Darwinian claim is "junk DNA disproves design"."

"Design" in general is not a testable hypothesis, especially when you design it to deliberately avoid testability (as you are wont to do). However, what it does disprove is efficient design.

"If you want to qualify that, feel free. I prefer advancing the conversation to repeating the same tired things over and over."

Then you can focus on one particular question. The fact that most DNA in the genome is junk is a well established proposition. If you don't want to contest that but rather want to contest the implications of that fact, then feel free.

Kendallcorner:

I'd start explaining it by NOT showing them that video, in original or copyright-infringement flavor. Gorgeous, yes, and even useful, but as others have said, very, very misleading in how clean and smooth it makes the biochemistry look. I'm not expert enough to make many suggestions on good teaching tools, but it calls to mind a (possibly apocryphal but still gets the basic idea) discussion I once heard of how some insects, like roaches, run. Rather than a carefully choreographed, precisely-controlled movement of legs that might require a more complicated brain and muscular system, supposedly it was much more a bunch of clumsy, sloppy flailing that was much cheaper yet still generally tended to push the critter forward. The point being that as long as a given mechanism TENDS to move molecules in a certain direction, it may be good enough, and may deliver better bang for the buck than a more precise system. You run into this sort of cost-benefit issue in, say, military equipment. Yes, THIS infantry rifle performs 10% better than the one we have, but it costs twice as much and we can better use the resources elsewhere.

As for books, Dawkins' latest ("The Greatest Show on Earth") is good, but there are also many others. I'm partial to Sean Carroll's "The Making of the Fittest" and "Endless Forms Most Beautiful," in that order, since they're covering the more recent stuff in Evo-Devo, and it's fascinating. But more narrowly focused, while many others are broad.

"B/c some of them have been found to have function..."

This already betrays your gross misunderstanding of the definition of "vestigial". It isn't predicated on something having no function, but that it has arrived at obsolescence given it's original function. The human tailbone is a good illustrative example.

No doubt now you'll simply continue your usual pattern of reverting to claiming that such a thing doesn't disprove design anyway, so you don't care. You'll have to forgive the rest of us for finding your casual disregard for the facts to be problematic.

In my experience, DARWINIANS bring up junk DNA, and creationists and ID-ers respond to it. Physician, heal thyself.

This time around it was the ID creationists who brought it up though. I'm guessing this is one of the rare exceptions to your experience of "DARWINIANS bring up junk DNA, and creationists and ID-ers respond to it." Probably doesn't happen very often.

it has arrived at obsolescence given it's original function.

Kinda begs the question.

"Kinda begs the question."

Explain how. Remember that "begs the question" means to assume one's conclusion within one's premises.

Kinda begs the question.

Not unless you're already committed to objecting to "original function" on creationist grounds, in which case it can be expounded that "original function" refers to additional functionality of homologous features or structures in living things of closer taxonomy... even if you want to refer to that taxonomy in Linnaeus-inspired terms instead of modern evolutionary terms.

Things that look like the coccyx and have developmental growth and genomic activation like the coccyx turn into full-grown tails in other primates and indeed many other mammals. The fact that they are important for muscle attachment sites does not obscure the fact that they are fused and immobile.

I can't help but take your "there's less than zero reason to think that God would have some sort of prejudice against creating them" comment to mean some flavor of "God can do whatever he wants". Perhaps it hasn't been made clear that vestigiality comes not just from casual design evaluations (e.g. scientist X says "I wouldn't do it that way"), but patterns of functionality that also follow taxonomic and developmental patterns.

What you seem to be to be essentially saying, then, is that the patterns are irrelevant, because they can be explained by some conscious whim to which you are not privy.

The only problem is, removing limitations vastly increases the number explanations that are in accord with the evidence. Hence some of the parody "alternate explanations" that people come up with. However sarcastic, they illustrate a point.

In that sense, saying "I can explain that" in a positive correlative sense is not so useful.

What is useful is something that can take the risk and lay down limits, and that the limits turn out to be respected. Taxonomic and genomic patterns can do this - we can say that if a living creature gets sorted taxonomically based on a certain set of traits, then other traits have a very high probability of clustering in the same way.

Dembski and Meyer know the visible power of limits. Unfortunately for them, their limits are merely exclusive instead of also inclusive and worse, based on poorly-applied statistics and/or logic and bad models of evolution.

(Dembski's Explanatory Filter, for example, had regularity, chance and design as separate slots, when the phenomena demanded combinations be allowed as well. His No Free Lunch modeled evolution as a teleological process with random children and no feedback.)

Ugh, typos:

"seem to be to be" -> "seem to me to be"

Also "the fact that they are fused and immobile" needs an "in great apes, including humans" at the end of it.

I can't help but take your "there's less than zero reason to think that God would have some sort of prejudice against creating them" comment to mean some flavor of "God can do whatever he wants".

It's also a mathematically absurd statement. Assuming a uniformly distributed sample space of outcomes, God doing any one thing is equally likely. If that sample space is infinite, the probability of any one explanation is zero, since 1/n goes to zero as n goes to infinity.

At least we have an example of Rhology making a statement that can be definitively proven true or false, such is progress I guess.

Assuming a uniformly distributed sample space of outcomes, God doing any one thing is equally likely.

In all fairness here, I'm pretty sure that creationists aren't operating on the uniformly distributed sample space hypothesis :)

Even taking into account infinite possibilities, they could claim from their starting premises that it is merely the case that nothing is forbidden.

My complaint is that having a hypothesis that could 'explain' absolutely anything, no matter what it turned out to be, is not a virtue. It is in that sense exactly equivalent in terms of explanatory power to not knowing, and any attempts to explain anything specific within that framework become just-so stories by default, as we witness with little snippets you see like "God loves variety" and "mutations come from sin".

The evolutionists here don't know the difference between complexity, specificity, and specified complexity. By your own scientists admission life is just a "happy accident" and the increasing complexity of life is simply a lucky toss of the dice. Statements like these reveal the ignorance about how the cell works, and the effects of randomness on the genome. Assuming pure chance is responsible for the enormous differences between plants, animals, and all other life is to consciously blind yourself to the facts revealed in the fossil record, and in the cell itself.

The brians here don't seem to know the difference between random chance, contingency and cumulative variation. By their own misinterpretations of what scientists say, life is purely, exactly random, and scientists must use that to ignore the laws of chemistry, feedback from the environment, and have "fitness landscapes" that never change and are just infinite cubes with a fine pink fuzz of near-zero probability at every point.

These imaginary scientists also imbue chance with the ability to violate chance, because if there's just chance, then it can never form anything that's not random. Therefore, the brians must believe, this chance-violating Chance is like the scientists' God.

Wow, this game is fun! Any more tropes that I can play with?

the increasing complexity of life is simply a lucky toss of the dice.

There are zero scientists who think this. ZERO. And I defy you to name one. If the kind of evolution that scientists ACTUALLY argue for was anything like your and other creationists misunderstanding of it, I probably wouldn't accept it either.

The answer to one of the questions in my microbial pathogenicity class was ERVs. Nailed that one. Thanks Abbie!

TBnsuch-- Microbial pathogenicity?? Oh no, are you sure it wasnt supposed to be prophage??? LOL! Prophages are like ERVs, but in bacteria, and they often code for virulence factors... Oh no! LOL!!!!

OK, sure.
A) Fine, that would be evidence in favor of THAT SECTION of DNA having no function. So what?

A creation model would not suggest the presence of parts that have no function. If this DNA has no function then it seems that the âcommon Darwinian argumentâ against the creation explanation has weight. The presence of this functionless DNA needs an explanation and the current explanation is consistent with the Darwinian model. Many examples of DNA that once had function and then lost it have been demonstrated. (Vitamin C and primates, wrecked viral genomes, duplication mutations that went nowhere, etcâ¦). Single celled organisms and viruses are known for their compact genomes with almost no waste, but multicellular organisms by contrast have genomes that seem to be tremendously wasteful. Given what we know about how useful DNA becomes âJunkâ, the amount of time it would take to explain the presence of the amount of junk would be huge, like millions to billions of years.

Oh, like claiming that unicellular organisms have become kiwis and people, then claiming "that's science"? Right.
I'm more interested in logic.

Here is an interesting website.
http://tolweb.org/tree/
This is a project that aims to determine the relationship between every life form that has ever existed on this planet. Science is a process that seeks to explain phenomena. You canât just come up with any old explanation, your âhypothesisâ must be rooted in observations that you make about the phenomena. If you do not do this you will be shot down by your colleagues that would prefer to get your grant money. On almost every page of that website you will find tons of citations. Here is the page that just pertains to the root of the tree, http://tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1. Look at it. There are probably over a hundred journal articles alone. Are you really going to tell me that no science was done here? These scientists did not look at the world, form hypotheses to explain what they were seeing, and then test them? These scientists did not put their explanations up against their competitorsâ explanations and let the community as a whole decide? When the scientific community that focused on this specific area (relationship between the three kingdoms of life) was satisfied that the evidence was strong enough they did not use it as background for new studies? Do I need to go on? This is the crap that lets us make fun of you. You have NO IDEA what the evidence that supports our views is, but you think that itâs all fine to make statements like this in a room filled with people who know how to see if you are full of crap.

Now, a question for you. Please describe what "Darwinism of the gaps" means. Why might I have used that term?
Mostly correct about the god of the gaps.

If (in comment #61) by âwherein they claimâ¦â you are talking about evolution supporters, you seem to indicate that evolution supporters claim that god fills in a lack of understanding. We are saying that the ID supporters and creationists are inserting god as an explanation when the best current explanation is simply that we do not know yet and more study needs to be done. I admit that I may be misreading you.

As for âDarwinism of the Gapsâ, I am not a mind reader so I will have to make some assumptions. If you are using the definition that you provided as a framework, then you seem to be implying that evolution supporters are inappropriately inserting an explanation. Now when âGod of the gapsâ is used it is because there is no scientifically satisfactory current explanation for a phenomenon. We are claiming that there is no good evidence to insert god, and every time in history that it has been inserted before it has eventually failed (lightning, disease, mental illness, earthquakesâ¦). So I assume that you are saying that we have no good evidence to assert that junk DNA has no function, or that there is something wrong with how we are using vestigial structures in an argument. I shot down your junk DNA claim above because the fact that we can delete huge chunks of genome without apparent effects argues that the âjunkâ descriptor is accurate, we have good reason to call it âJunk DNAâ. I canât say if your problem with our use of vestigial structures is a valid claim or not because you do not say what is wrong with any particular claim in your #61 comment.

B/c some of them have been found to have function, and b/c there's less than zero reason to think that God would have some sort of prejudice against creating them. *I* don't bring it up; Darwinians do, and I respond.
Also, Joshua, take a deep breath. This is just a combox. It's not the end of the world, nor is it Pharyngula, K?

The definition of vestigial that you gave is not consistent with your first sentence. So I have to conclude that you did not really understand the definition of vestigiality. The definition does not say the structure has no function. What matters is if the structure has the same function that it had when it first appeared. The entire concept of vestigial is utterly dependant on the theory of evolution (but evolution is not dependant on vestigiality). You are correct that evolution supporters bring up vestigiality. We do this because like junk DNA it is a good example of something that is not consistent with creationism. Wisdom teeth make no sense if there is a creator. They are far more trouble than they are worth and in many cases are not even functional because they are set in the jaw in a way that makes them useless at best, a medical problem at worst. There are lists of other âdesignâ issues that were there really a creator, would have been done differently.

You come on this weblog that is run by a scientist, frequented by scientists, and display gross ignorance about what science is, how it is done, what evidence supports our conclusions, and what our motivations are. You come here and you make specific, factually incorrect claims about a huge range of issues and donât offer a single citation to a scientific paper that actually supports your claims. You make assertion after assertion about your religious explanations and just expect us to accept your assertions, when we have spent years or decades immersed in a world where every claim better have observations and data to support it, and then you claim we are the ones with hubris.

Oh I am perfectly calm. You see I just received a masterâs degree in molecular biology and am planning on going into high school science teaching. I was wise enough to save money to endure the necessary unemployment period after I graduated (only a few weeks ago). So I have the time to sit here and dig up the evidence that demonstrates why you are an ignorant jackass because I am bored and this is more fun than I thought it would be. All I have to do is remember that I will never convince you because I canât rationalize you out of a position that you got into sans rationality. Itâs the fence sitters that care about evidence that are watching us that I care about. I am planning to be a teacher after all, so I should be prepared for stupid things that I will hear when the topic of evolution comes up. I will just have to adopt a different demeanor for the parents. You are practice.

I screwed up the third block quote on comment #101. "Mostly correct about the god of the gaps" is me.

Assuming pure chance is responsible for the enormous differences between plants, animals, and all other life is to consciously blind yourself to the facts revealed in the fossil record, and in the cell itself.

Brian, this quote qualifies you as an willfully ignorant moron. Since you've made this statement previously and have been corrected previously and since you have access to the Internet, Google and Wiki, as do we all, your quote qualifies you as a Lying Willfully Ignorant Moron.

Oh, but that's so 8th Grade locker room.

Actually, there's a bright side. Being a Lying Willfully Ignorant Moron will enable you to quit your job at the buggy whip factory and get an internship at the Discovery Institute.

Hey, Crowther, throw a bone to Brian, here. Who knows, he could be another Luskin!

It's laughable that creotards and IDiots are still arguing against the concept of "junk" DNA. The concept is self-evident to anyone who bothers to do any sort of phylogenomic comparisons. For example, the size of the lowly onion's genome is around 17 picograms (pg) whereas the epitome of Yahweh's creation, man, has a pitiful genome weighing in at a measly 3.5 pg. Hmm, did the genus Allium stump Yahweh? It seems he needed a lot extra DNA to make vegetables. Some god.

Meyers and Dumbeski failed the onion test.

"The evolutionists here don't know the difference between complexity, specificity, and specified complexity."

I'm pretty sure you don't have a fucking clue. You can always prove me wrong by providing relevant definitions.

Ritchie,

It would actually be pretty remarkable if creationists were able to supply a probability distribution that assigned differential probabilities to God/the designer's possible actions. That would make their hypotheses testable. Since no particular claim can be definitively said to have higher or lower probability, they really have to assume the uniform distribution. That's essentially what my argument is.

@Jay.
You said "No serious theological minds chalk up the image of G-D to molecular material".

So what? How many serious theologians are trying to push their religious ideas into science classrooms?

Got tired of reading the comments.

Isn't it time we got some more Arnie photos?

(But hope all this chatter earns you a buck or two.)

10 points FROM Blytherin, Jay, for being an insufferable know-fuck-all.

The question was about genetic elements that demonstrate our long historical battle with bacteria and viruses (HLA variation, ERVs etc). It was a general review of Immunology which is a beast of a subject to condense into 2 1/2 hours.
That bit about prophage virulence factors is interesting, I'll have to look into that. Thanks.

Sorry if I annoyed anyone; I was annoyed by Meyer's abysmal understanding of molecular biology. He has the floor to spew all the B.S. he wants and we get one 10 second question before they pull the microphone.

As to junk DNA, Meyer brought it up. It was his example of a prediction of ID. It is not clear exactly what part of design leads to the prediction that junk is not really junk. But molecular biologists had been talking about regulatory regions being larger than originally thought long before the IDers jumped on it. None the less, if genomes are only 90% junk instead of 95%, they're still mostly junk.

Evolutionary biologists talk about junk because the sequences of non functional DNA frequently indicate common ancestry. We don't use it to try to falsify a designer - the whole concept is unfalsifiable.

It would actually be pretty remarkable if creationists were able to supply a probability distribution that assigned differential probabilities to God/the designer's possible actions. That would make their hypotheses testable.

Oh, but they could! Problem being that it would just be a post hoc data dump of everything that exists and calling it God's decisions :)

If they could provide rules that could be applied to unknown - or unknown-to-them - situations, then that would be worth something.

Say, for example, the idea that no new "information" has been created since the Fall. Since non-"clean" nephesh-life-containing life forms were down to a single breeding pair each at 2348 B.C., we are down to a maximum of four possible alleles at any particular site. For cases where there are more today - including across "baramins" (a baramin could include all canids, depending on whom you ask) and those alleles are functional, there must be some vestiges of new kinds of genetics that show traces of all the old front-loaded allele varieties.

They've got the money - why don't they go for it?

For what it's worth, nature isn't particularly kind to their speculations once one goes looking :)

10 points FROM Blytherin

Azkyroth, I pronounce you full of win[gardium leviosaAAaa].

So let's see.
From tonight's performance, we have:
-Meyer and Wells LOTS
-Darwinists in attendance ZERO

Seriously you guys. The best you can do during the Q&A is
1) Have Prof Hutchison ask why it's proper to quote non-ID people expressing their views on a relevant topic (and then have Prof Hutchison warmly pat Dr Meyer on the arm and tell him that he didn't ask another question b/c he didn't want to embarrass him)?
2) Ask about the presence of ERVs evidenced during mammalian evolution (which is, for the uninitiated, AFTER the Cambrian explosion) (oh yeah, the DVD was about nothing but the Cambrian explosion)?
3) Ask about Hox genes and gene duplication (and then go into a tizzy when challenged on why a Designer just couldn't conceivably want to do it that way)?
4) Ask why a Designer would make it so humans share lots of similar genes with other organisms? (Dunno, maybe b/c they work well and the Designer doesn't like to reinvent the wheel every time? Maybe?)
5) Ask why the DVD sometimes said "designers" and sometimes "Designer"?
6) Ask whether using the normally-accepted geological scale was an intentional jab at YEC?
7) Beg the question repeatedly and mercilessly when asked to give an explanation for one's materialistic views (that was you, Prof Hutchison)?

Umm, so yeah. Not exactly the best of performances from our Darwinist friends. Send us more, we're hungry.

Peace,
Rhology

Thanks for the rundown on the Q and A Rhology.

Sounds like more of the same. Did somebody seriously ask the whole "is it designer or designers question"? WOW. I remember that question back when I was at University. And HOX genes? Seriously.

Can anybody post some notes from the "No Dilemma for Darwin" lecture. A little bird told me that Dr. Westrop cited the anti-Darwinian Paul Chen (et al. 2009 paper) in his pre-"Darwin's Dilemma" -this-is-not-a-refutation-talk. L-oh-my-goodness-L.

If the pre-response lecture actually cited one of the decidedly pro-Discovery Institute Cambrian Explosion experts in their talk (Chen), I am going to have a conniption.

Oh, wait, am I allowed to have a conniption? I realize that I have been banned from henceforth employing any sharp sarcasm here so as not to confuse any simpleminded Darwinian readers of ERV, but seriously, if the museum's Cambrian expert cited Chen's 2009 paper during his talk, not only is that freaking awesome that he cited a DI guy during an anti-DI stunt, but it pretty-much proves the general consensus feeling among ID proponents that their opponents haven't a clue what they are up against.

At least a Chen citation is indicative that Westrop is actually keeping up with his reading.

It's still hilarious.

P.S. I left a word misspelled and employed a poorly constructed sentence in the above post so that the Darwinians would have something to attack me for. Your welcome.

4) Ask why a Designer would make it so humans share lots of similar genes with other organisms? (Dunno, maybe b/c they work well and the Designer doesn't like to reinvent the wheel every time? Maybe?)

I see that claim a lot. "Common toolkit" and the like.

Do you know the background of the "similar genes" topic?

Why is human alpha hemoglobin chain identical to that in chimpanzees and bonobos (you can go to uniprot.org and look for P69905 or HBA_HUMAN and click to run the Blast search yourself, if you like), 99% identical to that of the lowland gorilla, 97% identical to that of the macaque, 93% identical to the mandrill, 85% identical to that of the common mouse, 82% identical to that of the rabbit, and even in the forest of similar percentages, you can usually "re-home" your blast search on the given creature.

If you take a look at the genes responsible, it's even more telling. HBA Human may be identical to HBA Chimpanzee, but there are three base pair differences which don't change the proteins. You can follow the genes down as well, though we have fewer creatures gene-sequences than we do protein sequences.

If you take a look at the surrounding gene area, you see no pristine toolkit. Take a Google for J00153. There are flanking ALU repeats, HBAP pseudogenes all over the place, and HBA2 and HBA1, each in three pieces (three exons, two introns) to get stitched together.

Think this won't form a similar taxonomic pattern once we sequence and analyze them?

The only way this would make any sense in a designer explanation is if the putative designer went up and back down the taxonomic tree, copying and modifying from baselines. In that sense, it would be common descent, but from prototypes instead of from creatures.

Creationists could have used an explanation like that, save for the confounding details required for the Noachic flood, which would destroy such a pattern due to the need for saving space and thus requiring "baramins" to be larger.

"(...) it pretty-much proves the general consensus feeling among ID proponents that their opponents haven't a clue what they are up against."

HAHAHAHAHA! Oh no, scientists are up against incompetent liars like Meyer and Dembski? Oh my, let's all hope they don't invent some more terms and pretend their ideas are better because of them. They'd better not steal any animations from PBS, that'll make up for the complete dearth of evidence for their claims!

That feeling is a false sense of superiority. Dunning-Kruger and all that.

Also, when were you banned from doing anything? You're ridiculed and insulted because you act like an idiot and should expect such treatment in the future, as we possess memories. I see no bannings in place for merely being an idiot.

Rhology: " 3) Ask about Hox genes and gene duplication (and then go into a tizzy when challenged on why a Designer just couldn't conceivably want to do it that way)?"

This is your contribution to the blog in a nutshell, sans labeling those familiar with science as "Darwinists" and declaring accuracy without things like sources and evidence. That is, an ID/creationist claim is made (they tend to be poorly evidenced). Someone with at least a passing familiarity with the subject points out how the reasoning is flawed and/or based on false premises. Then the inevitable, "a designer could still do it!" comes out, thus invalidating the entire point of the argument to begin with.

Rhology, if a designer can do just about anything in just about any asinine way, why would you consider an argument based on the properties of such a designer to make any sense? A "designer" that can act like a designer (efficiency, grandeur!) or like a roundabout drunkard going through contingency that looks just like evolution isn't exactly the best conclusion to make based on what a random ID proponent/creationist thinks is in line with 'intelligence' or 'design'. If you want to give up on arguments for design, which just about inevitably draw upon the qualities of a designer (suddenly unnecessary when a counterargument is made), that's peachy, but then what else do you have to contribute here? Calling us Darwinists? That's just dishonest: opposing ID requires only minimal knowledge of the movement, its claims, and critical thinking. You don't need to know jackall about biology and even if you do, being labeled a 'Darwinist' would only apply if the subject is solely/primarily natural selection or biology of the 19th century.

As a side note, you don't seem to know what question-begging is. It's best to avoid accusing other people of misusing logic if you don't even know the accusation.

Ritchie Annand, stop coming up with new ways for professional creationists to lie!

The ritchies here don't seem to know the difference between conversant argumentation and unfounded assertion.

#97 The brians here don't seem to know the difference between random chance, contingency and cumulative variation. By their own misinterpretations of what scientists say...

There seems to have been only two Brians commenting here, and since I have yet to posit anything about random chance, contingency, or cumulative variation, either here or on my blog, you seem to have made a rather bold accusation based sheer speculation or imagination. This is the second time I have been included in a critique of someone else. I am beginning to wonder how many naturalists can distinguish between their critics.

rbroughton @ 110 -

Evolutionary biologists talk about junk because the sequences of non functional DNA frequently indicate common ancestry. We don't use it to try to falsify a designer - the whole concept is unfalsifiable.

Hahahaha, funny stuff, Dr Broughton. ToE is functionally unfalsifiable, b/c no matter what critique ID and/or the fossil record brings against it, you just change it. Witness the "absorption" of punctuated equilibrium into the neo-Darwinian landscape of accepted ideas. For no obvious reason really, other than "Uh oh, we better do SOMEthing, guys!"
Anyway, you gave (nor do you ever give) any reason to think a Designer couldn't've laid down that DNA. Nor do you have access to this Designer's motivations and mind, so retreating to "well, *I* wouldn't've done it that way". Who cares what you would've done?
Finally, plenty of things are unfalsifiable. The laws of logic. The laws of mathematics. The scientific method. The principle of unfalsifiability itself. Seriously, I'd suggest you get a new argument.

Peace,
Rhology

Can anybody post some notes from the "No Dilemma for Darwin" lecture. A little bird told me that Dr. Westrop cited the anti-Darwinian Paul Chen (et al. 2009 paper) in his pre-"Darwin's Dilemma" -this-is-not-a-refutation-talk. L-oh-my-goodness-L.

If the pre-response lecture actually cited one of the decidedly pro-Discovery Institute Cambrian Explosion experts in their talk (Chen), I am going to have a conniption.

Citation please. Do you mean Paul K. Chien, UCSF biology professor and Disco Toot associate?

The one whose primary area of research, according to his university webpage, is in ion and amino acid transport across membranes?

In which field he has exactly six publications indexed in PubMed, spanning 1977 to 1995? And none in the area of Cambrian paleontology?

Or perhaps you have him confused with a "Paul Chen" who actually is a Cambrian expert with reams of peer-reviewed publications in the field.

Because if Paul Chien is your "expert", tee hee hee hee, and furthermore oh ho ho ho ho.

Anyway, I repeat: citation please.

Note, Brian, I said brians, not Brians :)

Rhology,

ToE is functionally unfalsifiable, b/c no matter what critique ID and/or the fossil record brings against it, you just change it.

What does the "fossil record" bring against "it"?

4) Ask why a Designer would make it so humans share lots of similar genes with other organisms? (Dunno, maybe b/c they work well and the Designer doesn't like to reinvent the wheel every time? Maybe?)

If the - omnipotent - designer "doesn't like to reinvent the wheel", then why, pray tell, did they feel the need to put the genes that chimps have on chromosomes 2A and B together on out chromosome 2 - that sounds like reinventing hot water to me.

I shan't ask why they decided to leave in the gene for synthesising vitamin C, while still disabling it so that we have to get it from out diet. I know the answer to that one: SIN! SINSINSINSINSIN!!! DIE IN HELL, INFIDEL!!

*ahegm*

:straightens hair:

Joshua @ 102

Hope you end up in my school district.

If the amount of information is independent of the number of letters in the alphabet, then how much information can be generated in an alphabet of one character. For example, let's say our alphabet is just the character 'a'.... Oh wait, yes in fact it is governed by how many letters are in an alphabet....

Given that the computer you read and typed this on only knows 2 "letters", the only restriction on the alphabet is "more than one letter"

ToE is functionally unfalsifiable, b/c no matter what critique ID and/or the fossil record brings against it, you just change it.

"Seriously, scientific community, when you realized that classical mechanics doesn't work with objects travelling at the speed of light or objects very far away, did you toss it all out as nonsense? NO. You just came up with this 'relativity' silliness and adjusted your theory to more accurately fit the facts. Physics is all bunk."

To seriously suggest that the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable because it has actually CHANGED over the course of the last 150 years to be ignorant of both

1) The process of science.
2) The history of science.

Of course there are lots of ways you could easily falsify evolution.

1) Pre cambrian rabbit
2) Fossil elephant in Austrailia (as this would violate evolutionary biogeography)
3)Creature with titanium claws (as this wouldn't fit within the nested hierarchy, though it would be awesome)
4) Mammal with atavistic feathers (Instead, all atavisms discovered so far are 100% consistent with evolution)

Instead, we discover a biological world that is 1) Totally consistent with evolution, or 2) Has been designed with the appearance of being totally consistent with evolution. And Occam's Razor cuts off the nuts of the latter explanation.

Finally, plenty of things are unfalsifiable. The laws of logic. The laws of mathematics. The scientific method. The principle of unfalsifiability itself. Seriously, I'd suggest you get a new argument.

None of these things are scientific theories, so this objection is irrelevant. Seriously, I'd suggest you get a new rebuttal.

The entire movie:

The 1st third was relatively innocuous. The computer generated images of the organisms... I have games from the early 2000s that has better graphics the movie but I digress. They interview Dr. Simon Conway Morris and ask him to describe the Cambrian and how some of these soft bodied animals can be fossilized.

A few quotes here and there, taken out of context, from Richard Dawkins. The movie describes the process of gradual evolution and how long of a time is needed to generate new species. They claim the Cambrian explosion was 'only' 5-10 million years thus it was "too fast" for life to have evolved. They point to the Chengjiang fossil strata that contains pre-Cambrian bilateral embryos then the immediate Cambrian strata above that contains various complex life forms. I believe Jonathan Wells said in the movie "it might have appeared overnight!"

So the argument starts to condense around this fossil strata. You have "fragile" embryos fossilized in one layer and complex life forms fossilized in the immediate layer. This time difference is estimated to be between 5-10 million years. If you ignore that adult forms of these embryos have not been found nor do other soft bodied fossils have been found in the Precambrian strata, the Chengjiang site does give the appearance of "poof! New animals!"

Thus, their central argument is that "evolution is gradual" and during the Cambrian explosion, new phyla suddenly appeared. The claim is that evolution predicts that there should be primitive ancestral transition fossils. Since these "fragile" embryos were fossilized, this proves that soft bodied organisms can be fossilized which 'proves' that the evilutionist's claim that the fossil record is incomplete is false...

So they ask "what could have made all these new phyla suddenly appear? Look at all these pretty cars! They all have the same basic body plans (like these organisms in a phyla) and that it hasn't varied! No immediate primitive car precursors, must have been designed! From an intelligent human being! Since all these new phyla appeared during the Cambrian and we don't find any immediate precursors and it looks like what we humans do, these new phyla must have been designed!"

"Since we only know of one force that can make 'new' plans, which is an intelligent mind...who could it be?" . Then they went into some confusing spiel that the body plan is not encoded in DNA and that cells must receive some miraculous commands to differentiate into parts. Some more junk science, propaganda, speculating on the conspiracy that scientists, universities, and researchers are on to block debate...etc.

Rhology: "Witness the "absorption" of punctuated equilibrium into the neo-Darwinian landscape of accepted ideas. For no obvious reason really, other than "Uh oh, we better do SOMEthing, guys!""

Yeah, that's exactly how and why paleontologists came up with punctuated equilibrium.

If the amount of information is independent of the number of letters in the alphabet, then how much information can be generated in an alphabet of one character. For example, let's say our alphabet is just the character 'a'.... Oh wait, yes in fact it is governed by how many letters are in an alphabet....

Given that the computer you read and typed this on only knows 2 "letters", the only restriction on the alphabet is "more than one letter"

And now that I think about it more, remove that "more than one letter" restriction. You can represent anything with one letter.

Encode the contents into computer memory. Take the entire contents as one whomping big number. Send that many of the letter. Practical? Oh hell no. Possible (ignoring little things like lifetime of the universe), yeah.

Therefore, information content is totally independent of size of the alphabet and things can be encoded in even 1 letter.

Abby

Just wondering if anyone had the temerity to stand up, identify themselves and their qualifications, and condemn Meyer's talk as a nearly perfectly complete load of donkey bollocks?

Outreach efforts by the DI are a deliberate and calculated disinformation campaign to deceive the public. To merely engage in Meyer in polite and erudite Q&A leaves the unenlightened visitor with a false sense of the scientific legitimacy of the presentation.

Bullshit artists like Meyer should be denounced as the charlatans that they are, and in no uncertain terms, don't you think? The public interest deserves nothing less, IMO.

Best,

Ginger

Ritchie Annand, stop coming up with new ways for professional creationists to lie!

I thought they needed some help :)

Seriously, though, there are things that they could go off and research if they followed through on the implications of what they claim. They seem, by all the writings I've encountered so far, just to offer "it could have been" conjectures and there they stop. It's just "good enough" until they get embarrassed into making a further "good enough" conjecture.

There's nothing stopping them from doing their own actual, honest-to-goodness research, but they would rather whine about persecution than do it.

Hell, even offering up well-formed experiments that scientists could perform on their behalf would be fine if they complain about lack of materials and expertise.

SVN:

Then they went into some confusing spiel that the body plan is not encoded in DNA and that cells must receive some miraculous commands to differentiate into parts.

Seriously?! I'd love to see them expound that on paper :) What rock have they been living under that they haven't even heard of bicoid at the very freaking least?

4) Ask why a Designer would make it so humans share lots of similar genes with other organisms? (Dunno, maybe b/c they work well and the Designer doesn't like to reinvent the wheel every time? Maybe?)

He's omnipotent why is reinventing the wheel versus not any harder?

Why aren't we the LITERAL dirt mentioned in Genesis? He's omnipotent, it's possible for him, by definition. Yet instead we're a kludge on top of a kludge. So many of the biological mistakes I wouldn't expect a first year engineering student to make. Is the designer really that incompetent?

I think humans dancing nekkid in the exosphere would be a much more suitable demonstration of an omnipotent being's power than all these tawdry lifeforms that obey the laws of physics and chemistry.

Rho
"Anyway, you gave (nor do you ever give) any reason to think a Designer couldn't've laid down that DNA. Nor do you have access to this Designer's motivations and mind, so retreating to "well, *I* wouldn't've done it that way". Who cares what you would've done?"

I did not use the "bad design" argument at all, don't know where you got that.

However it is interesting that Meyer claimed that design makes predictions. The junk DNA thing was the only thing he could come up with. What exactly is it about design that leads to the prediction of no junk DNA? How can design predict anything at all without "access to this Designer's motivations and mind"?

The question was about what genetic elements demonstrate our long historical battle with bacteria and viruses (HLA variation, ERVs etc.) The lecture was a review of Immunology, a beast of a topic to cover in 2 1/2 hours.
That bit about prophage virulence factors is interesting, I'll have to look into that. Thanks.

Encode the contents into computer memory. Take the entire contents as one whomping big number. Send that many of the letter. Practical? Oh hell no. Possible (ignoring little things like lifetime of the universe), yeah.
Therefore, information content is totally independent of size of the alphabet and things can be encoded in even 1 letter.

The tipping point between one symbol and more than one is pretty significant, though. It takes n characters to encode n in unary, but only lg n in binary, or to look at it another way, it takes exponentially more characters to represent a number in unary than in binary. Adding more symbols makes things more efficient, but only linearly - having 4 symbols instead of 2 means that encodings are half the length, and 8 symbols instead of 2 means the encodings are one third the length, but that's it. The returns diminish rapidly with every new symbol.

Then let me use the Argument from Stupid Design.

Because, you see, it goes on. If you say "it only looks stupid to us because we don't know what the designer was thinking and can't know what the designer was thinking", you have left science. I hope you feel comfortable out there. The ineffable, you see, cannot be tested even in principle, and is therefore unscientific. Goodbye, see you never again.

Rhology @ 112
Thatâs a nice collection of assertions you have there. Care to actually back any of them up? If you donât say why the comments were bad youâre useless. The only thing resembling an argument that you provide is pointing out the movie was about the Cambrian. So? If you donât actually explain how the professorâs comment was supposed to challenge Meyer and demonstrate why it was wrong, I am left to assume that you did not understand it properly like so many other things you have demonstrably not understood. Damn youâre a lazy fuck.

Jay @ 113
You seem to have a nice collection of assertions too. The board seems to have lots of lazy ID supporters. OH MY GOD, SOMEONE CITED A PAPER BY A PRO ID PERSON! Oh wait that doesnât matter. Even Behe has a couple of journal articles that are good science. Scientists are just intellectually honest so they accept the good science and complain about the bad science. But of course why let reality get in the way of a perfectly good distortion? If you donât back up your argument, youâre full of shit too. Nice failed attempt at a rhetorical use of sarcasm at the end by the way. No one said that you canât have a conniption; I challenge you to point out where someone said that. Hell, sometimes when I come here Iâm tempted to start a comment by saying âsup /b/â. Similar to your use of misspelling.

Rhology @119
ToE is easy in principle to falsify, if you can actually understand what the theory actually says. If a rabbit fossil were to found be in the pre-Cambrian that would falsify evolution. If the DNA sequences and morphology of life could not be placed into nested hierarchies that would falsify evolution. Too bad you donât actually understand what the theory of evolution says.
Ditto for science, you still donât know what science is. A theory is supposed to change when better data is available so that it can reflect reality better. When punctuated equilibrium was folded into evolutionary theory it did nothing to change the fact that the theory still described the fact that populations of organisms change over time, it just fleshed out the details so that now we better understand the dynamics of how that change occurs. Seriously, if the theories about atomic structure did not change when better data became available, physics would be in poor shape.

Anyway, you gave (nor do you ever give) any reason to think a Designer couldn't've laid down that DNA.

You really are a lazy fuck arenât you? It is not our job to prove something could not have happened. It is your job to prove that something did happen in a particular way. It is always the job of the person with the argument/hypothesis to prove it. That is how science works.
More unsupported assertions at the end as usual. Do you actually do anything that takes effort in your life?

"ToE is functionally unfalsifiable, b/c no matter what critique ID and/or the fossil record brings against it, you just change it."

I can't believe you haven't been corrected on this before... did you forget your lessons?

1) ID has no valid critiques of evolutionary theory. It presents the intellectual fortitude of a typical 7th grader's understanding of biology and adds professional PR along with bumbling idiocy.

2) Punctuated Equilibrium isn't a knee-jerk response to, "Oh no, these things can't have evolved!" The only way you could have been informed in that way is if you received your biological education from unsourced and/or quotemined (and idiotic) creationist websites, *or* if you skimmed Gould's writings and failed to comprehend the tiniest bit of his points. Punctuated Equilibrium is an idea about the rate of change and how it can fluctuate, one supported (and sometimes not supported) by fossil evidence, indicating that indeed, sometimes features arise gradually while others are abrupt *ON AN EVOLUTIONARY TIMESCALE*, which is to say still quite slow on our own familiar timescale of mere hundreds or thousands of years. Good on you, evolutionary biology, for following where the data leads to a conclusion which incidentally in no way invalidated evolutionary theory.

I expect you to not make this mistake again, Rhology.

ToE is functionally unfalsifiable, b/c no matter what critique ID and/or the fossil record brings against it, you just change it. Witness the "absorption" of punctuated equilibrium into the neo-Darwinian landscape of accepted ideas. For no obvious reason really, other than "Uh oh, we better do SOMEthing, guys!"

Explain how punctuated equilibrium is inconsistent with the theory of evolution. Hint: it isn't. Evolution is a response of a population to a changing fitness landscape, i.e. a changing environment. A population of organisms adapted to an environment that is in some sort of equilibrium or close to it will evolve slowly if at all. A large population in an environment that has undergone some sort of cataclysmic change (e.g. nearby volcanic eruption) will likely evolve quickly or go extinct.

The obvious reason for introducing the concept would be that there was evidence of rapid morphological changes alongside evidence of the more traditional interpretation of evolution as slow, gradual, change. The original debate began before there was much knowledge of heredity. Now that we're sequencing genomes, it seems obvious in hindsight that evolution can happen fast, slow, or anywhere in between. When it happens fast, it looks like punctuated equilibrium. When it happens slow, it looks like gradualism. So what's the problem, exactly?

Anyway, you gave (nor do you ever give) any reason to think a Designer couldn't've laid down that DNA. Nor do you have access to this Designer's motivations and mind, so retreating to "well, *I* wouldn't've done it that way". Who cares what you would've done?

That comes close to a perfect explanation of why ID can never be scientific. If everything that happens is the will of a designer, then probability is meaningless -- everything that happens has a probability of 1. But since we can't know the mind or motives of the designer, we can never know which events have probability of 1 or 0. We've gone backwards -- scientific explanations can give us confidence intervals regarding the outcomes of certain experiments and observations, but all ID can do is post hoc justification.

If part of the ID hypothesis was to impute particular motives or operational constraints on the designer, then ID would be predictive and therefore testable. In other words, it would be scientific. But since ID specifically doesn't guess at the designer's motives or operating conditions, it cannot be scientific. Thanks for making that clear.

Finally, plenty of things are unfalsifiable. The laws of logic. The laws of mathematics. The scientific method. The principle of unfalsifiability itself. Seriously, I'd suggest you get a new argument.

The laws of logic are a convention, not a theoretical explanation for empirical findings. Other logics can be formulated that are also useful or interesting in their own rights. They are internally consistent and finite, but not complete, just like any other possible logic. Essentially, the laws of logic are not some special privileged natural system. They are like any spoken language: useful, but arbitrary to the extent that they are contingent on the history of their formulation and application.

Still, we test them by using them. If the laws of logic as we know them today weren't useful, we wouldn't know them today. Similar with evolution: if it was false, it would probably be falsified by now. The fact that you still have a theory to argue against shows that it's at the very least useful in explaining empirical results (the first benchmark of a scientific theory), and very likely true.

There are no laws of mathematics. There are axioms, or postulates, and derived statements such as theorems and corollaries. Some people think of mathematics as a science, but from my perspective having earned a mathematics degree, mathematics is actually more like a language and has more in common with the laws of logic than it does with biology or any other scientific field. Like logic, mathematics consists of various conventions, notations, and axiomatic systems and inferences within those systems. There's no reason to expect something like that to be falsifiable any more than a statement like "the color orange is orange in color."

Still, individual axiomatic systems get tested for usefulness: we don't use systems that aren't useful. This is analogous but not identical to falsifiability in the empirical sciences.

The scientific method is also a convention, this one procedural instead of semantic or syntactic. Like mathematics or logic, it makes no phenomenological assertions, and therefore can't be falsified by empirical findings. However, like mathematics and logic, it can be tested for usefulness. If the scientific method didn't lead to interesting and useful results, mankind would have abandoned it as a lost cause before it became as formalized as it is now.

Finally, you yourself note that falsifiability is a principle, not a physical theory. Why do you expect conventions, principles, concepts in general to be falsifiable? What are falsifiable are assertions about causal or phenomenological relationships.

The complaint that "no matter what critique ID and/or the fossil record brings against it, you just change it" is irrelevant for two reasons:
1) It's not enough merely to critique a theory. The critique has to constitute a valid scientific argument against the theory. I have yet to see such a thing produced in the case of evolution.
2) Scientific theories change as new evidence discredits old formulations. Newton's law of gravity was discredited, in particular by observations of the precession of Mercury's orbit, and so general relativity was formulated to replace it as a theory of gravity. This did not change the fact of gravity -- the fact of us sticking to the earth, e.g. Similarly, some of Darwin's original formulation of evolution has been discredited and reformulated -- heredity would be the primary example. However, the broad theoretic framework we inherit from Darwin has remained unchanged: take an environment and populate it with organisms. These organisms reproduce and the new generations imperfectly inherit traits from their parents. In this situation, we will expect to see the expression of inherited traits change over the course of many generations depending on which traits allow the organisms to better utilize the resources present in their environment.

This is the core of the theory of evolution, and it is pretty much the only part that hasn't changed since Darwin. It hasn't been falsified because we KNOW it's true -- agriculture has been one huge controlled experiment demonstrating this effect. This is exactly what we're talking about when we talk about both the theory and fact of evolution.

Joshua White wrote, "It is always the job of the person with the argument/hypothesis to prove it. That is how science works."

That isn't just how science works, it's how reasoned debate and argument works. Rhology claims to be a fan of logic, so I recommend that he look up the term "burden of proof".

The tipping point between one symbol and more than one is pretty significant, though. It takes n characters to encode n in unary, but only lg n in binary, or to look at it another way, it takes exponentially more characters to represent a number in unary than in binary. Adding more symbols makes things more efficient, but only linearly - having 4 symbols instead of 2 means that encodings are half the length, and 8 symbols instead of 2 means the encodings are one third the length, but that's it. The returns diminish rapidly with every new symbol.

Very true, but it's still useful from a theoretical point of view. Turing machines are still used even though they don't resemble real computers.

More to the point, it does validate "Information content is independent of alphabet size". That statement is true. Now practicality and encoding sizes are completely different statements. As I said, a 1 character alphabet sure as hell isn't practical; but it can be used as an axiom for other proofs.

rbroughton @134 -

How can design predict anything at all without "access to this Designer's motivations and mind"?

Sir, if you'd been listening, that was the exact question I asked Meyer on Monday night. To help you remember, it was the last of the public questions during the Q&A.

And if only you were consistent enough to rebuke other Darwinists for asking that same stupid tired question with even less justification...

For one thing, no Christian Jew or Muslim has ever considered G-D to be a material being made up of things...

Jay, you are sure you want to argue with C.S. Lewis? I think he had a good way with words but wrote tame apologetic stuff that's as strong as a piece of tissue before a blast from Russell. But really you want to argue with CS Lewis?

Sir, if you'd been listening, that was the exact question I asked Meyer on Monday night. To help you remember, it was the last of the public questions during the Q&A.

And if only you were consistent enough to rebuke other Darwinists for asking that same stupid tired question with even less justification...

So I take it you rebuke anyone you hear who makes what you consider to be an invalid criticism of evolution?

What was Meyer's answer to the question, by the way? Does it suggest a research program or at least a few experiments? If so, does that mean you'll leave and come back with experimental results either supporting or discrediting ID?

If the amount of information is independent of the number of letters in the alphabet, then how much information can be generated in an alphabet of one character. For example, let's say our alphabet is just the character 'a'.... Oh wait, yes in fact it is governed by how many letters are in an alphabet....
Given that the computer you read and typed this on only knows 2 "letters", the only restriction on the alphabet is "more than one letter"

And now that I think about it more, remove that "more than one letter" restriction. You can represent anything with one letter.

Encode the contents into computer memory. Take the entire contents as one whomping big number. Send that many of the letter. Practical? Oh hell no. Possible (ignoring little things like lifetime of the universe), yeah.

Therefore, information content is totally independent of size of the alphabet and things can be encoded in even 1 letter.

I agree that you can represent anything with one letter/character, I do not agree that you can represent everything with one letter/character. There would be no way to differentiate each thing if they were all denoted as the same character.
One thing can be encoded in one letter/character. You would need more than one letter to encode anything else. This is precisely why our computers have more than one bit of storage. Thus the amount of information content is not independent of the the alphabet used to encode the information. The amount of information you can encode on an alphabet depends directly on how many characters are contained in the alphabet. You argue that you can use one letter to encode all of the information, this is only possible if you say that one letter represents everything. Then the information content is still directly dependent upon the alphabet used to encode it. This is what I was trying to point out in the first place. Meyers, says it's independent when clearly it isn't.

ToE is functionally unfalsifiable, b/c no matter what critique ID and/or the fossil record brings against it, you just change it.

sort of like how Newton's classical mechanics was "functionally unfalsifiable", because no matter what critique Einstein brought against it, those gol-durned physicists just changed it?

evolutionary biology provides the best explanation known --- and one amazingly good explanation, at that --- for most every fact in and about how life looks and functions. if you want us to just toss out such a very good explanation wholesale, you'd better give us a really DAMN good reason to.

otherwise, if all you have is a nit here or a quibble there --- damn straight we're gonna tweak the best theory we've got so as to accommodate the minor detail you're bringing up. so long as that's a viable strategy at all, we'd be damn fools to start over from scratch when we could instead build gradually on what is arguably the best tested framework in the natural sciences.

caveman Ug: "looky! me invent wheel!"
caveman Oog: "that not wheel. is chipped here at edge. wheel must be round, this not round."
Ug: "me smooth out edge, make round, is wheel!"
Oog: "you impossible! never admit wrong! always just change what you got, claim you right!" [hits Ug over the head with big club]

and that's why cdesign proponentsists still haven't managed to invent the wheel.

Anyway, you gave (nor do you ever give) any reason to think a Designer couldn't've laid down that DNA.

There isn't any. Okay, I guess your work is done now. Well done. Bye I guess!! Good job.

Dan L. @145 -
So I take it you rebuke anyone you hear who makes what you consider to be an invalid criticism of evolution?

1) Yes. Such as the "entropy invalidates evolution" argument, forgetting that Earth is not a closed system. It's in everyone's best interest to stop one's friends and allies from using bad arguments if you think that your side has good arguments they *could* be using.
2) Even if I didn't, that would not invalidate the inconsistency I cited.
3) I'm some blogger schmo, not an Assistant Prof of Zoo at a major state(-funded) university. With increased visibility and power come increased necessity to be consistent and to use arguments that are actually substantive.

Peace,
Rhology

1) Yes. Such as the "entropy invalidates evolution" argument, forgetting that Earth is not a closed system. It's in everyone's best interest to stop one's friends and allies from using bad arguments if you think that your side has good arguments they *could* be using.

Do you rebuke every single person who makes the argument? Of course not. That would be an absurd demand, right? Maybe I'm wrong, but that seemed to be what you were getting at with your "it would be nice..." comment. That any person using that argument ever constitutes a failure on the part of every person supporting the same premise. Again, absurd. Please correct me if this isn't what you meant.

2) Even if I didn't, that would not invalidate the inconsistency I cited.

Which inconsistency? I'm afraid it wasn't clear from your post.

3) I'm some blogger schmo, not an Assistant Prof of Zoo at a major state(-funded) university. With increased visibility and power come increased necessity to be consistent and to use arguments that are actually substantive.

But again, no matter one's "visibility and power," it's absurd to expect one to criticize every proponent of an invalid argument. I really don't understand what your criticism is since you seem to be criticizing people who don't make the argument as opposed to the people who do. What are you on about?

Dan L,
Everyone *I encounter* who uses bad arguments, and thus on through. I can only speculate as to what would cause you to miss the point that badly.

I haven't seen you do much criticism of Jay, Rhology, and he makes moronic arguments and seems quite proud of his ignorance.

But it really doesn't matter, this is *your* unnecessary criticism of "Darwinists" (again, dishonest term) and a deviation from the points that have been made. I haven't seen you point out a single bad argument made against creationists or God, only silly excuses that miss the intention of said arguments (i.e. no one pretends to have a universal disproof of God, the concept is so fuzzy and floppy that you can escape any criticism with enough intellectual gymnastics).

#140 Dan L.

However, the broad theoretic framework we inherit from Darwin has remained unchanged: take an environment and populate it with organisms. These organisms reproduce and the new generations imperfectly inherit traits from their parents. In this situation, we will expect to see the expression of inherited traits change over the course of many generations depending on which traits allow the organisms to better utilize the resources present in their environment.

Which is how creationist explain how "bad" organisms now exist. That's why we have parasites & disease. God made everything "good" but some things degraded over time after the Fall. All those "kind" evolved into the multitude of species in only a few hundred years after the Flood. They believe in "micoevolution" - but at a rate of mutation that would make your head spin.
That's why creationist, at the heart of their babble, are really (GASP!) Darwinists!

Everyone *I encounter* who uses bad arguments, and thus on through. I can only speculate as to what would cause you to miss the point that badly.

No need for speculation: pretend you're not you and reread your post. Is it clear from context what your criticism is? I wasn't at the Q&A, but as much as I can gather at this point, someone asked a dumb question and you're criticizing the evolution proponents in attendance for not shouting the young man down. Again, absurd. In a different setting, it would make sense for a member of the "same team" to correct his misconceptions, but this was a question directed to a speaker. It would have been rude to both Meyer and the questioner for anyone in the audience to interrupt the exchange.

I can only speculate as to why you've ignored all the substantive arguments I've made on this thread and chosen to hash this out.

"Finally, plenty of things are unfalsifiable. The laws of logic. The laws of mathematics. The scientific method. The principle of unfalsifiability itself. Seriously, I'd suggest you get a new argument."

And I'd suggest you write something other than sanctimonious gibberish about topics you clearly have no understanding of. First of all, there are no "laws of logic" or "laws of mathematics", there are axiomatic systems in which propositions are either true, false or undecidable. "Law" is a term used in science to generalize behavioral properties. There is also no one "scientific method", there are various heuristics that approximate the framework of Solomonoff induction and MDLI, which have both been established through analytical deduction. The notion that something has to be falsifiable to qualify as science does not itself have to be falsifiable qua science, and thus this common retort represents a lame argument against it.

BTW, wikipedia is willing to claim that much of the DNA out there is junk.

ID predicts otherwise I suppose. Oh wait, ID does not put forward any predictions. Oops.

Jay you ignorant slut. It's inevitable that proponents of ID make various predictions. But what counts in science are the predictions made by a theory or hypothesis, not predictions made by people -- that is, falsifiable empirical statements that are logically entailed by the theory or hypothesis. ID is simply the assertion that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved and therefore must have been designed, and that assertion does not logically entail any falsifiable empirical statements -- certainly not about Junk DNA. (It does logically entail some empirical statements, such as "some biological system did not evolve" and "there exists or existed some designer of a biological system", but such existentials aren't falsifiable.)

I do not agree that you can represent everything with one letter/character. There would be no way to differentiate each thing if they were all denoted as the same character.

Sigh. No one is talking about denoting as one character, but rather with one character. As was stated in the post you responded to, everything can be represented, by using different length strings of the single character. The technical term for this is "base 1 notation".

Meyers, says it's independent when clearly it isn't.

On this matter (but not much else) Meyers is quite correct: the number of symbols in an alphabet is irrelevant (as long as it's greater than zero). They teach this sort of thing in kindergarten nowadays.

The tipping point between one symbol and more than one is pretty significant, though. It takes n characters to encode n in unary, but only lg n in binary, or to look at it another way, it takes exponentially more characters to represent a number in unary than in binary. Adding more symbols makes things more efficient, but only linearly - having 4 symbols instead of 2 means that encodings are half the length, and 8 symbols instead of 2 means the encodings are one third the length, but that's it. The returns diminish rapidly with every new symbol.

Um, it takes log1n symbols to encode n in unary, log2n symbols to encode n in binary, log3n symbols to encode n with 3 symbols, etc.

Such as the "entropy invalidates evolution" argument, forgetting that Earth is not a closed system.

The argument would be completely invalid even if the Earth were a closed system.

It's in everyone's best interest to stop one's friends and allies from using bad arguments if you think that your side has good arguments they *could* be using.

Yeah, but it's only in the interests of intellectually honest people to stop using bad arguments even when your side doesn't have any good arguments ... as is the case for ID.

ToE is functionally unfalsifiable, b/c no matter what critique ID and/or the fossil record brings against it, you just change it. Witness the "absorption" of punctuated equilibrium into the neo-Darwinian landscape of accepted ideas. For no obvious reason really, other than "Uh oh, we better do SOMEthing, guys!"

Why does anyone waste their time on this pathetically dishonest, stupid, and ignorant jackass?

Anyway, you gave (nor do you ever give) any reason to think a Designer couldn't've laid down that DNA.

There aren't any reasons to think a designer couldn't have, moron, only reasons to think a designer didn't ... because what we observe is what we would expect if there were no designer.

Finally, plenty of things are unfalsifiable. The laws of logic. The laws of mathematics. The scientific method. The principle of unfalsifiability itself. Seriously, I'd suggest you get a new argument.

Logic, mathematics, the scientific method, and the principle of falsifiability aren't scientific theories, cretin.

Ask about Hox genes and gene duplication (and then go into a tizzy when challenged on why a Designer just couldn't conceivably want to do it that way)?

All sorts of things are conceivable, but that's no reason to believe them or even consider them, moron.

Ask why a Designer would make it so humans share lots of similar genes with other organisms? (Dunno, maybe b/c they work well and the Designer doesn't like to reinvent the wheel every time? Maybe?)

Maybe, but almost certainly not, because of the detailed relationships among those genes that you are completely unaware of, you unschooled ignoramus.

Maybe the fact that you don't know anything about science or evolution is a reason to think that nothing you say about it is correct.

"Um, it takes log1n symbols to encode n in unary, log2n symbols to encode n in binary, log3n symbols to encode n with 3 symbols, etc."

The logarithm to base 1 is undefined, since for it to be defined the ratio logax/loga1 would have to be defined. However, that would require division by zero.

Tyler DiPietro @155 -

First of all, there are no "laws of logic" or "laws of mathematics"

Maybe we're just using different terms for the same thing.
Let me ask it a different way - the law of identity, of non-contradiction, and of excluded middle: are these descriptive and normative for all things, all propositions, all events, all statements, everywhere and at all times?

The notion that something has to be falsifiable to qualify as science does not itself have to be falsifiable qua science

1) You forgot to add "...because I say so" at the end of that.
2) So why use the principle of falsifiability as the sledgehammer that Darwinists so often think it is? (Or perhaps you don't agree with that?)

Peace,
Rhology

Rhology,

Falsifiability is one of the minor tools that scientists use to clobber creationism/new-old, that too in argument. If you knew how scientists worked you wouldn't ask such a question. In fact if a PhD candidate were to face questions on falsifiability during a progress review it would indicate that the research project is off the rails, or that the student is a closet creationist/quack trying to game the system.

"Let me ask it a different way - the law of identity, of non-contradiction, and of excluded middle: are these descriptive and normative for all things, all propositions, all events, all statements, everywhere and at all times?"

They aren't laws, they're tautologies: there exists no logical possibility of them being false under the axioms of propositional logic. Conversely, there are things that are necessarily false (such as "this cube is spherical" or "this bachelor is married"). The claims of intelligent design, by contrast, are contingent: there exists the distinct possibility of them being false. That is why being unfalsifiable is problematic.

"You forgot to add "...because I say so" at the end of that."

Um, no. You're failing to make an elementary distinction between claims that are true about science and claims that are true qua science. Philosophy of science uses meta-scientific reasoning that can be contested on its own terms, which you're absolutely failing to do.

Tyler,

Yes, that's right about the laws of logic. Now, are these laws/tautologies material or immaterial? Did they arise? How? When? If they did not arise and are eternal, how did they precede the origin of matter and energy? How were logical statements possible before the advent of human minds to make them?

Philosophy of science uses meta-scientific reasoning that can be contested on its own terms, which you're absolutely failing to do.

So presumably you agree that the scientific method and the experience of the senses are not the only ways to discover truth?
(I have to ask these seemingly basic questions b/c so many Darwinists get them badly wrong. This is what bamboozled poor Professor Hutchison so much on Tuesday night.)

Now, are these laws/tautologies material or immaterial? Did they arise? How? When? If they did not arise and are eternal, how did they precede the origin of matter and energy? How were logical statements possible before the advent of human minds to make them?

What the fuck does any of this word salad even mean??! It's as if RhoBot is randomly pulling phrases out of Bullshit Generator 0.7a.

"How were logical statements possible before the advent of human minds to make them?"

This is a deeper ontological discussion that I'll be glad to have if you feel like opening that can of worms. But it's not really pertinent to the necessity of falsifiability. See below:

"So presumably you agree that the scientific method and the experience of the senses are not the only ways to discover truth?"

No, they aren't.

Specifically, there are several formal methods of reasoning, and any real world cognition is an approximation to one of them.

Where applicable, we like to use the strongest method of reasoning, which is deduction using either just the basic axioms of propositional calculus or any higher order logic. The inference rules in such a system are validity preserving, so the transitivity of truth from premises to conclusion are guaranteed.

Unfortunately, such a system is actually applicable in fairly rare situations. So where we can't use inference rules that are validity preserving, we use inference rules that are justification preserving. Defeasible logic, which I mentioned earlier, is a formal system that models such reasoning. Solomonoff induction, PAC learning and MDLI model induction, which is what science uses in most cases.

It's crucial that most real world science is actually an approximation to these ideal, formal systems. It is in that sense that falsifiability becomes a crucial criterion for a proposition or hypothesis to be worth considering. A case where a proposition or hypothesis is unfalsifiable is a case where the inference rules are no longer applicable, and thus no longer preserve justification. So we see that while the claim is contingent (it may be true or false), there is no way to give a positive justification.

Sigh. No one is talking about denoting as one character, but rather with one character. As was stated in the post you responded to, everything can be represented, by using different length strings of the single character. The technical term for this is "base 1 notation".

Marcel:

Wouldn't you need a stop character to tell one word from another in "base 1" notation?

Rhology:

How were logical statements possible before the advent of human minds to make them?

They weren't. Logical (and illogical) statements can't possibly be made until there is someone to state them.

Now, are these laws/tautologies material or immaterial?

Is Microsoft Windows material or immaterial?

The only possibility for a single character alphabet to express numbers exists for the integers and proper subsets thereof. There is no way to represent the full set of reals with one character.

impal,

your response to Rhology amounts to "that's not how we operate around here." That's not much of an answer or retort.

I'm not familiar with the PhD process... when you say that a PhD candidate facing questions of falsifiability would show that something is wrong (with the student or program), do you mean that the student is asked questions concerning falsifiability and answers poorly? Or is the fact that he is asked questions at all an indication that he has poor views on falsification?

Brian Biggs, impal was saying that if falsifiability is coming up for a PhD candidate during a review, there are some serious problems with their research (which probably should've been apparent from the beginning). It's something so easy and integral that you do it automatically if you're going to have productive research: you have to come up with something to test and you have to know what the null hypothesis, that is what would happen if there were no effect (hypothesis is unsupported).

This is reeeeeeally basic stuff.

It seems Rhology has not yet realized that asking for falsifiability to be falsifiable is stupid. Let me inform you that it is and that perhaps you should take 20 seconds to think about why, something you presumably forgot to do when you got the inkling of a gotcha.

Falsifiability is used in science because it's productive: it reduces some of the problems introduced by induction. Empirical claims which can not be falsified (by definition) lack verifiability with respect to alternative explanations. Crap, I did the work for you. I guess I'll have to blame you when you miss the point in the future (you know it's coming).

Oh wait, nevermind, if falsifiability isn't falsifiable it can't be science nya nya.

I contend that the Dead Parrot sketch on Monty Python's Flying Circus would have been the same in spirit, though much less funny, if you replaced Michael Palin's character with Rhology.

"What possible evidence could be inconsistent with this parrot pinin' for the fjords?"

Shirakawasuna,

Empirical claims which can not be falsified (by definition) lack verifiability with respect to alternative explanations.

All empirical claims? Is strict falsification applied to ongoing phenomenon, or is it also applied to theories concerning unique, unobserved events in the distant past?

Would incongruities or absurdities in the fossil record be able to falsify modern evolutionary thought? Would an inconsistency such as, I don't know, a Precambrian rabbit falsify it? Dr. Westrop didn't think so. What would it take to falsify the modern synthesis?

Brian Biggs, I said it applied to empirical *claims*, not empirical events. A Precambrian rabbit would go a long ways to falsifying common descent, although realistically a single fossil would constitute an outlier rather than 'OMG rethink everything!' The fact that the fossil record gives us such a nice pattern, largely confirmed through molecular phylogenies, is a not-so-subtle hint that creationists are fighting against the empirical evidence itself, whether they know it or not. In case you're missing the relation here, those phylogenies come out in particular ways and overlap, something predicted by common descent (part of evolutionary theory) and open to falsification (they wouldn't need to overlap).

I don't think I need to explain what would falsify common descent, it's easy to figure it out from the explanation above and you (should) learn the value of independent overlapping data and the dearth of evidence for the denialists, to boot.

Rhology #73,

Got an example of my being dishonest? Direct quotes will suffice

Here you go (Rhology #119):

ToE is functionally unfalsifiable, b/c no matter what critique ID and/or the fossil record brings against it, you just change it. Witness the "absorption" of punctuated equilibrium into the neo-Darwinian landscape of accepted ideas. For no obvious reason really, other than "Uh oh, we better do SOMEthing, guys!"

That's definitive, unless you admit to being stupid enough to actually believe that.

Dan L. #140,

Now that we're sequencing genomes, it seems obvious in hindsight that evolution can happen fast, slow, or anywhere in between.

...exactly like Darwin said ("I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification." - Origin of Species Ch IV)

What would it take to falsify the modern synthesis?

More than you've got, BB.

Brian Biggs wrote:
"Once you remarked, "he [Meyer] isn't a biologist, he doesn't understand."

As if that were necessarily a bad thing.

Dembski has denigrated and used as an excuse to ignore criticisms of his claims by Richard Wein since Wein 'only' has a BS is mathematics, while He, Dembski, has a P\hD and all.

Is it OK for Dembski to employ credentialism to ignore criticisms from people in his own field but not ok for biologists to identify and criticize errors made by non-biologists when speaking of biology?

Notice that Rhology never responded to the clarifications of what Punctuated Equilibrium was and how he was wrong, preferring to steam ahead with some other burning stupid or gotcha claim he could think up. If presenting such an ignorant idea of punk eek isn't dishonest, his behavior afterwards is.

I guess Rhology only corrects other people who are wrong, Shirakawasuna. Admitting that he was wrong is just asking for too much.

@ Shirakawasuna

Sorry, I wasn't very clear or articulate in 179... Is falsification a strict necessity for claims or hypotheses about events or processes in the distant past?

although realistically a single fossil would constitute an outlier rather than 'OMG rethink everything!'

So, upon encountering a pre-cambrian rabbit, would the scientists:

A) Assume the modern synthesis falsified
B) Ignore it
C) Declare it an unexplained obscurity
D) Modify current the theory or hypothesis
E) Something else?

Also, should I take your saying that the fossil record, along with phylogenetics is " a not-so-subtle hint that creationists are fighting against the empirical evidence itself" to mean that creationist or design theorist claims are shown to be wrong by this?

@ slpage

Again, I only brought up what Vic had said because it seemed he was claiming he never said anything like that. And I don't think sheer credentialism or credentialism in itself is valid, regardless of who is arguing it. Pointing out that someone doesn't understand something is fine, but it should be explained where the misunderstanding lies rather than stating the reason as such and such a person doesn't have a degree in that field.

Yes, Brian Biggs, falsification is required for scientific claims about what happened in the past. This applies for the distant past and the recent past, although sometimes the argument is skipped because it's so obvious. If it's an untestable hypothesis, it's speculation that *might* lead to something testable (falsifiable), but nothing will be moved forward and certainty hasn't changed in the slightest.

The answer to your question depends upon the actual specimen. If it weren't clear, it would be C. If it strongly pointed to a very old age, it would be F) cause scientists to reconsider the dating method and study the entire area for its potential contributions to our understanding of how that happened (as common descent is so very well evidenced, despite your desire to focus only on a hypothetical event of falsification which hasn't come close to happening). In other words, they'd do *precisely* what you would expect: weigh the evidence and see whether an apparent contradiction carries the weight of falsification. Sometimes, in general, it might if the context is strong enough. However, this situation hasn't occurred because common descent is true. It's tested every time a new fossil is found and categorized, every time phylogenies are generated from separate genes and *overlap*. One has to wonder why you're so stuck on an implausible event that would be handled quite reasonably and in line with the scientific method when all of the evidence against your hopes exists and is easily accessible.

My statement about creationists is what I said: they are fighting against the evidence itself because they don't know wtf they are doing. They haven't thought it through, they just go for what's easy and sounds favorable to their position. And yes, creationists are often wrong about phylogenies and common descent, although I was being more specific. ID types are so bad that they aren't even wrong: their ideas require such an absence of thought that it's astounding any even exist. At least creationists have a clear and open dedication to their religion.

Just to make sure you're understanding, Brian, the lack of fossil rabbits in the precambrian is monumental. The particulars of fossils can be difficult to piece together, but on the whole the pattern holds up extremely well, on the order of thousands and thousands of fossils fitting neatly into place, almost as if common ancestry were true. A single fossil in the 'wrong' place would measure against that. If common descent were not true, we would expect a lot of rabbits in the precambrian, so to speak, as opposed to a hypothetical single fossil.

Last note: we've been assuming a situation where there's evidence for creationist claims, Brian. Don't get too comfortable there ;).

@ Shirakawasuna

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position clearly to me and answering my questions. That being said...

So, modern evolutionary thought is based upon thousands and thousands of fossils fitting neatly into place; and a "single fossil in the 'wrong' place would measure against that." Meaning that a precambrian rabbit wouldn't carry "the weight of falsification."

On the other hand,justfinethanks @ 126 said

Of course there are lots of ways you could easily falsify evolution.

1) Pre cambrian rabbit

And Joshua White @ 138 said

ToE is easy in principle to falsify, if you can actually understand what the theory actually says. If a rabbit fossil were to found be in the pre-Cambrian that would falsify evolution.

Shirakawasuna, you didn't correct either of them. They said it would easily falsify ToE, which seems to be VERY contrary to what you have presented to me. I also know that you read Joshua White, as you quote from that very comment @ 141.

Now, it seems that if you were simply trying to correct error you would likely have corrected them. On the other hand, if you simply wanted to attack Rho because he's not on your side then your commenting and lack of commenting make sense. And, lest you think I have not disagreed with or have attempted to correct other Christians I thought to be in error, simply go through the comments at the ou daily. Though I primarily argue with atheists on there, I have occasionally agreed with atheists and disagreed with Christians and other theists. For an example of this, see Josh Huff's column on the existence of God.

Now, I don't mean to focus on you entirely: no one else corrected them either. Or... perhaps justfinethanks and/or Joshua White would like to correct you at this time... However, I highly doubt it. And, after reading impal's comment, I hope that neither one of them is a PhD candidate, as they seem to think it would only take one fossil to overthrow the ToE.

Brian Biggs, their faults are minor and almost interchangeable with my claim: I said that one *could* strongly challenge common descent *if* it were very convincingly 'out of place'. And strongly challenging an idea is precisely what a falsification is. They have the right idea, they could even have the right specifics and merely used the simpler version rhetorically. They don't labor under serious and arrogant misapprehensions about an entire field of science. If I consider it important in the future, I'll correct them. Otherwise, it's really not worth the time: they're on the right track.

It seems you've missed the entire point of the PhD checkpoint discussion again, Brian... my explanation does not result in common descent being unfalsifiable, nor does having an ever-so-slight error (likely, not being enough of a pedant) concerning a particular extremely well-established theory damn their competence. On the other hand, if you haven't a clue what falsification is (like say... tons of creationists here) or ignored it, you could easily run into problems with doing basic research.

So, no rabbits in the Precambrian.

Yeah, still no rabbits in the Precambrian! Lol.

Does Brian Biggs have any falsifications in mind? Maybe he just likes rhetorical falsifications. :D

Still waiting for Brian Biggs to reveal how butt-ignorant he is of "naturalism". (Yeah I know, won't happen.)

Tyler @168 -
there exists no logical possibility of them being false under the axioms of propositional logic

Unfalsifiable. So plenty of things can be true, like the laws of logic and mathematics, w/o being falsifiable. Thank you.
And true things aren't falsifiable either. I don't expect to encounter sthg that proves Christianity, for example, incorrect, b/c it's true. There may be ways it COULD be falsified, but those ways don't exist. And you are the same w.r.t. ToE.

You're failing to make an elementary distinction between claims that are true about science and claims that are true qua science.

Ah yes, because YOU say so.
I'm personally more interested in what is true, rather than strictly speaking what is "scientific". It's the same argument Ruse made when he debated Dembski at OU most recently (a terrible debate on both sides, BTW). He straight up said, multiple times, that he was there to discuss whether ID was science, not whether it was true. Pitiful.
That's certainly what it seems like you're saying too.

And I'm glad you're not a strict empiricist (like Vic) b/c that's completely irrational.

It's crucial that most real world science is actually an approximation to these ideal, formal systems.

Well, if you're a scientific realist.
Anyway, to make sure we're all on the same page, what I hear you saying is that falsifiability is crucial, except when it's not. Great, thanks. This is hardly a rebuttal, and besides, the falsifiability thing is brought up by Darwinists. You're in effect responding (badly) to an ID rebuttal of the Darwinist "rebuttal" to ID. I bring up things that are unfalsifiable and which you accept anyway to show you that this is not a tool you wield consistently.
When it comes to falsifying ID, you could falsify theism and you'd be in GREAT shape. Maybe you could make a coherent case for materialism...

Shirakawasuna @183
Rhology never responded to the clarifications of what Punctuated Equilibrium was and how he was wrong

"Relatively faster" is not how the CambrExp went. Darwin would've thought, if he were consistent with his OoSpecies thinking, that ToE was false if he lived today and knew what we know, your ad hoc gyrations to preserve the hypothesis in the face of contrary evidence notwithstanding.

Peace,
Rhology

Rhology, out of interest, how do you think the "CambrExp" went? And why would Darwin have thought that the theory of evolution by natural selection was false?

@ Brian Biggs

It might make things simpler if falsifiability were restated a bit.

What falsifiability means is that it must be possible to find evidence that proves a scientific explanation for a phenomenon wrong in principle.

In the broadest sense evolution is genetic changes in populations over time. That description implies a series of populations that are slightly different from one another, that can be placed into an order or nested set that reveals their relatedness (evolutionary tree). This set can be created using morphology or DNA sequence, but all other methods of confirming the set should give consistent results. For example dating methods should should show that populations predicted by the nested set to be younger should date younger and opposite for the old populations.

When we say that a pre-cambrian rabbit would falsify evolution, we mean that a an animal that is predicted to have evolved within the last 50 million years being dated to strata 500 million years old would clearly be a challenge for evolutionary theory.

Now you need to be careful with where your most recent posts seem to be going. It is true that there are "trees" being made that disagree with one another, but these are trees that involve closely related family members. For creatures more distantly related we are not seeing these problems. It is most likely that what is needed to resolve these conflicting trees is better methods of constructing these trees.

In reality however it is larger patterns and repeatability that determine our scientific understanding of the world. When we say "pre-cambrian rabbit" that is mostly a simple slogan like statement chosen for its quick and dirty impact in an argument rather than it's real effect on the scientific view of evolution. When we say "pre-cambrian rabbit", what me mean is that when the research for evolution was being collected it was in principle possible that none of the fossils or DNA sequences could have ended up fitting into neat trees. But it did not end up that way. All the data supports the overall picture of relatedness that we are getting from the trees. The only disagreement is from the more closely related members. An analogy would be if a billion years from now you were studying life now. It would be easy to see how canines, bovines bats, and humans fit into the picture, but trying to see if wolves and raccoons represent cousin populations or parent and progeny populations is more difficult. If we really found a rabbit in the pre-cambrian it would be physicists who would want to see it because in the face of the overwhelming evidence of evolution, time travel would seem more plausible. In order to falsify evolution now every subsequent organism (or a majority) studied from this point on would have to not fit into any existing evolutionary tree, or possible tree. But that is simply not realistically going to happen. Evolution in it's broadest sense could have been falsified, but was not. Now the only things to be potentially falsified are the arguments for how evolution is occurring.

Falsifiability being falsifiable would mean it should be possible to prove wrong the contention "it should be possible to prove something wrong". Do you guys see why that makes no sense now?

Also just for the record Shirakawasuna is correct. When I said that evolution was "easy to falsify" what I should have said was "conceptually easy to falsify" or "easy to falsify in principle". What I meant is that for someone who understands evolutionary theory and it's implications, it is easy to imagine data that could falsify it. I did not mean to be confusing and I will try to be more precise from now on.

@ Rhology

You're failing to make an elementary distinction between claims that are true about science and claims that are true qua science.

Ah yes, because YOU say so.

Actually no. When science as a process was being worked out it seemed obvious that it was valuable for ones experiments to be proven wrong by the results in principle. That is if one actually cares about determining what reality is really like instead of proposing bullshit experiments that only give results that either end up neutral or positive towards ones own experiments. Like creationists. ALL scientists that I have ever met propose experiments are falsifiable.

...what I hear you saying is that falsifiability is crucial, except when it's not. Great, thanks.

Where does Shirakawasuna say that falsifiability is not crucial? She says that the "argument is skipped over" on occasion. But I am pretty certain that what she means by that is that falsifiability is so ingrained into our thinking processes for experimental design, that it is assumed and not mentioned unless someone else sees a proposed experiment that is unfalsifiable. That would be a rare occurrence that I have never personally encountered. It would be like an electrical engineer designing a circuit, but not assuming a complete path for electron flow in his design.

It does not surprise me that you are interested in "truth" more than what is "scientific". Truth has a way of being deceptive about reality. For example is it true that vanilla is better than choclate? Not absolutely, that truth, like so many others changes depending on who you talk to. Science is a systematic way of studying the world that aims to inform us about what reality is really like, as well as technology allows, and independent of opinions. What science determines becomes cold hard fact over time if no better data become available as our techniques and knowledge improves. I will take fact and reality as data that informs my world and morals over weak truth any day.

@ scripto

Thanks! I'm in Texas though. At least I can help where it is most needed lol.

Joshua White @194 -
When science as a process was being worked out it seemed obvious that it was valuable for ones experiments to be proven wrong by the results in principle.

Fine, but we've already seen that the principle of falsifiability (PoF) is discarded when it doesn't fit in. You bring it up as a rebuttal; I'm pointing out that you apply it inconsistently. I agree it's useful in general, but not always.

Where does Shirakawasuna say that falsifiability is not crucial?

Tyler DiPiero said that. I'm not at all sure that Shirakawasuna has even followed that convo with any comprehension.

It does not surprise me that you are interested in "truth" more than what is "scientific".

Good, then I have at least been able to communicate that much. I wonder why you put "truth" in quotes, though... you're not some kind of relativist, are you?

Truth has a way of being deceptive about reality.

Bwahahahahaha, nice. So tell me, is that statement true, or is it being deceptive?

Peace,
Rhology

"Unfalsifiable. So plenty of things can be true, like the laws of logic and mathematics, w/o being falsifiable. Thank you."

*facepalm*

The claim that something is a tautology is falsifiable. Set up a truth table for the proposition and see if it is satisfiable regardless of truth assignment to the variables. What I'm saying, and what you're completely missing, is that once we know a statement to be tautological we know a priori that there is no possibility of it being false. Thus it doesn't have to be empirically falsifiable.

"Well, if you're a scientific realist."

I happen to be one, as I suspect most of the posters here are.

"I'm personally more interested in what is true, rather than strictly speaking what is "scientific"."

But you've provided no criterion for discerning what is true other than that such a thing being consistent with your preconceived worldview.

"You're in effect responding (badly) to an ID rebuttal of the Darwinist "rebuttal" to ID. I bring up things that are unfalsifiable and which you accept anyway to show you that this is not a tool you wield consistently."

I am wielding it consistently, you're just bringing up cases completely irrelevant given the criteria I've set forth.

@ Rhology

Fine, but we've already seen that the principle of falsifiability (PoF) is discarded when it doesn't fit in. You bring it up as a rebuttal; I'm pointing out that you apply it inconsistently. I agree it's useful in general, but not always.

Where is it applied inconsistantly? I need an example.

Good, then I have at least been able to communicate that much. I wonder why you put "truth" in quotes, though... you're not some kind of relativist, are you?

It depends on the specifics. On statements of fact I am not a relativist. I am not a relativist when it comes to the fact that methane has four C-H bonds in a tetrahedral configuration.

For explanations that have been supported by data for so long that they are treated by the scientific community as facts I am only a relativist as a matter of principle, but for the sake of getting work done I act as if I am not a relativist. I just keep in mind that strictly speaking, new data could still appear.

When it comes to things like morals and opinions, I am a relativist. I put "truth" in quotes because the popular usage of the word is often equated with fact, especially among some religious individuals. I regard the use of the word as dangerous in conversations because of the many times that individuals have used "vanilla vs. chocolate" truths as if they were "ATP has three phosphates and ADP has two phosphates" truths.

Bwahahahahaha, nice. So tell me, is that statement true, or is it being deceptive?

Oh no, you're not getting me into one of those, lol!

After my last post I think I should clarify something. When I say I am a relativist on morality I mean that when you look at morality and and human behavior in general, morality looks relative in the general sense I have seen no issue that all humans agree on so I do not believe in absolute morality. Individual people will be relativistic or not on specific moral issues for various reasons. There are specific issues I am relativistic towards and other that I am not. This is a bit OT though.

From this point on I may not respond until tomorrow due to beer. Or I may, you have been warned.

Tyler @197

once we know a statement to be tautological we know a priori that there is no possibility of it being false. Thus it doesn't have to be empirically falsifiable.

Excellent, now we're getting somewhere.
That's why I keep wanting someone to prove materialism/naturalism. Everything depends on the presuppositions, the worldview. (And materialism is a crappy, irrational worldview.)

you've provided no criterion for discerning what is true other than that such a thing being consistent with your preconceived worldview.

Internal consistency is enough to disqualify any worldview I've ever encountered except for mine, so I don't see much use in arguing farther, really.

I am wielding it consistently

Sure you are. "ID needs to be falsifiable. But not the scientific method." Mmmhmmm.

Joshua White @198
Oh no, you're not getting me into one of those, lol!

Um, you were the one who made the boneheaded statement, not I. May I suggest the retraction, medium-rare? It goes well with a robust Bella Sera.

Peace,
Rhology

"That's why I keep wanting someone to prove materialism/naturalism."

I thought we were arguing over the reality of evolution.

"Everything depends on the presuppositions..."

And presuppositions can be of varying quality. Mathematicians, for instance, spent the better part of the last century arguing over the justifiability of using some version of the Axiom of Choice. Just because you can make presuppositions which yield valid conclusions doesn't mean that those presuppositions yield sound conclusions.

"Internal consistency is enough to disqualify any worldview I've ever encountered except for mine..."

A real mastery of philosophy would allow you to avoid red herrings like this. You still haven't provided any method for discerning truth.

Sure you are. "ID needs to be falsifiable. But not the scientific method."

You're glossing over details and creating a strawman.

Here is my contention, as clear as day: logically contingent propositions or hypotheses about empirical phenomena have to be falsifiable. This does not apply to methodological claims, which have their own meta-scientific justifications. It also doesn't apply to tautological claims in propositional calculus or higher order logic, since we know a priori that such things are true regardless of assignment to the variables.

Um, you were the one who made the boneheaded statement, not I. May I suggest the retraction, medium-rare? It goes well with a robust Bella Sera.

you are going to have to expand on that because I have no idea what you are talking about.

Also I still need an example of where falsifiability is being applied inconsistently.

Tyler @201
I thought we were arguing over the reality of evolution.

We have to go deeper since you claim your worldview can explain the data we observe. I claim my worldview explains those data just as well. Now it's off to see which worldview is right, since if my worldview is true, ToE is false.

Just because you can make presuppositions which yield valid conclusions doesn't mean that those presuppositions yield sound conclusions.

Which is itself one of the criticisms I level against materialism. Also, atheists often borrow from the explanatory power of the Christian worldview and then act like their worldview is valid as well, b/c they thought the thought and they're an atheist, not realising the limitation of their presuppositions.
For example, I had begun questioning you about the laws of logic. On materialism, is it possible that they exist? If not, then materialism cannot account for even the most basic of rational questions. So, is materialism your position? If not, what else besides matter, energy, and the observable universe exists, and how do you know?

You still haven't provided any method for discerning truth.

2 basic ways - divine revelation and logic.
Now, how do YOU discern truth? If via inductive empirical observation, how do you know that inductive empirical observation correctly discerns truth, and that your cognitive faculties are reliably aimed at producing true thoughts?

As far as your statement on falsifiability, I'm happy for you that you have a cute little statement you can use.

Joshua White,
Go back and read the last 2 posts of yours and the last 2 of mine. If you can't figure it out, you're not someone I need to spend my time on anyway.

Peace,
Rhology

Joshua White wrote: "Where does Shirakawasuna say that falsifiability is not crucial? She says that the "argument is skipped over" on occasion. But I am pretty certain that what she means by that is that falsifiability is so ingrained into our thinking processes for experimental design, that it is assumed and not mentioned unless someone else sees a proposed experiment that is unfalsifiable."

Precisely. Also, I'm a dude (as if it matters).

Did you notice, Brian, how Joshua understood the point quite well and I didn't need to correct him? Notice how long the explanation took versus saying 'no rabbit in the precambrian'. It's nice to avoid being pedantic so you don't overwhelm the audience, especially when the intended target is ignorant of biology...

Rhology: "Fine, but we've already seen that the principle of falsifiability (PoF) is discarded when it doesn't fit in. You bring it up as a rebuttal; I'm pointing out that you apply it inconsistently. I agree it's useful in general, but not always."

Nonsense. You simply don't understand the nature of falsifiability: the evidences must be weighed against one another. A single result going contrary to what is expected may or may not falsify the hypothesis or theory, depending on how 'conclusive' it is: in physics, a single precise observation can destroy a notion because extremely specific predictions can be made and easily refuted (conceptually). On the other hand, when there's a large body of evidence for a more general idea, i.e. common descent, and contrary evidence suffers from the same touches of ambiguity as 'positive' evidence (e.g. geological events move fossils around so the substrate is extremely important). A single precambrian rabbit would be evidence against common descent. A set of precambrian rabbits from different deposits would force a rethinking of it (falsification). Yet more evidence of 'out of place' clades would add to this until the idea is discarded. That's what you expect from a theory drawing from large amounts of evidence, each part of which can have ambiguity (but on the whole, there's a clearn pattern).

Of course, this is all for the purposes of theological masturbation. There aren't Precambrian rabbits, Rho.

"Tyler DiPiero said that. I'm not at all sure that Shirakawasuna has even followed that convo with any comprehension."

Hahahahaha, man you can be bitchy, Rho, for someone who hasn't even responded to my points yet continues to make the same mistakes corrected in them.

Go back and read the last 2 posts of yours and the last 2 of mine. If you can't figure it out, you're not someone I need to spend my time on anyway.

That's funny considering that you are the one that has no idea what they are talking about as far as the theory of evolution is concerned. Something that I have proven thoroughly in this thread.

Speak clearly or fuck off!! Seriously, you are the one in this post who comes on to a science friendly blog and can not make themselves understood. I totally understand why vhutchenson did not understand what you were talking about after the talk. You can not make your self understood. Do you even want people to understand you? Seriously, at this point you seem to be simply trying to confuse people and declare victory like a common creationist.

Explain where falsifiability is being used inconsistently or fuck off! Also expand on what you were talking about because you are making no sense! I am not going to patronize your detraction tactics. Seriously you have no idea what you are talking about. On a creationist blog you would be lauded with no criticism but not here!

"For example, I had begun questioning you about the laws of logic. On materialism, is it possible that they exist?"

You are in desperate need of a course on formal logic. Tautologies follow once you define operators (conjunction, disjunction, conditional, etc.) via their effect on truth values, since there are statements that are true regardless of truth assignment to specific variables. They are abstract, which is distinct from supernatural.

"Now, how do YOU discern truth? If via inductive empirical observation, how do you know that inductive empirical observation correctly discerns truth..."

I'm not saying it does. In mathematical terms the process of induction enumerates truth, in that it can approximate some ideal empirical truth from above or below. Check out any of the literature on Solomonoff induction and/or Bayesian decision theory.

"...and that your cognitive faculties are reliably aimed at producing true thoughts?"

You need to make a distinction between "are" and "can be". They don't always have to be correct to be justified in use. Given my observations up till now, there is a low probability that I am, in fact, a cabbage (analogy due to commenter abb3w, who posts around these parts). But I discount that particular possibility without being absolutely certain.

BTW Rho, I can't help but notice that your methods of discerning truth, even if accepted for the sake of argument, do not include any method for resolving contingent empirical propositions or hypotheses (like evolution or ID). That was actually what I had in mind.

Tyler @207 -
there are statements that are true regardless of truth assignment to specific variables. They are abstract, which is distinct from supernatural.

Didn't claim they were supernatural. I asked you about materialism. Mind answering the question, please?

In mathematical terms the process of induction enumerates truth, in that it can approximate some ideal empirical truth from above or below.

My question is more fundamental than that. On what I think is your worldview (and you can correct me if I'm wrong on this), you are a collection of atoms banging around, producing chemical reactions within your brain, much like a can of Dr Pepper shaken up. Dr Pepper produces gas in bubbles, your brain produces brain gas that you call "thoughts". How do you know they can produce ANY true thoughts?

Given my observations up till now, there is a low probability that I am, in fact, a cabbage

You THINK you're not a cabbage.
We've been down this road recently before, and you should know where I'm headed - I see no reason a materialistic worldview doesn't lead just as justifiably to extreme skepticism and solipsism as to what most materialists actually think, that they can indeed access the outisde world and think about it.
Fortunately, such is not at all true of the Christian worldview. Puts a smile on my face, to be honest.

your methods of discerning truth, even if accepted for the sake of argument, do not include any method for resolving contingent empirical propositions or hypotheses (like evolution or ID).

Sure they do. It's a common misconception on the part of materialists and Darwinists that the Christian worldview doesn't include any natural component, but that's totally wrong. In fact, Christianity is the only worldview in which science makes any sense and finds its justification, since it solves the problem of induction whereas materialism can't. Christianity holds that the natural AND the supernatural and immaterial (the latter two of which are not interchangeable) all exist. You get careless b/c the creation event was a one-time miracle and so we argue that a natural explanation won't suffice. You thus conclude that we categorise EVERYthing as a supernatural event, when in reality very few events are supernatural.

Peace,
Rhology

Precisely. Also, I'm a dude (as if it matters).

Ack, sorry. I need to start googling names to get the sex right.

Also I meant to say "distraction tactics" in my #206 comment. Why do the really arrogant creationists always have to play annoying games. Just get to the fucking point and be clear.

Rhology being stabbed to death with his own rubber shiv:

My question is more fundamental than that. On what I think is your worldview (and you can correct me if I'm wrong on this), you are a wad of mud magically animated by the invisible man in the sky, much like the Pilsbury Doughboy. The Doughboy giggles when poked, the magic man in the sky makes you produce giggles that you laughably call "thoughts" purely for his own musement. How do you know they can produce ANY true thoughts?

Rhology, YOU are the one who has been going around claiming that all reality is contingent on the whims of an all-powerful being whose motives are beyond our comprehension. YOU are the one who thinks that things actually observed in the real world don't exist, unless the magic man in the sky says so. YOU are the one who worships a deranged trickster who can rewrite reality on a whim, who speaks through a magic book and by causing hallucinations. YOU are the one who asserts that true thoughts are impossible. Of course, you haven't ever even tried to support your claims with evidence, since the very concept of evidence is anathema to your cult.

Rhology babbling more idiocy:

Christianity is the only worldview in which science makes any sense and finds its justification

[CITATION NEEDED]

Either you actually believe this, in which case you're too delusional to ever be reachable, or you don't believe it, in which case you're a lying sack of shit. Either way you're a worthless phony who flees in terror from reality.

Your cult doesn't get to declare itself the source of all knowledge.

YOU are the one who keeps saying that everything is dependent on worldview, so why don't YOU prove your own worldview? Simple, you know you can't, because your worldview is an absurd load of crap based on the whims of a magic man in the sky who can't even be bothered to show himself. Why don't YOU prove you're not a cabbage using only "the christian worldview"? Because you're too much of a coward to even attempt it.

Another bald assertion pulled from Rhology's anus:

Christianity holds that the natural AND the supernatural and immaterial (the latter two of which are not interchangeable) all exist.

So, where is your EVIDENCE that the "supernatural" and the "immaterial" acutally exist? For that matter, since you assert that both of these things exist, and are distinct, can you even attempt to provide a definition? Don't strain yourself, we all know you're utterly incapable of supporting any of your assertions.

You're either extraordinarily incompetent or a liar, Rho. All one has to do is quote you back to yourself. Where is the method for resolving empirical and materially-contingent hypotheses?

"2 basic ways - divine revelation and logic.
Now, how do YOU discern truth? If via inductive empirical observation, how do you know that inductive empirical observation correctly discerns truth, and that your cognitive faculties are reliably aimed at producing true thoughts?"

Divine revelation does not give one a way to find a discernable pattern of lafe and test it. If it has any meaning at all, it failed repeatedly and yet was still highly respected until alternatives came about like explanations of cosmology and the transmutation of organisms. You know, science.

Deduction is great, but without an inductive portion your premises have no grounding in empiricism. I would hope that would be obvious.

Parroting Plantinga will also get you nowhere...

phantomreader42 @212 -

YOU are the one...

God has revealed Himself as a truthful being who does not lie and whose promises are true and reliable. That's the basis of my solid epistemology.
Now, you wasted a lot of space whining and using naughty words when you could have been answering the question. Answer the question.

Your cult doesn't get to declare itself the source of all knowledge

1) Prove it. Start by providing a basis for intelligibility on materialistic presuppositions, as I keep asking you to.
2) 2 strawmen. I'm not a member of a cult, and we're not the source of all knowledge. God is the BASIS for all reason, knowledge, and intelligibility, but we're hardly the only ones who know God.

Why don't YOU prove you're not a cabbage using only "the christian worldview"?

Ph42, you're barely worth talking to b/c you're so intentionally offensive and so amazingly ignorant of the other side.
Genesis 1 says that God created man in His own image, and the doctrine of man runs all throughout the entire Bible. We have more value than cabbage b/c God has placed more value on us by His generous love and shown it by dying to save His people. He didn't die for cabbage.
Now, on your worldview, prove you carry more value and can think better than a cabbage, please.

Shira @213 -

Divine revelation does not give one a way to find a discernable pattern of lafe and test it

When you said "lafe", did you mean "life"? If not, sorry, I didn't understand.
This discussion is about the viability of your presuppositions, and here you simply beg the question by imposing your presuppositions onto my own worldview. I don't grant that "testing it" in the sense that you most probably mean it (ie, by scientific experimentation) is the only way to discover truth, and I dispute that science's ability to find truth is even possible on materialism, since I haven't seen why thinking that one's cognitive faculties are reliably aimed at producing true thoughts is a preferable view to extreme skepticism and solipsism, on materialism. You've got work to do; get on it.
Instead of blindly ripping Plantinga, just answer the questions. It'll save everyone some time.

Peace,
Rhology

Rhology:

God has revealed Himself as a truthful being who does not lie and whose promises are true and reliable. That's the basis of my solid epistemology.

THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD:

Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. (1 Kings 22:23)

Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people. (Jeremiah 4:10)

And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet. (Ezekiel 14:9)

For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. (2 Thessalonians 2:11)

Okay, Rhology, there's what your precious "divine revelation" says, now admit that "the basis of your solid epistemology" is a load of shit, or fuck off.

Hey phantomreader42, take a deep breath and calm down. I used to be the same way, but then you realize, "so he disagrees with me! Big deal!" We believe we're right and Rhology is wrong, and he believes the opposite. No need to get all hot and bothered about it.

Now, on your worldview, prove you carry more value and can think better than a cabbage, please.

What kind of cabbage? There are over 400 varieties!

http://homecooking.about.com/od/howtocookvegetables/a/cabbagevariety.htm

But seriously, what is this "think better than a cabbage" nonsense? In what sense are cabbages in any way in competition with people that they can outhink us? "Damn, I thought I had my client acquitted for sure, but then that damned cabbage attorney for the prosecution destroyed my star witness on cross-examination!"

Their value, such as it is, lies in that a segment of the population likes to eat them (though not I), so either people who like cabbages grow them themselves in their own vegetable gardens, or farmers make an income growing and selling them on the market. To ask whether cabbage has more value than a human is a meaningless comparison because there is no situation where one comes into conflict with the other.

Probably a more apt comparison would be whether humans can "think" better than microbes. Now there is a situation wherein two forms of life are in conflict with one another. We can create antibiotics to combat bacterial infections, but then the buggers develop immunity to it over time. Other bacteria are beneficial to us (as well as other organisms) in terms of promoting the digestion of food. So, if God allegedly created Man to have dominion over the Earth, bacteria seem not to have gotten the message.

Genesis 1 says that God created man in His own image

Who cares what Genesis says? I need corroboration in order to accept that the planet Earth was created, with plants on it, before the sun around which it orbits. Like I wrote to you in another thread, I need to see the human detritus that one should expect to show a post-Flood human migration from Mesopotamia into Egypt and thence throughout Africa. Instead, what we have found shows the opposite, that humanity arose in Africa and then spread into the Middle East. Sorry, but making a special pleading that the Bible is the highest authority on the matter just doesn't cut it for me.

and the doctrine of man runs all throughout the entire Bible.

Of course it does, because it was written by men. It's a product of human egocentrism. Our planet was created before all other heavenly bodies. God put stars in the sky to provide us with light at night, never mind the fact that many of these stars have planets of their own for which they are the primary source of light and heat. "God has a special plan for me." When it comes right down to it, your worldview is a construct to provide yourself with a sense of self-validation because either you felt on your own or someone else convinced you that you were missing something in your life. Again, as I've told you before, if that's what gets you through the day, that's just fine by me. It is more important to be that you have a happy, fulfilled life than whether or not you are a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist.

Regards,

TK

Darn, meant "It is more important to me"!

ph42,

And about whom are all of those psgs speaking? About those who had abundant access to the truth and yet have turned their hearts and minds away from God. He just ratifies their decision. Most atheists are big fans of freewill; what's wrong with God respecting the choices made by autonomous human agents?
In the future, I don't recommend making an argument against a knowledgeable Christian (especially a Calvinist) by just doing biblegateway word searches and copy+pasting the results or using the Skeptics Annotated Bible. Just doesn't turn out well.

Tommy,
In what sense are cabbages in any way in competition with people that they can outhink us?

I contend that, if materialism is true, there is no reason to believe your cognitive faculties work better (ie, can produce true thoughts) than those of a cabbage. So prove me wrong.

Their value, such as it is, lies in that a segment of the population likes to eat them

Humans' value, such as it is, lies in that a segment of the population likes to eat them. A small segment, but so what?

Sorry, but making a special pleading that the Bible is the highest authority on the matter just doesn't cut it for me.

Yes, I know that. But since you hold to materialism, which is irrational, that doesn't bother me.

I contend that, if materialism is true, there is no reason to believe your cognitive faculties work better (ie, can produce true thoughts) than those of a cabbage. So prove me wrong.

I just gave you an example to show the absurdity of your challenge as to whether cabbages have better cognitive faculties than humans. You would need some criteria to demonstrate it. Besides, your contention as to what materialism means if it is true is not binding on the rest of us. I don't need to prove you wrong because your contention is ridiculous on its face.

Humans' value, such as it is, lies in that a segment of the population likes to eat them. A small segment, but so what?

That's nowhere near as clever as you think it is.

Nuh UH! YOUR contention as to what ID means if it is true is not binding on the rest of us. I don't need to prove you wrong because your contention is ridiculous on its face.

;-)

Seriously. Argument, please.

Rhology;

And about whom are all of those psgs speaking? About those who had abundant access to the truth and yet have turned their hearts and minds away from God. He just ratifies their decision.

I can't see any way to reconcile this viewpoint with Ezekiel 14:9. It explicitly says that God is the cause of the deception, not that he's merely rolling along with it.

Most atheists are big fans of freewill; what's wrong with God respecting the choices made by autonomous human agents?

On Calvinism, human agents aren't free to make any choices other than the ones that God knows ahead of time that they will make. As such, you must maintain that God created millions, if not billions, of people for the express purpose of roasting them in the celestial barbecue for all eternity. Since you also maintain that God is omnipotent and omniscient, you must also accept that God could have chosen to create people otherwise, but didn't.

For those reasons, one could say that what's "wrong" with God respecting choices is that he's deliberately behaving like a massive prick.

I contend that, if materialism is true, there is no reason to believe your cognitive faculties work better (ie, can produce true thoughts) than those of a cabbage.

Whether materialism is true or not, there's no reason to suppose that cabbages have any cognitive faculties at all.

By contrast, whether materialism is true or not, it isn't possible to maintain that one's cognitive faculties cannot produce true thoughts, even in principle.

So prove me wrong.

You put out a contention, but it's someone else's job to prove it wrong. Does that strike you as backwards at all?

Humans' value, such as it is, lies in that a segment of the population likes to eat them. A small segment, but so what?

I thought that humans' value, such as it is, lies in the declaration of such by an invisible, omnipotent wizard.

But since you hold to materialism, which is irrational

In what sense is materialism irrational?

Rhology said:

I contend that, if materialism is true, there is no reason to believe your cognitive faculties work better (ie, can produce true thoughts) than those of a cabbage. So prove me wrong.

Here's the thing, though, Rho: you're making wild, untestable claims, then asking to be proven wrong, without clearly stating what sort of thing you would accept as proof. On top of that, your contention is simply so ludicrous, one wonders how to even begin addressing it. You're comparing the brain -- whose inner workings are so complex as to be downright baffling -- to a shaken up can of soda or a cabbage.

I mean, seriously. One has to assume you're just arguing for the sake of argument. The mechanism of thought may not be completely understood, but at least it's known. And it can be measured. Hook up an EEG to a cabbage and anyone can plainly see that it's a vegetable, whether materialism is true or goddidit.

You're playing freshman philosophy here, and quite frankly no one is impressed except for you.

So, rhology, do you admit that the god you worship is a liar (as stated in the bible)? Or are you going to pretend that your precious "divine revelation" is only reliable when it's convenient for YOU? If your god can't be depended on to tell the truth, then divine revelation is worthless as a means of arriving at the truth, since it's nothing more than another way to be lied to.

Of course, we all know you don't really give a flying fuck about the truth, you just want an excuse to keep deluding yourself. This is why you love this presuppositionalist bullshit, you just wrap yourself in delusion to hide from reality, reject all evidence, and flee in abject terror from the burden of proof.

Incidentally, it also occurs to me to point out that the evidence for evolution looks like evidence for evolution regardless of whether you "presuppose" materialism or Christianity, analogous to the way that a family tree constructed using genetic sequencing is evidence for relation by common descent, regardless of whether you like to believe in Big Spooky Person or not.

Sure, BSP could have poofed the Johnsons into existence ex nihilo looking just as we would expect, in every detail, if they came to be through the usual messy biological processes. That doesn't detract from the explanatory power of positing common descent; you don't have to actively assume there's no BSP to acknowledge that common descent explains their apparent relatedness.

Rho-

I contend that, if materialism is true, there is no reason to believe your cognitive faculties work better (ie, can produce true thoughts) than those of a cabbage.

That's an assertion. Argument, please.

God has revealed Himself as a truthful being who does not lie and whose promises are true and reliable.

That's an assertion. Argument, please.

Christianity is the only worldview in which science makes any sense and finds its justification, since it solves the problem of induction whereas materialism can't.

That's an assertion. Argument, please.

atheists often borrow from the explanatory power of the Christian worldview

That's an assertion. Argument, please.

I'm more interested in logic.

That's not an assertion, it's a weak joke. Argument, please.

God is the BASIS for all reason, knowledge, and intelligibility

Seriously. Argument, please.

"Didn't claim they were supernatural. I asked you about materialism. Mind answering the question, please?"

Well, if they're not supernatural, then there is nothing excluding their possibility under materialism, is there?

"My question is more fundamental than that. On what I think is your worldview (and you can correct me if I'm wrong on this), you are a collection of atoms banging around, producing chemical reactions within your brain, much like a can of Dr Pepper shaken up."

Chemical reactions are some of the most orderly things in the universe, we can describe them with relatively precise mathematics. I see no problem with admitting my thoughts are the results of physical and chemical processes.

Let us take another observation for the purpose of analogy. A modern semiconductor based electronic computer is based on the exact kind of process you describe, yet it can implement precise algorithms. Our brains are much the same way, except observably more messy.

"Sure they do. It's a common misconception on the part of materialists and Darwinists that the Christian worldview doesn't include any natural component, but that's totally wrong. In fact, Christianity is the only worldview in which science makes any sense and finds its justification, since it solves the problem of induction whereas materialism can't."

This is a handwave. If you only accept divine revelation and logic you can only believe in those things which can be shown to follow analytically from the divine revelation. What is the explicit solution to the problem of induction that follows from divine revelation?

Nuh UH! YOUR contention as to what ID means if it is true is not binding on the rest of us. I don't need to prove you wrong because your contention is ridiculous on its face.
;-)

Seriously. Argument, please.

I didn't make any contention as to what ID means. However, you're comparing apples and oranges. Heck, you're comparing apples to broccoli.

You keep making these wildly unsupported contentions that under materialism or naturalism that I can't trust this or that or how do I know I am not this or that. Funny then that I don't encounter these dilemmas that you think I should be encountering.

ID, as I understand it, is a way of trying to argue that the universe must be created by an intelligent entity because it is too complex to have come about by the result of purely natural forces. As I have written numerous times, I don't rule out 100% that there is no higher intelligence. What I don't see is how you go from an immensely powerful being capable of creating a vast universe filled with billions of galaxies each filled with billions of stars and planets to aforesaid creator acting as a tribal god to a confederation of semi-nomadic tribesmen in a patch of land in the Middle East for a couple of thousand years and then impregnating a virgin Jewish teenage girl in the Galilee.

As I wrote in an earlier comment today, which you seemed to have not noticed, "as I've told you before, if that's what gets you through the day, that's just fine by me. It is more important to me that you have a happy, fulfilled life than whether or not you are a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist."

When I say I don't need to prove anything to you, what I mean by that is that I don't see it as my goal to get you to renounce Christianity, accept evolution or become a secular humanist. All I can do is tell you why I don't believe what you believe. You immersed yourself in the denomination of Christianity in which you find yourself because it provides you with a sense of validation. It's a shame really, because you obviously are a very bright guy, but psychologically you feel the need to buy into a world view that separates what you believe to be you and a select few who are "saved" by virtue of a specific religious belief, and the rest of the human race who are doomed to damnation and suffering because we don't buy into what you believe. You don't have to be that way, Alan, and I really hope one day you find the wisdom and the courage to escape from it.

Rhology, you avoided the point. You did *not* list any way to deal with inference, despite your claim that your methods for discerning truth can resolve contingent empirical questions. I believe your words were, "sure they do", as you went off on talking about how Christians believe in a natural world and the immaterial. HOWEVER, none of that actually resolves contingent empirical questions - you don't simply declare 'X exists' if you don't have a reason for saying why, otherwise it's arbitrary and lacking, you know, methodology.

If you want an argument about Plantinga, you'll have to tell us why it's relevant to your failures at attacking science and the scientific method rather than being yet another rabbit hole.

Fortuna 221
there's no reason to suppose that cabbages have any cognitive faculties at all.

Absent an argument from you, I don't see why we would think that about humans. What's the difference? Just an ugly bag of mostly water, atoms banging around.
It's not as fun when someone is skeptical of YOUR view, is it?

whether materialism is true or not, it isn't possible to maintain that one's cognitive faculties cannot produce true thoughts, even in principle.

No, I want to know why one would maintain that on materialism.
I obviously don't accept materialism, so I don't doubt them mostly, but this is one of the reasons why I'm not a materialist.
Given your "wizard" comment, you don't understand what I'm talking about. This will help.

You put out a contention, but it's someone else's job to prove it wrong. Does that strike you as backwards at all?

You contend Darwinism, but it's my job to prove it wrong? Does that strike you as backwards at all?

Optimus Primate 222
You're comparing the brain -- whose inner workings are so complex as to be downright baffling -- to a shaken up can of soda or a cabbage.

You can build up an awesome mess of complexity by accident, so you need to demonstrate something other than complexity to demonstrate intent. Weather patterns are complex.
So it's complex, so what? Why should I listen to sthg more complex than another thing?

The mechanism of thought may not be completely understood, but at least it's known. And it can be measured.

Congratulations, you mark electrical signals from a brain. Now tell me why I should trust them or think they can access reality or produce true thoughts.

ph42 223
Whenever you feel like interacting with the context of your Bible psgs to show where I'm wrong, we can talk.

Fortuna 224
Sure, BSP could have poofed the Johnsons into existence ex nihilo looking just as we would expect, in every detail, if they came to be through the usual messy biological processes. That doesn't detract from the explanatory power of positing common descent

Except it would be false. Guess YOU'RE not a scientific realist...

Tyler 226,
if they're not supernatural, then there is nothing excluding their possibility under materialism

Did I not say that immaterial is not identical to supernatural?
So... the laws of logic are material, then? Of what elements are they composed? Where are they found? If they were to be destroyed, would it become true that they were in fact not destroyed?
No, of course not - they are immaterial, abstract, universal principles. And therefore not matter. Materialism posits all is matter and energy. Materialism is false.

A modern semiconductor based electronic computer is based on the exact kind of process you describe, yet it can implement precise algorithms. Our brains are much the same way, except observably more messy.

1) Computers are intelligently designed.
2) You THINK your brain is the same way, but you're still assuming what you need to prove - that your brain can produce true thoughts (in this case, about the computer).

If you only accept divine revelation and logic you can only believe in those things which can be shown to follow analytically from the divine revelation.

Except in this case the revelation also promises stability in the universe and the power of inductive observation, thus solving the problem of induction and also the problem of extreme skepticism and solipsism. God has promised the world will operate according to these physical laws until the End, the Eschaton, and that's the solution. Materialism has no such power.

Tommykey 227,
Funny then that I don't encounter these dilemmas that you think I should be encountering.

It's b/c you're not looking, and b/c you borrow liberally from Christianity on these important epistemological and metaphysical topics. Like, you make moral judgments whereas materialism offers ZERO basis for any normative morality. You act like a Christian and then retreat to materialism when convenient.

It's a shame really, because you obviously are a very bright guy, but psychologically you feel the need to buy into a world view that separates what you believe to be you and a select few who are "saved" by virtue of a specific religious belief,

There's a perfect example of what I mean. You are one bag of protoplasm among billions, on an insignificant planet in a speck of a smallish galaxy, and you'd presume to make some kind of judgment about what's a shame or not? To know what's good and bad, or compare my life to some standard and find it wanting?
At least TRY to be consistent.

Peace,
Rhology

Rhology obviously thought he was making a good point when he said:

Congratulations, you mark electrical signals from a brain. Now tell me why I should trust them or think they can access reality or produce true thoughts.

Given your disconnect with reality, Rho, I honestly couldn't care less whether you trust them or not. I just wish you would stop pulling elementary philosophy like this out of your ass and pretending you're saying something intelligent. You're not.

To answer your question in a roundabout way, though: I trust the measure of electrical signals as a good indicator of cognitive activity because, as a rule, the presence of such electrical signals in a person coincides with consciousness. I can interact with a person whose EEG indicates consciousness. We can share ideas. They're doing all of the things they need to do to indicate that they're actually, you know, thinking.

When those electrical signals aren't present, sorry, I'm not getting much out of them.

Furthermore, activity in different regions of the brain is consistent with specific components of consciousness. By measuring electrical activity and blood flow in the brain, we can literally see things like depression and musical ability manifest.

You know these things, jackass. You're perfectly well aware of them, yet you still insist upon making such ridiculous arguments, which leads me to believe you're just sticking your fingers in your ear and singing "I'm Henery the Eighth, I Am" to amuse yourself.

Seriously, I'm very nearly bored with you.

All you've done here is beg the question, Optimus. You apparently don't understand what I'm getting at. This will help you, too.
You're doing two things:
1) Expressing your blind, unproven faith in your own reason. (God calls this idolatry.)
2) Borrowing, ironically, from Christianity, in which human cognitive faculties ARE trustworthy. When are you going to be consistent enough either to stop arguing with anyone about anything or change to a worldview that actually does support rational argumentation?

Peace,
Rhology

Rhology;

there's no reason to suppose that cabbages have any cognitive faculties at all.

Absent an argument from you, I don't see why we would think that about humans.

I assume by "that" you mean "that humans have any cognitive faculties at all", rather than what you're quoting, which is the point I was trying to make about cabbages.

What's the difference? Just an ugly bag of mostly water, atoms banging around.

I suspect you are well aware of the biochemical differences between cabbages and humans, but do not consider differing biochemistry relevant in itself.

And my bag is quite pretty, thanks, although you may get a differing opinion from crystalline entities.

It's not as fun when someone is skeptical of YOUR view, is it?

Eh? Why would you assume I find skepticism unpleasant? Jumping to conclusions much?

No, I want to know why one would maintain that on materialism.

If one thinks to onself "I cannot think true thoughts", you've contradicted yourself.

Given your "wizard" comment, you don't understand what I'm talking about. This will help.

Will it? That looks like an incredibly boring pile of dreck. I especially liked this:

In his (the skeptic's) view of origins, the material universe sprang into being from nothing and under not rational oversight. The rational, then, is built upon the irrational.

Aaaaaand false dichotomy for the win!

I also like the continual reification of the "laws of logic", which I gather is a signature move of yours, and the cute little demolition of naive empiricism.

Seriously, if there's a relevant point in there, you're gonna have to spell it out for me, real clear-like.

You contend Darwinism, but it's my job to prove it wrong?

No, dear. That was rather the point.

Does that strike you as backwards at all?

It would in a world where I had made such a claim.

Except it would be false.

You'll note, in my example, that I didn't say that BSP actually did poof the Johnsons into exixtence ex nihilo, merely that it could have. The point was to compare competing explanations. Do try to keep up, honey.

Guess YOU'RE not a scientific realist...

Given your misunderstanding of the above, that looks like quite the foolish assumption. In future, perhaps refrain from tossing in the ol' capslock? Foolish statements look worse when you emphasize them.

"So... the laws of logic are material, then?"

In the sense that a tautology or a valid deductive inference doesn't depend on a particular material state of affairs, no. But I think you are confusing the abstract with the ethereal.

"1) Computers are intelligently designed."

But this is irrelevant. If your contention is the fact that our thoughts are physical processes places them in doubt, then you cannot hold that in the face of the observation that physical processes produce orderly phenomena.

"2) You THINK your brain is the same way, but you're still assuming what you need to prove - that your brain can produce true thoughts..."

But this isn't dependent at all on our thoughts being physical processes, it's just a basic skeptical conundrum. I make the abductive inference that my brain producing true thoughts is consistent with all my other experience. It's relatively weak, but tenable.

On the other hand, I don't see how Christianity solves this problem. To make such a judgment you'd have to assume that your brain is also producing true thoughts about revelation...something that assumes what you're trying to prove.

"Except in this case the revelation also promises stability in the universe and the power of inductive observation..."

Except that this would seem to be an a posteriori judgment based upon your particular reading of the divine revelation. Or in other words, inductive inference. You're using the same circular logic you have been accusing us of using the entire time you've been here.

Rhology, Lying For Jesus⢠yet again:

Borrowing, ironically, from Christianity, in which human cognitive faculties ARE trustworthy.

Of course, as we have come to expect from rhology, this just plain is not true. It is explicitly stated in the christian bible that god is capable of causing human cognitive faculties to give completely wrong results, and that he has repeatedly done so, for a chance to show off, or simply for his own amusement (I quoted an explicit mention of this above, but as always rhology whined and lied and hid from the truth). Think of the bit in Exodus where, after inducing Moses to demand Pharoah "let my people go", god deliberately fucked with his mind to prevent him from doing so, repeatedly, to manufacture an excuse to send plagues, including one that demonstrated that even GOD could not tell which houses belonged to the Israelites without a mark on the door painted in blood.

If the above is a true story, then christianity cannot trust human cognitive faculties, as god could easily be fucking around with them for fun, on a whim, as he has been established to do in the past (not to mention the fact that god himself has questionable cognitive faculties, given that he apparently can't figure out where his followers live without animal sacrifice). If the above story is NOT true, then christianity cannot trust ANYTHING, as all of christianity is built on a foundation of "divine revelation" which is thereby exposed to be false and useless.

Furthermore, the mythology of the christian cult is littered with denouncements of the ability of human beings to understand anything at all. The whole load is fundamentally opposed to cognition itself, rejects any form of reason, and promotes belief in propositions totally unsupported by evidence, while disdaining thinking. It teaches that humans are irrevocably flawed and incapable of being trusted to make their own decisions, ESPECIALLY the calvinist strain of this malignant death cult.

So, rhology, how can christianity be the only worldview in which human faculties are trustworthy, when christianity explicitly teaches that they are not?

More relevant to this discussion, what idiotic dodge will you use to defend your delusions THIS time?

More relevant to this discussion, what idiotic dodge will you use to defend your delusions THIS time?

I've got five bucks on "I know you are, but what am I?" Because, honestly, that and "I'm rubber, you're glue" are just about the only arguments he has left at his intellectual level.

Just remember though, he loves every single one of us!

Fortuna 232,

If one thinks to onself "I cannot think true thoughts", you've contradicted yourself.

Alright, now we're getting somewhere.
1) Perhaps you could give me a reason to think that any thought beyond "I can think true thoughts" can accurately represent reality. That doesn't help you much beyond that one thought, b/c you can also think lots and lots of thoughts that are false or that you think are true but which don't accurately represent reality.
2) Besides, in a solipsistic scenario, one could easily grant that you can think, sorta, but that you can't access reality otherwise.
3) Besides that, what makes your thoughts, which are chemical processes produced by molecules banging around, more valuable w.r.t. truth than shaking up a Dr Pepper can and opening it?

I also like the continual reification of the "laws of logic", which I gather is a signature move of yours, and the cute little demolition of naive empiricism.

Oh, so logic doesn't exist?
What is the nature, then, of the laws of logic? Are you a materialist? If so, how is their existence consistent with materialism?

Tyler 233,

In the sense that a tautology or a valid deductive inference doesn't depend on a particular material state of affairs, no. But I think you are confusing the abstract with the ethereal.

So you're not a materialist, right?

I make the abductive inference that my brain producing true thoughts is consistent with all my other experience.

I make the abductive inference that my brain producing that which it was stimulated to produce by the apparatus to which it's connected is consistent with all my other experience. Why is yours better than mine?
Blind faith (ie, wishful thinking) gets you out of the conundrum, nothing else. And that makes me laugh b/c you so often assert "I believe that for which there's evidence."

I don't see how Christianity solves this problem.

We have the word of a truthful outside observer to let us know it's not actually like that.

To make such a judgment you'd have to assume that your brain is also producing true thoughts about revelation...something that assumes what you're trying to prove.

Yep, but I'm not the one going around claiming that I'm a "slave to the evidence", as ERV said in her most recent public debate. Rather, I claim that presupposing the God of the Bible is the only route to rationality and to a world where evidence actually has value.

Except that this would seem to be an a posteriori judgment based upon your particular reading of the divine revelation. Or in other words, inductive inference.

I've never claimed not to be using circular arguments. But mine are not viciously circular b/c the God of the Bible is self-justifying. Is materialism? Since it can't even answer the question of solipsism or ground the laws of logic, no.

ph42, Optimus, TK, I can't deny that it makes me smile to see what you're reduced to here.

Peace,
Rhology

Rhology still trying to pretend that his cult is the only way brains can work, even though it's done the exact opposite to him:

We have the word of a truthful outside observer to let us know it's not actually like that.

Except that there exists not the slightest speck of evidence that this "truthful outside observer" actually exists, much less that it's truthful, and said "truthful outside observer", even if it were real, is stated in its own myths as having a history of fraud, dishonesty, and fucking around with human minds purely for amusement, and is also reported to be incapable of identifying the inhabitants of a house by any means other than looking for lamb's blood on the door, and supposedly predicted the apocalypse at least twenty centuries too early. So this "truthful outside observer" is at best nonexistent, at worst a pathological liar who can't find its butt with both hands.

As usual, rhology disdains evidence and embraces the mindless worship of an imaginary refugee from a mental ward with the eyesight of Mr. Magoo and a penchant for clumsy stage magic.

And yep, optimus got it right, perfectly predicted that the rhobot would flee in terror while trying to throw his own feces at everyone who dared expose his utter lack of substance. Lucky for all of us that rhology, like his imaginary friend, can't hit the broad side of a barn.

Rhology, face it, you're a solipsist who falsely accuses others of solipsism to hide from your own stupidity. You're a pathological liar who wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass. You're a fraud, and you worship a fraud.

TK, I can't deny that it makes me smile to see what you're reduced to here.

You mean you don't love me?

ph42, Optimus, TK, I can't deny that it makes me smile to see what you're reduced to here.

So you finally admit that you're just being an antagonistic douche just for giggles. Finally! Isn't if funny? The truth just sounds different.

"So you're not a materialist, right?"

It depends on how one wants to characterize the ontological status of those things that don't depend on particular material states of affairs. If materialism means something like "everything that exists has a discernible material manifestation", then I don't believe that. But this whole discussion is so tangential to the original topic at this point that it's probably not even worth continuing.

"I make the abductive inference that my brain producing that which it was stimulated to produce by the apparatus to which it's connected is consistent with all my other experience. Why is yours better than mine?"

The fact that I'm reasoning by default. I have no particular reason to assume my experiences are illusory, so given the multiplicity of explanations consistent with my experience I make an inference to the "best" one. Like I said, it's weak in comparison to some analytical deduction, but tenable.

"We have the word of a truthful outside observer to let us know it's not actually like that."

Well, logically you don't know if that "truthful" outside observer is just Descartes evil demon or the Gnostic demiurge confusing you. I only make the assumption that the patterns of my experience are not illusory, you make the assumption that a benevolent God exists and therefore the patterns of your experience are not illusory. My set of assumptions is more minimal than your's.

"I've never claimed not to be using circular arguments. But mine are not viciously circular b/c the God of the Bible is self-justifying."

It's self-justifying if you assume that it's self-justifying, which is viciously circular.

"Is materialism? Since it can't even answer the question of solipsism or ground the laws of logic, no."

Well, it can't if you assume that all logic is deductive. Most philosophers do, in fact, at least tacitly make this assumption, so I can't hold it against you in particular. Still, I've long been of the persuasion that such an assumption is unjustified.

You act like a Christian and then retreat to materialism when convenient.

Uh, no. What you try to do is label things like morality as being the exclusive province of Christianity, when it is not. The version of Christianity you adhere to (there are so many, after all) is simply a pre-packaged subjective belief system dressed up in the guise of divine command that you accept because it provides you with a sense of self-validation. That is why you prefer to ignore or discount evidence that conflicts with the Bible, because you have so much invested in maintaining your edifice of belief. Of course, the god you worship purportedly lies outside the realm of our physical universe and our instruments of detection, therefore making it impossible to disprove. How convenient for you.

I don't have to argue with you that evidence is the best way to learn the truth because you really aren't interested in truth. What you're really interested in, though on a subconscious level, is maintaining the sense of self worth you derive from believing you are a faithful servant and online culture warrior for the supposed creator of the universe. The fact is, TRUTH does not come to us gift wrapped in a box or contained entirely in a book. While believing so might give you a feeling of righteous certitude, in the end it makes you intellectually stagnant.

Once you believe you know "the Truth", you no longer feel the need to question it. You become like the rulers of the late Qing dynasty in China, who rather than trying to learn from the Westerners who had leaped so far ahead of them, instead tried to find solace in reassuring themselves that they were the center of civilization and that their Confucian values were all that they needed. A worldview that adheres to a literal interpretation of the Bible is like the mythical bed of Procrustes. All of Earth history has to be hammered or bent or twisted to make it fit into a chronology of 6,000 years. All present events have to be filtered through the Book of Revelation in order to find signs that we are living in the End Times. But just as Sigmund Freud said "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," sometimes a war in the Middle East is just a war in the Middle East.

And now I have to bring this to a conclusion, as my son is waiting for me to help him with his homework. Have a nice evening.

Abby threatened to make Steve look stupid? Hahaha... then she runs off without even a single question?

Silly Jew killer? You are the militant atheist Christ killer correct?

Figures, go "watch porn," kill all that is good within you.

Darwin is dead. Wake up fools. There is a whole new paradigm headed past you while you sink into oblivion.

As far as not questioning the "truth" Darwin is your false idol and it is never questioned. I suggest Tommy look in the mirror.

You represent us Jews so well.

Tommy, little bitter, angry Abby attended the event with a closed mind of hatred for Steve and his lecture. Do not try to preach to me, or anyone here about close-minded fear mongors. That is exactly how darwinist act today, almost like fascist, threatening, lies, refusing to allow good conversations and discussions take place without throwing feces into the room.

Abby is a hateful, spiteful person and as she so laughed before - she took upon her the title - "Christ killer." But then Christ is Jewish, Yeshua ben Yosef. So the self-loathing atheist jew hater laughs about killing a jew?

How sick is she? Sick in hatred in her heart?

Smart girl, yeah boy, so clever with her hatred!

So much for science, all she does is make hateful remarks and refuses to allow for any decent conversation. She didn't cover ID openly before and she does not do it today.
That makes her a close-minded bigot simply because she personally does not like possible ramifications of scientific finding and analysis done by her opponents.

Truth is gradualism is dead, TOL is dead and Darwinism as a result of HGT and many other mechanisms are dead. Having worshipped a false idol who could barely pass algerbra, this is what happens with fools.

Carry on... spew forth your hatred Abby of people you never met or do not know in life.

Oh, and Shalom, ty for representing us Jews so well with your hatred. What a disaster.

Moshe, pull out some evidence for your creationist bullshit and slander, or fuck off and die. This "new paradigm" you babble about, go ahead and show us the fucking EVIDENCE instead of whining about dead people. Of course we know you're not capable of providing evidence, you're not even capable of presenting your lies coherently. You're the disaster here, you empty-headed worshipper of your own willful ignorance.

Moshe;

Oh, and Shalom, ty for representing us Jews so well with your hatred.

And a merry fuck-you to you, as well. Who died and left you in charge of determining what represents jews?

Rhology;

Longer response to follow.

Perhaps you could give me a reason to think that any thought beyond "I can think true thoughts" can accurately represent reality.

The capacity for one's thoughts to accurately represent reality is entailed in the statement "I can think true thoughts".

That doesn't help you much beyond that one thought, b/c you can also think lots and lots of thoughts that are false or that you think are true but which don't accurately represent reality.

Indeed, having truth-apt cognitive faculties is no guarantee that any particular thought one thinks will be true, outside of thoughts that are definitionally true, of course.

Besides, in a solipsistic scenario, one could easily grant that you can think, sorta, but that you can't access reality otherwise.

Well, yeah. But then, why would one prefer solipsism?

Besides that, what makes your thoughts, which are chemical processes produced by molecules banging around, more valuable w.r.t. truth than shaking up a Dr Pepper can and opening it?

That's kind of funny, since shaking up a Dr. Pepper can generally requires something with truth-apt faculties to sucessfully locate, shake up and open the can (absent a mindless phenomenon like an earthquake, I guess).

But I see what you're driving at, so let's say your chosen example doesn't assume the existence of the thing in question. I know I personally can think thoughts, and it follows that at least some of them are truth-apt. I have no reason to assume that a can of Dr. Pepper, shaken or otherwise, is in the same position, so I win by default, absent something surprising.

Oh, so logic doesn't exist?

Logic exists, albeit not in the form of a physical object. I'm not sure you quite understand what it means to reify something.

What is the nature, then, of the laws of logic?

They're abstractions.

Are you a materialist?

In the sense that I think that everything that is actually instantiated in the universe is physical in nature, sure.

If so, how is their existence consistent with materialism?

Abstractions are supervenient on the nature of the universe that we happen to live in.

Incidentally, do you plan to spell out what the relevance was of that link you posted for me, like I asked you to? I won't hold it against you if you don't; what you opt to respond to is your prerogative, really.

Maybe douchebot thinks he had a true thought that he'd responded, or something.
Therein lies the rub. You are only reduced to needing an outside arbiter of truth because you ditched anything empirical because the empirical gave the lie to your presupposition of an outside arbiter.
It's viciously circular all the way down.