Sunday, October 08, 2006

An Interesting Thought

PaulC made a comment over at Pharyngula that caught my attention.
I think that if you drill deeper on the ignorance of most Americans about biology, you'd find that they don't merely reject evolution, but don't really believe that life follows from the same natural laws governing non-living material....
But the process of development, unlike evolution, is something we can readily study in human time scales and repeat in the lab. That's the only reason that IDers are not stupid enough to challenge the entire basic of the life sciences and push some form of vitalism. It's certainly not because it is a less mysterious process than evolution.
Intelligent Design is pretty much an argument from ignorance. I suppose if we weren't as far along about learning what makes us tick, they'd still be positing magic like Deepak Chopra. You can't really make an argument from ignorance when you've got people lining up providing answers all the time. The thought isn't really that surprising, but it's an angle I didn't really think about as much.

191 comments:

Yamil Luciano said...

You gotta love those strawmen arguments.

For people who pride themselves of having all the "facts" and demand it of others, they surely are accustomed to doing everything else except provide facts.

It must be much easier to hide behind scholastic mumble-jumble rather than face the simple devastating truth.

Bronze Dog said...

(Assuming the straw man is the characterization of ID as argument from ignorance, since it isn't specified):

Are you aware of an ID argument that isn't an argument from igorance? I'd like to hear one.

Oh, and what are the straw men you're talking about? It helps if you don't force me to rely on assumptions and pattern recognition.

Anonymous said...

The strawman is that you do not deal with anything that ID says but lazily sit back pointing the finger of ignorance.

If a debate is won by how many times one calls his opponent ignorant than I would suppose that you and your beloved PZ Meyers would win.

Anonymous said...

The devastating truth is that you have never observed one species evolve into another.

The only thing you can point to is genetic mutations which noone in the whole history of science have ever denied.

Bronze Dog said...

Uh... I don't think you know what "straw man" means.

ID's argument is essentially this: "We don't know how X evolved, therefore goddidit."

If ID uses a different argument, please educate me. If you won't explain, I'll never learn. Unfortunately, IDers never explain.

As for the ignorance thing: I'm not calling anyone ignorant in this post. I'm accusing them of making an argument from ignorance: "I don't know, therefore X."

Observation: Try catching up.

Anonymous said...

Big sigh.

The semantics game I presume.

Anonymous said...

From someone who does not even have a college degree I presume.

Bronze Dog said...

Lovely. I suppose if I quote from a dictionary, you'll call it a semantics game.

I also call Doggerel #27 "Educated": My education level isn't going to magically change the validity of these arguments, so please, STAY ON TOPIC!

The topic is Intelligent Design. What are the arguments for Intelligent Design?

Anonymous said...

ID's most basic tenant is that intelligent design points to an intelligent designer.


Design theory--also called design or the design argument--is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. It has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece.

The most famous version of the design argument can be found in the work of theologian William Paley, who in 1802 proposed his "watchmaker" thesis. His reasoning went like this:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever. ... But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think the answer which I had before given [would be sufficient].

To the contrary, the fine coordination of all its parts would force us to conclude that

... the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.

Paley argued that we can draw the same conclusion about many natural objects, such as the eye. Just as a watch's parts are all perfectly adapted for the purpose of telling time, the parts of an eye are all perfectly adapted for the purpose of seeing. In each case, Paley argued, we discern the marks of an intelligent designer.

Although Paley's basic notion was sound, and influenced thinkers for decades, Paley never provided a rigorous standard for detecting design in nature. Detecting design depended on such vague standards as being able to discern an object's "purpose." Moreover, Paley and other "natural theologians" tried to reason from the facts of nature to the existence of a wise and benevolent God.

All of these things made design an easy target for Charles Darwin when he proposed his theory of evolution. Whereas Paley saw a finely-balanced world attesting to a kind and just God, Darwin pointed to nature's imperfections and brutishness. Although Darwin had once been an admirer of Paley, Darwin's own observations and experiences--especially the cruel, lingering death of his 9-year-old daughter Annie in 1850--destroyed whatever belief he had in a just and moral universe.

Following the triumph of Darwin's theory, design theory was all but banished from biology. Since the 1980s, however, advances in biology have convinced a new generation of scholars that Darwin's theory was inadequate to account for the sheer complexity of living things. These scholars--chemists, biologists, mathematicians and philosophers of science--began to reconsider design theory. They formulated a new view of design that avoids the pitfalls of previous versions.

Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design theory (as well as from the naturalistic use of the term design), this new approach is more modest than its predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God's existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable."

In addition to being more modest than earlier versions of design theory, ID is also more powerful. Instead of looking for such vague properties as "purpose" or "perfection"--which may be construed in a subjective sense--it looks for the presence of what it calls specified complexity, an unambiguously objective standard.

Anonymous said...

That's in contrast to evolution where it's most basic tenent is that everything evolved from random processes.

What urks evolutionists like yourself so much is that ID scientists who are more qualified than both you and I take the supernatural out of the equation. To you, you suspect is as religion in disguise, just like we suspect that evolution is materialistic uniformalism and anti-God in desguise.

But what they try to accomplish is establish objectivity by eliminating religious presupositions. So the ID's are damened if they do and damned if they do not, I suppose.

Personally, I preffer the Answers in Genesis approach where they simply demonstrate how the Bible is consistent with science. But either approach comes from the same branch.

Bronze Dog said...

The watchmaker argument is a bad analogy: Watches don't reproduce. Life does, and that's where the key difference is.

Another problem with the argument is that some inanimate objects aren't designed. Take Adrian Thompson's microchip: It wasn't designed. He made evolutionary algorithms (I expect to hear the sound of moving goal posts any moment, now.) that "designed" the chip without his input. (If you want to argue that that invalidates the experiment, please demonstrate evidence that the laws of physics were designed.)

Paley argued that we can draw the same conclusion about many natural objects, such as the eye. Just as a watch's parts are all perfectly adapted for the purpose of telling time, the parts of an eye are all perfectly adapted for the purpose of seeing.

You have a low standard of "perfectly". Why did the designer build our eyes backwards, leaving us with a blindspot where the blood vessels go through?

Since the 1980s, however, advances in biology have convinced a new generation of scholars that Darwin's theory was inadequate to account for the sheer complexity of living things.

Longer than that. That's why we have modern synthesis.

Instead of looking for such vague properties as "purpose" or "perfection"--which may be construed in a subjective sense--it looks for the presence of what it calls specified complexity, an unambiguously objective standard.

Then you should have no trouble unambiguously explaining "specified complexity."

That's in contrast to evolution where it's most basic tenent is that everything evolved from random processes.

You're making that up.

What urks evolutionists like yourself so much is that ID scientists who are more qualified than both you and I take the supernatural out of the equation. To you, you suspect is as religion in disguise, just like we suspect that evolution is materialistic uniformalism and anti-God in desguise.

Stay on topic.

Anonymous said...

"The watchmaker argument is a bad analogy: Watches don't reproduce. Life does, and that's where the key difference is."

No anology is perfect silly. The purpose of any anology is to demonstrate a particular truth. The particular truth in the anology in question is that everything that has a design gives testimony to its designer.

Have you ever seen anything that has a design but no designer?

or more simply put

Have you ever witnessed a complex design that resulted from a random freak of nature?

Anonymous said...

"Another problem with the argument is that some inanimate objects aren't designed. Take Adrian Thompson's microchip: It wasn't designed. He made evolutionary algorithms... "


I am not sure what you are making reference to but that is a laughable comment.

Firstly, if the microship did not give testimony of its designer than it would have not beared Adrian Thompsom's name.

Secondly, in the same breath you make two contradictory statements: that it has no design and that it was made.

Anonymous said...

"You have a low standard of "perfectly". Why did the designer build our eyes backwards, leaving us with a blindspot where the blood vessels go through?"

Yes, I am sure you would also like to have x-ray vision so that you can pretend that you are superman.

Ha!

Sorry to break it to you, but perfect does not mean being created according to your whims.

Infophile said...

*cracks knuckles*

Okay, let me ask you this: Do you believe that God (or whatever hypothetical creator you may wish) is more complex than, less complex than, or as complex as human life?

Assuming your argument that a sufficient level of complexity implies a design implies a designer, we get the following results:

If God is more complex than us or as complex as us, it implies that God must have been designed as well. We're then lead to a progression of even more complex designers, or the possibility that somewhere along the way one came about randomly from a less complex system.

If God is less complex than us, then you've agreed that less complex systems can beget more complex systems, meaning evolution is possible.

Now, at this point, I expect you might come to say that you aren't using complexity as a determinant of design. So, for whatever else you choose to use in its place, please address whether the hypothetical creator would also meet this criteria.

Anonymous said...

"Then you should have no trouble unambiguously explaining "specified complexity."

When a design theorist says that a string of letters is specified, he's saying that it fits a recognizable pattern. And when he says it's complex, he's saying there are so many different ways the object could have turned out that the chance of getting any particular outcome by accident is hopelessly small.


Specified complexity is displayed by any object or event that has an extremely low probability of occurring by chance, and matches a discernable pattern. According to contemporary design theory, the presence of highly specified complexity is an indicator of an intelligent cause.

Anonymous said...

Infophile,

Unfortunately you cannot describe God in the same terms you would describe the material world, because God is made from a material unknown to us.

If one was able to describe God, then he would not be God.

Anonymous said...

Staying on topic...

"What urks evolutionists like yourself so much is that ID scientists who are more qualified than both you and I take the supernatural out of the equation. To you, you suspect is as religion in disguise, just like we suspect that evolution is materialistic uniformalism and anti-God in desguise."

Infophile said...

Now, allow me to illustrate how a random process + natural selection can lead to what you call specified complexity.

Randomly select a letter from the english alphabet. If this letter can be at the beginning of some english word, this partial-word lives.

This partial word then reproduces 26 times, putting a different letter after it each time. After this letter is created, if this combination of two letters can't be the beginning of some word, this partial word dies off and is never heard from again (an unfit adaptation). If it can be the beginning of a word, it lives and reproduces (a fit adaptation).

Each one of those segments that lives reproduces again, and lives if those three letters can start a word. This process is repeated infinitely. Whenever a full word is created, one offspring will remain without extra letters, while others will try other paths to see if other words can still be made.

Eventually this will end, and all that will be left are recognizable english words. They meet the definition of "specified." Now, through this process, what was the chance of going down any particular path? (1/26) to the power of the number of letters. So the chance of creating "antidisestablishmentarianism" is (1/26)^28. Very small chance of this word occuring, so it's definitely "complex."

So, let's sum it up. We selected each path at random, and branched out to multiple ones. Unfit paths died off and didn't reproduce. Fit paths reproduced and continued the cycle, adding layers of complexity each time. The difference in evolution is that the fitness determination is a lot more complex, but it still produces end organisms that are adapted to the environment. Even though we started with a dumb process, it creates every english word in existence (assuming you try again with each different letter as the starting point), and all these words are both specified and complex.

Infophile said...

Unfortunately you cannot describe God in the same terms you would describe the material world, because God is made from a material unknown to us.

If one was able to describe God, then he would not be God.


And your evidence for this is...? What basis do we have to assume that the creator must defy the laws of nature?

Science is concerned with providing natural explanations. If your only argument to this point is that God is unnatural, then ID is not scientific.

Infophile said...

Wait a second...

You just said, "What urks evolutionists like yourself so much is that ID scientists who are more qualified than both you and I take the supernatural out of the equation."

And then in your response to me, "Unfortunately you cannot describe God in the same terms you would describe the material world, because God is made from a material unknown to us.

If one was able to describe God, then he would not be God."

How does God, then, not qualify as supernatural?

Anonymous said...

"Science is concerned with providing natural explanations. If your only argument to this point is that God is unnatural, then ID is not scientific."

Unfortunately, you brought God into the equation not me.

But you are right science does not explain God. But for that matter their are lots of things that science can not fully explain.

Anonymous said...

Otherwise, most scientists would be unemployed.

Infophile said...

Unfortunately, you brought God into the equation not me.

Your theory necessitates the existence of a designer. I merely used the convenient label "God" as it's what I figured you had in mind, and I appear to have guessed correctly.

Anyways, what we're left with is the following two possibilities:

1. The designer was natural. In this case, my previous arguments apply.

2. The designer was unnatural. In this case, it contradicts your statement that these people have taken the supernatural out of the equation.

Bronze Dog said...

Have you ever witnessed a complex design that resulted from a random freak of nature?

Congratulations. You've demonstrated that you have absolutely no grasp of evolution. Randomness is only one part of it.

I see evolved things quite often nowadays. You'd be surprised what develops from evolutionary algorithms.

Firstly, if the microship did not give testimony of its designer than it would have not beared Adrian Thompsom's name.

So, are you saying that the laws of physics were made by the designer? What evidence have you?

Secondly, in the same breath you make two contradictory statements: that it has no design and that it was made.

I fail to see the contradiction: The chip was made, but only based on what an unintelligent algorithm came up with.

The goal posts are in motion.

Yes, I am sure you would also like to have x-ray vision so that you can pretend that you are superman.

Ha!

Sorry to break it to you, but perfect does not mean being created according to your whims.


So, something can still have a design flaw and be "perfect". I guess that means that your standards aren't low. Just weird.

When a design theorist says that a string of letters is specified, he's saying that it fits a recognizable pattern. And when he says it's complex, he's saying there are so many different ways the object could have turned out that the chance of getting any particular outcome by accident is hopelessly small.

Texas Sharpshooter. Figures. Try working forward, not backwards.

It sounds to me like you're saying all my D&D games were rigged, since I thought I saw patterns in the rolls.

Infophile,

Unfortunately you cannot describe God in the same terms you would describe the material world, because God is made from a material unknown to us.

If one was able to describe God, then he would not be God.


Congrats on rendering the term useless. Might as well say "it's magic!" because magic can't be described.

So, how does the designer operate? What mechanisms does it use? When does it operate?

What sort of evidence would falsify ID?

Anonymous said...

Your funny.

If you were able to analyze God than you would be God.

That is the arrogance of your faith.

Anonymous said...

"So, are you saying that the laws of physics were made by the designer? What evidence have you?"


Design silly.

Anonymous said...

"So, something can still have a design flaw and be "perfect". I guess that means that your standards aren't low. Just weird."

No. It just means that perfection has nothing to do with your whims.

Bronze Dog said...

Me: So, are you saying that the laws of physics were made by the designer? What evidence have you?

Weapon: Design silly.

Someone stop the circular argument, I want to get off.

No. It just means that perfection has nothing to do with your whims.

So, just what is "perfection," then? Whatever your whims dictate?

Anonymous said...

"So, how does the designer operate? What mechanisms does it use? When does it operate?

What sort of evidence would falsify ID? "


He uses means that cannot be described with anything that you have experienced.

But if you would like to analize God, then you have a better chance of describing his love towards you, so much so that he was willing to lay aside his Deity to die for you.

Bronze Dog said...

He uses means that cannot be described with anything that you have experienced.

In that case, you'll need a detailed explanation of his means, since they can't be explained by analogy.

If, however, you're just saying that to leave it undefinable, then you might as well concede defeat on the scientific front. We're getting into magic.

So, on the topic of falsification...? What evidence would it take to falsify ID?

But if you would like to analize God, then you have a better chance of describing his love towards you, so much so that he was willing to lay aside his Deity to die for you.

Love looks like it can be described, eventually, with all the unpronouncible brain chemicals under analysis these days.

What evidence do you have that he laid aside this "Deity" to die for me? (Perhaps you'd prefer to explain what that gibberish means, first.)

Anonymous said...

"So, just what is "perfection," then? Whatever your whims dictate?"

You guys like playing the semantics game, huh.

Let's just say that perfection has nothing to do with you.

Will the potter say to the clay, why have you made me thus?

Infophile said...

He uses means that cannot be described with anything that you have experienced.

Translation: "He's supernatural."

What happened to leaving the supernatural out of the equation?

But if you would like to analize God, then you have a better chance of describing his love towards you, so much so that he was willing to lay aside his Deity to die for you.

Appeal to emotion.

Anonymous said...

What part of one cannot explain God do you not fully understand?

If God could be explained than YOU would be God. I am sure you would like that.

Bronze Dog said...

You guys like playing the semantics game, huh.

Let's just say that perfection has nothing to do with you.

Will the potter say to the clay, why have you made me thus?


No, I'm trying to end the games you're playing.

Words do not mean whatever you want them to. You might as well be talking about flarshnikit. Hey, how about this! ID is proven because everything is flarshnikity!

Bronze Dog said...

What part of one cannot explain God do you not fully understand?

If God could be explained than YOU would be God. I am sure you would like that.


And the word games he accuses us of continue. It's flarshnikit. You can't understand it. You can't define it. Therefore he wins. Yawn.

Anonymous said...

"What happened to leaving the supernatural out of the equation?

But if you would like to analize God, then you have a better chance of describing his love towards you, so much so that he was willing to lay aside his Deity to die for you."

I never claimed I did. I am perfectly happy with having the supernatural in the equation. But ID does not have to rely on an explanation of God to prove itself.

ID tenets explain the design, not the designer.

The devastating truth is that there has not been one design that has been a result of a random freak of nature.

Can you name one?

Anonymous said...

"No, I'm trying to end the games you're playing.

Words do not mean whatever you want them to. You might as well be talking about flarshnikit. Hey, how about this! ID is proven because everything is flarshnikity!"

Funny. Whatever I accuse you of you accuse me of. Now we are playing the name calling game.

Well maybe you can give me your definition of perfection so that we can be on the same page.

Anonymous said...

But if you would like to analize God, then you have a better chance of describing his love towards you, so much so that he was willing to lay aside his Deity to die for you.

Bronze Dog said...

Weapon, if you continue to lie about evolution and all this "random" shit you keep making up ex nihilo, I will interpret that as an admission of defeat.

Evolution does not posit creation from randomness. Some small modifications from randomness, yes, but it's hardly the whole process.

If you aren't going to define the concepts you're talking about, you're no different than all the other woos shouting "Magic! Energy! Ki!"

Why don't you believe in flarshnikit?

Funny. Whatever I accuse you of you accuse me of. Now we are playing the name calling game.

My accusations are justified. Yours are not. Definitions end word games by nailing down the words. You're actively avoiding definitions.

Well maybe you can give me your definition of perfection so that we can be on the same page.

It's fairly circumstantial (depends on what's being described), and irrelevant: You're the one depending on the word to prove your case.

But if you would like to analize God, then you have a better chance of describing his love towards you, so much so that he was willing to lay aside his Deity to die for you.

What the frell is that sentence supposed to mean? What evidence do you have that he performed that act, whatever it was.

Infophile said...

But ID does not have to rely on an explanation of God to prove itself.

It does have to rely on the existence of some designer, correct? And this designer is either natural or supernatural; there's no middle ground there. Since they apparently leave out supernatural explanations, it must be natural. If it's natural, then that leads to either an infinite regression of more complex entities or the possibility of a less complex system begetting a more complex system, which you IDers deny can happen.

To sum up the possibilities ID leaves us with:

1) A supernatural designer.
2) A natural designer that is less complex than us.
3) An infinite regression of natural designers each more complex then the last.

3 is ridiculous. 2 contradicts IDs tenets. You're left with the supernatural designer, making ID unscientific.

Anonymous said...

"If God could be explained than YOU would be God. I am sure you would like that.

And the word games he accuses us of continue. It's flarshnikit. You can't understand it. You can't define it. Therefore he wins. Yawn."

No matter what subject you choose to discuss, you can only go so deep, and you will inevitably not answer all the questions.

So I think you would be bored with knowledge in general.

Sorry, to break it to you: You do not have all the answers.

Bronze Dog said...

No matter what subject you choose to discuss, you can only go so deep, and you will inevitably not answer all the questions.

Likely true, but I'd like to at least go beyond superficial stuff. The way you're playing the game, you'd drawing a line in the sand and declaring that all investigation beyond that is impossible.

With science, we'd inevitably hit a barrier, but we wouldn't know for sure that it is a barrier.

Sorry, to break it to you: You do not have all the answers.

I know. I don't claim to have all the answers. That's why I'm asking questions that you don't seem interested in providing answers for.

Like they once did with lightning, wind, the stars, etcetera, you're doing with one concept.

So far, all you've got is a backwards-working definition of design that's pure Texas Sharpshooter. You seem so determined to arbitrarily pain a bullseye around a bullet hole and claim the shot was aimed.

Infophile said...

No matter what subject you choose to discuss, you can only go so deep, and you will inevitably not answer all the questions.

So I think you would be bored with knowledge in general.

Sorry, to break it to you: You do not have all the answers.


Complete non-sequitar. And besides, the fact that the pursuit of knowledge never ends is one of the things that keeps it entertaining. If it ended, then it would be boring.

Anonymous said...

"Weapon, if you continue to lie about evolution and all this "random" shit you keep making up ex nihilo, I will interpret that as an admission of defeat."

Well, you believe that you came from a monkey, so I would not find your actions a bit surprising. Obviously you believe what you want to believe.

Anonymous said...

"I know. I don't claim to have all the answers. That's why I'm asking questions that you don't seem interested in providing answers for."

I gave you the answer, but apparently you are not satisfied with it. It seems that you want to be God.

Bronze Dog said...

Well, you believe that you came from a monkey, so I would not find your actions a bit surprising. Obviously you believe what you want to believe.

Weapon continues to demonstrate his profound lack of understanding of evolution.

I came from a human who came from a human (lots of time) who came from a slightly more apeish "human" who came from (lots more time) who came from an ape-like creature with a handful of human-like characteristics (more time) who came from an ape-like creature who came from another ape-like creature (etcetera into the apes' ancestors).

There's a big difference between a highway and a square of sidewalk. But only of degree.

Anonymous said...

"It does have to rely on the existence of some designer, correct? And this designer is either natural or supernatural; there's no middle ground there."

Yes, and I am sure that if we go deep enough into evolution we would be dealing with faith in materialism as well and your fanatical hatred towards God, but I am sure that there are some evolutionists that can state there case without appealing to such philosophies.

But it serves to prove that we both can go so far before we have to appropriate faith. You choose to do it at the expense of your Creator, I choose it to do it at the expense of... hmmm... I do not know... I have nothing to lose.

Infophile said...

Well, you believe that you came from a monkey, so I would not find your actions a bit surprising.

No, we believe that we share a common ancestor with the monkeys. We're their genetic cousins, not their grandchildren.

Obviously you believe what you want to believe.

I believe what the evidence leads me to believe. The evidence leads me to believe evolution. In addition, simple logic leads me away from ID, I don't even need any evidence to show that it's bunk.

Anonymous said...

"Since they apparently leave out supernatural explanations, it must be natural. If it's natural, then that leads to either an infinite regression of more complex entities or the possibility of a less complex system begetting a more complex system, which you IDers deny can happen."

If you read my post, I stated that some do and some do not. I think that has escaped you.

Anonymous said...

"To sum up the possibilities ID leaves us with:

1) A supernatural designer.
2) A natural designer that is less complex than us.
3) An infinite regression of natural designers each more complex then the last."


I appreciate your analysis. And you are right we are left with #1. But that makes the Designer unscientific, not the design. This is more than can be said of evolution.

Anonymous said...

"I came from a human who came from a human (lots of time) who came from a slightly more apeish "human" who came from (lots more time) who came from an ape-like creature with a handful of human-like characteristics (more time) who came from an ape-like creature who came from another ape-like creature (etcetera into the apes' ancestors)."


So you came from an ape.

You simply decide to get technical (I know it makes you feel better). I choose the simplistic route.

But let me guess you have never seen (neither has anyone ever seen) that part ape- part man but somehow you know that you know that he exists.

Infophile said...

Yes, and I am sure that if we go deep enough into evolution we would be dealing with faith in materialism as well and your fanatical hatred towards God, but I am sure that there are some evolutionists that can state there case without appealing to such philosophies.

Bzzt! Wrong. I have a modicum of doubt about everything, and have even written a proof against absolute knowledge.

In the end, I don't have faith. I "believe" in what is most likely to be true. Science's evidence-based approach works for the world, so I believe it's the best way to learn about the world.

But I should point out that you did, actually, admit defeat there. You admitted that the argument had to be faith-based in the end. Your only defense was the accusation that the rest of us rely on faith as well, which we in fact don't.

Bronze Dog said...

I gave you the answer, but apparently you are not satisfied with it. It seems that you want to be God.

It's not satisfying because it's a word game. Do you want to be flarshnikit?

As for specified complexity, the problem is the word is meaningless if it applies to absolutely everything. Everything is flarshnikit. Very descriptive, isn't it?

Yes, and I am sure that if we go deep enough into evolution we would be dealing with faith in materialism as well and your fanatical hatred towards God, but I am sure that there are some evolutionists that can state there case without appealing to such philosophies.

What faith? Naturalism/Materialism covers everything that has an effect. If your designer has effects, he's material by definition. No free pass for you.

What hatred? Why do you hate flarshnikit?

But it serves to prove that we both can go so far before we have to appropriate faith. You choose to do it at the expense of your Creator, I choose it to do it at the expense of... hmmm... I do not know... I have nothing to lose.

Knowledge. You've got a pile of undefined words that go nowhere and actively seek to stop all advancement.

Since you've said the designer is supernatural, you've defined it as worthless: It's unexaminable, and it has no effects.

So you came from an ape.

You simply decide to get technical (I know it makes you feel better). I choose the simplistic route.


So, you deliberately choose a misleading description. Thank you for admitting it.

But let me guess you have never seen (neither has anyone ever seen) that part ape- part man but somehow you know that you know that he exists.

Hello. Fossils. Lucy.

Anonymous said...

"I believe what the evidence leads me to believe. The evidence leads me to believe evolution. In addition, simple logic leads me away from ID, I don't even need any evidence to show that it's bunk."

The only thing you would be able to provide (if you would try) is mere conjecture.

There are no existing links.
You have not seen one species evolve into another.
And Santa Clause does not exist.


The devastating truth everything has a design and nothing useful in this world is made up of randomness.


And that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Anonymous said...

Yamil Luciano

Weapon of Mass Instruction,
Signing out.


For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Bronze Dog said...

You have not seen one species evolve into another.

Liar. We've seen it all the time in the lab. And we don't have to: Small changes add up, and we've seen small changes. There's no magical stop sign.

The devastating truth everything has a design and nothing useful in this world is made up of randomness.

Straw man! Stop making shit up and putting it into our mouths, just because our actual theories are too inconvenient for you to make any sort of effort about.

Since you've admitted defeat for the hundredth time or so, say goodbye to future posts.

Bronze Dog said...

For emphasis:

Weapon never debated the real theory of evolution. He made a declaration of faith (contradicted by actual objects humans made with "random" processes) that allegedly knocked over the pretend "Darwinism" that he invented and shoved into our mouths.

He also essentially gave up on science: There is such a thing as indirect evidence beyond personal experience. Our court system relies on it.

Infophile said...

Be careful there, BD, Weapon seems to take Banination as a mark of honor. The fact that he already said he was leaving probably won't enter into the equation.

austinatheist said...

You choose to do it at the expense of your Creator, I choose it to do it at the expense of... hmmm... I do not know... I have nothing to lose.

Weapon has indeed abdicated as evidenced by his obvious allusion to Pascal's Wager, perhaps the worst theological argument for belief in God. What logically follows is that not only does Weapon believe in the existence of a supernatural intelligence, but the existence of a specific supernatural intelligence on the basis of a rediculously presumptuous probability caculus.

austinatheist said...

I might also add that Weapon's comment concerning Intelligent Design "theory" and Paley's Watchmaker must have been copied and pasted from here. Simply copy and paste a portion of his plagarized post into Google.

Infophile said...

Oh yes, that was quite obvious. His grammar and writing style is nowhere near that good.

Bronze Dog said...

Since I'm having a little trouble sleeping because of the audacity of this anti-science:

I find his fetish with our alleged belief in the entirety of randomness is especially ironic. After all, he's seemingly claiming that a super being randomly came from nothing, randomly adopted some (probably faux) love, and randomly chose to create a universe like this one, etcetera.

I also find his internal contradictions amusing: He says God is undefinable, and yet assigns traits to him: Existing (how can he tell?), loving (how can he know?), and made some kind of sacrifice (how can he know?)

[Off topic] Not much of a sacrifice, really. He didn't lose anything, except for some time with an inconvenience. [/Off topic]

I also noticed he ignored my tu quoque mirror word game with "flarschnikit." What use is a word without a definition? Really telling that he avoided debate with his reflection. After all, he knows the game is rigged. He was playing it, afterall.

I also noticed that he avoided all questions about falsification criteria. Big, big sign of a genuinely closed mind: If you aren't prepared to find means to prove yourself wrong, there's no point in debating. Though it's geared towards the JREF forums in formatting, I've got a txt file at work that links to 6 methods of falsifying evolution.

I also find it amusing that he's not willing to entertain the idea that randomness can be creative. Apparently he hasn't been watching the health news on antibiotic-resistant germs. I also suspect that he doesn't play many modern games, either. He doesn't realize he's essentially arguing that my AI Armored Core "Jackal" doesn't exist.

Wonder if www.sithsense.com uses any evolutionary algorithms. Probably. Darth Vader sometimes asks the strangest questions given the context. Probably a mutation showing up. I've heard of chatbots that use evolutionary algorithms. Weapon is pretty much unknowingly saying that modern AI and robotics are nonexistent fields when you think about it. Bottom-up approaches with randomness thrown in as an innovator work out nicely.

I also find it telling that he completely ignores the research that's been done on speciation. You'd think he's never heard of a fruit fly. Unless he's arguing that God steps in and does those manually, just to play mindgames on us.

Continuing on his randomness fetish, and how it allegedly can't create: I wonder if he's never heard of good luck. Sometimes random things are beneficial. What makes evolution the exception? I guess it might be because anything good happening is automatically a miracle.

I also find "specified complexity" curious as an idea. I can't imagine anything that would be excluded. No matter how the universe came out, the pseudo-argument would be applicable. All outcomes with as many events as the universe have are equally unlikely. Why is this universe so special? Looks like just another possible shuffle of the cards to me.

More amusement: "Perfect" Strikes me as a PeeWee Herman "I meant to do that!" for anything that doesn't meet a definable definition. More "everything is flarschnikit!" argument.

At this point, if he comes back, he'll probably yell "ad hominem" again, even though I'm attacking his pseudo-arguments.

Here's a quick guide:

Ad homenim: "You're an idiot, therefore your argument is wrong."

Not an ad homenim: "You arguments commit the X, Y, and Z fallacies, and you're an idiot for not noticing."

Akusai said...

It seems like this asshole, having been banned from Pharyngula, decided he'd troll you instead? I wonder who's next on his agenda? I think, perhaps, it might be funny to ban this douche at every stop and watch him bounce around the skeptical blogosphere like a retarded fundamentalist pinball. We could all band together to frustrate his attempts. Any takers?

bourgeois_rage said...

Wow, it hurts my head to read his spewing. Maybe it is Jesus hurting my head so that I believe in him?

Anonymous said...

"But I should point out that you did, actually, admit defeat there. You admitted that the argument had to be faith-based in the end. Your only defense was the accusation that the rest of us rely on faith as well, which we in fact don't."

Ha. You act like that's a big revelation. I am not afraid to admit that one can only go so far before having to appropriate faith. You are.

The devastating truth is that:

1. You've NEVER seen a missing Link.

2. You've NEVER seen a big bang.

3. You've NEVER seen one kind of animal evolve into another kind of animal.

4. You've NEVER seen any of the prehistoric made up animals that you have been brainwashed to believe.

5. You've NEVER seen any design being a result of random chance.


Congratulations. You have more faith than me.

Anonymous said...

"Liar. We've seen it all the time in the lab. And we don't have to: Small changes add up, and we've seen small changes. There's no magical stop sign."

Ha!

In the same breath he says he sees it in the lab and says that he does not have to see it.

Sounds like John Kerry.

Anonymous said...

Bronze Dog wrote:


"Knowledge. You've got a pile of undefined words that go nowhere and actively seek to stop all advancement."


Bronze Dog if you need every single word defined, then buy a dictionary.

Bronze Dog said...

The devastating truth is that:

1. You've NEVER seen a missing Link.

2. You've NEVER seen a big bang.

3. You've NEVER seen one kind of animal evolve into another kind of animal.

4. You've NEVER seen any of the prehistoric made up animals that you have been brainwashed to believe.

5. You've NEVER seen any design being a result of random chance.


Congratulations. You have more faith than me.


For starters, I fail to see how any of those are "devastating."

I've never seen a murder, but those exist, right?

I've never seen an electron, and yet I'm causing some to move towards you right now.

I've never seen an ancient Egyptian.

I never saw my great-great grandfater.

I've never seen air.

My brother never saw the guy who presumably broke into his car to steal his stereo.

This pseudo-argument is just laughable. It's nihilist Sylvia Browne "You can't prove air!" stuff like this that's tearing down the belief in the possibility of knowledge. Weapon doesn't seem to realize that he's denying the existence of all of the above.

The only "faith" I need is the assumption that the rules of the universe are consistent. If you'd like to prove they aren't consistent, there's a guy who'll give you a million dollars.

As for #5: Useful stuff coming from random innovation: He's telling me that modern robotics doesn't exist, and yet, I've seen videos of robots designed by evolutionary algorithms.

Denying the innovative ability of random mutation as part of evolution is like denying air.

In the same breath he says he sees it in the lab and says that he does not have to see it.

You say that as if it's nonsense.

I could hypothetically see a copy of Lunar: Silver Star Story if it was shown to me, but I don't have to to be confident in its existence: Games leave reviews, show up in corporate bottom lines, etcetera. There's all sorts of indirect evidence of Lunar:SSS's existence.

Do you demand that all murders have witnesses? Is all DNA, fingerprint, ballistics, etcetera evidence inherently invalid if no one saw the crime?

Bronze Dog said...

Bronze Dog if you need every single word defined, then buy a dictionary.

Perhaps you should start by using words as they are in the dictionary instead of redefining them as flarschnikity, like you did with "perfect."

Infophile said...

I wonder who's next on his agenda?

He's already stopped by my blog, but I think he's waiting for a post dealing directly with Creationism to start trolling.

And oh look, he's back. Big surpise.

1. You've NEVER seen a missing Link.

2. You've NEVER seen a big bang.

3. You've NEVER seen one kind of animal evolve into another kind of animal.

4. You've NEVER seen any of the prehistoric made up animals that you have been brainwashed to believe.

5. You've NEVER seen any design being a result of random chance.


Have you ever seen a billion dollars? Does that mean it doesn't exist?

Have you ever seen the center of the Earth? Does that mean it doesn't exist?

Okay, direct replies:

1. Yes, we have. The problem is that whenever we find one, Creationists scream out, "Hah! Now you have two missing links to find, to connect it to the other two species!"

2. True, we haven't. But once scientists came up with the theory of its existence, they came up with a bunch of evidence one would expect to find if it were true. One of these was the Cosmic Microwave Background, which was later discovered to actually exist. This is strong evidence for its existence.

...Not to mention that the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution.

3. Yes, we have.

4. Not alive, but we've seen their bones. Tell me, you find a skeleton of a man, don't you assume that the man once existed?

5. Have you been listening to BD at all in his past posts? Tons of designs have been guided by chance. It's in fact quite helpful in some cases.

You've also apparently not read the links I gave you proving my own lack of faith. Science is not faith-based, it's evidenced based. Admit it, and get over it.

Anonymous said...

"Weapon never debated the real theory of evolution."

That's because you asked me Define ID for you.

"Stay on topic"?

Damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

Anonymous said...

"Straw man! Stop making shit up and putting it into our mouths, just because our actual theories are too inconvenient for you to make any sort of effort about."

Funny. Everytime you use such rhetoric you never bother clarifying your position.

Ha!

Anonymous said...

"Straw man! Stop making shit up and putting it into our mouths, just because our actual theories are too inconvenient for you to make any sort of effort about."

Funny. Everytime you use such rhetoric you never bother clarifying your position.

Ha!

Bronze Dog said...

"Weapon never debated the real theory of evolution."

That's because you asked me Define ID for you.

True, but that's just one extra level of irk: You make ridiculous stuff up about evolution in order to change the subject.

So, when are you getting around to defining ID in a useful manner?

How about you start out with falsification criteria? That's the big, big, BIG thing I'm interested in, and it takes priority. If, hypothetically speaking, ID wrong, how could you prove it wrong?

Bronze Dog said...

Evolution isn't about randomness. Random mutations are one form of innovation, not the whole of evolution. Non-random natural selection trims off the bad innovations, leaving the neutral and good ones behind.

Anonymous said...

" After all, he's seemingly claiming that a super being randomly came from nothing, randomly adopted some (probably faux) love, and randomly chose to create a universe like this one, etcetera."


Actually I never made such a claim.

Nice try.

My simple claim is that you cannot place deity under a microscope.

Bronze Dog said...

Actually I never made such a claim.

Nice try.

My simple claim is that you cannot place deity under a microscope.


So, what's the difference? Where did he get the attributes you assign to him?

Another big question: Does this deity have effects?

Anonymous said...

"I also find his internal contradictions amusing: He says God is undefinable, and yet assigns traits to him: Existing (how can he tell?), loving (how can he know?), and made some kind of sacrifice (how can he know?)"

I never said that neither.

You are in a role with your strawmen today.

In regards to your question. Yes I can know. I can be more sure of that than you can be sure that you came from an ape.

Anonymous said...

"Not much of a sacrifice, really. He didn't lose anything, except for some time with an inconvenience."


Well, I doubt that any of your atheistic buddies would ever die for you, or even go to hell for you. How ever low you esteem his sacrifice, it is much more than anyone else has ever done for you.

Bronze Dog said...

"I also find his internal contradictions amusing: He says God is undefinable, and yet assigns traits to him: Existing (how can he tell?), loving (how can he know?), and made some kind of sacrifice (how can he know?)"

I never said that neither.

Said earlier: But if you would like to analize God, then you have a better chance of describing his love towards you, so much so that he was willing to lay aside his Deity to die for you.

Isn't that pretty explicit attribute-assigning?

[Off topic] Well, I doubt that any of your atheistic buddies would ever die for you, or even go to hell for you. How ever low you esteem his sacrifice, it is much more than anyone else has ever done for you.

Funny. So why does the army finally allow the Humanist symbol on gravestones? They fought and died for civilians like me.

I give you Weapon: Contender for world's biggest cynic.

Meanwhile, you haven't even proven that your deity has ever done anything. You have to prove the existence of the sacrifice for me to really evaluate it. Quite frankly, the whole thing strikes me as a pointless, unnecessary stunt if it happened.

[/Off topic]

Anonymous said...

"I've never seen a murder, but those exist, right?

I've never seen an electron, and yet I'm causing some to move towards you right now.

I've never seen an ancient Egyptian.

I never saw my great-great grandfater.

I've never seen air.

My brother never saw the guy who presumably broke into his car to steal his stereo."


Well, I see a digression of your argument. I am glad that you finally admit that you have to appropriate faith, not only in your daily life but in evolution as a whole.

It took you an long time to admit it.

Bronze Dog said...

Well, I see a digression of your argument. I am glad that you finally admit that you have to appropriate faith, not only in your daily life but in evolution as a whole.

It took you an long time to admit it.


Last time I checked the dictionary, faith describes belief without evidence. Yet, we have evidence in those cases. I can't see them with my eyes, and yet, I can gather information about them through other means.

Love the double-standards you employ.

Anonymous said...

"Funny. So why does the army finally allow the Humanist symbol on gravestones? They fought and died for civilians like me."

Sorry to break it to you. But they died for a cause, not for you.

They did not even know your name, silly.

But God knows your name. And he recalls every idle word and every wicked deed that you have made against him. Inspite of that, he still died for you. Not a cause, but you.

Bronze Dog said...

"Funny. So why does the army finally allow the Humanist symbol on gravestones? They fought and died for civilians like me."

Sorry to break it to you. But they died for a cause, not for you.

They did not even know your name, silly.

But God knows your name. And he recalls every idle word and every wicked deed that you have made against him. Inspite of that, he still died for you. Not a cause, but you.


I think those goalposts just broke the sound barrier.

Anonymous said...

"Meanwhile, you haven't even proven that your deity has ever done anything. You have to prove the existence of the sacrifice for me to really evaluate it. Quite frankly, the whole thing strikes me as a pointless, unnecessary stunt if it happened."

I have a written record. And a host of personal testimonies. Which is much more than you can provide.

Bronze Dog said...

I have a written record. And a host of personal testimonies. Which is much more than you can provide.

A record written based on personal testimonies with no corroborating evidence. Yeah. Let's see that hold up in court.

Anonymous said...

"Love the double-standards you employ."

There is no double-standard. I am simply convincing you that you DO abide by the same standards of faith.

Apparently, that's what you admit.

Bronze Dog said...

There is no double-standard. I am simply convincing you that you DO abide by the same standards of faith.

Only if you ignore the dictionary.

Bronze Dog said...

Comment moderation is on. When Weapon posts something that actually deals with the issue, I'll let it through. So far, he's been trying to post the nonsense that no one's born an atheist, as well as the absurdity that a judge would accept a telephone game record of testimonials made centuries beforehand. (I don't have a whole lot of trust in the courts nowadays, but I would hope that they aren't that dense.

How can someone be born believing in something that STILL isn't defined? It's nonsense.

Priority question, Weapon: What sort of evidence would falsify Intelligent Design if it is/was wrong?

Anonymous said...

Bronze,

You already served my purpose. If you want to allow comments only that pleases you, then go right ahead. Your blog will only dwindle back to oblivion where it originally was.

Keep drinking the red coolaid. Maybe eventually after you are drunk with it, you will finally discover your missing link.

Bronze Dog said...

I'll take it that you're not going to answer that key question, then, since you're only interested in your propaganda, and not in educating me on the fundamentals of ID.

Nice way to "debate," too: Throw out a lot of irrelevant tangents, overt lies, word games, etcetera, and hope that I forget that you haven't answered the most basic questions about your "It's magic!" claims:

How could you falsify ID if it was wrong?

Until you've answered that question, you've rigged the debate by hiding the winning criteria.

bigdumbchimp said...

My head hurts.

Willful ignorance of evolution and science combined with a glazed over zombie fashion sense.

It's just too much.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Bronze,

You rigged the debate when you decided to withhold my post after you felt cornered.

If you want to restore integrity to the debate I would post the comment that you erased.

Otherwise, I will be wasting my time with you. I entertained your first question. There is no reason why I would not entertain your second question.

Your childish games are quite apparent.

Bronze Dog said...

You have a funny definition of "cornered."

I'm trying to nail you down to one of the most fundamental questions that determines if there's any debate to be had, and you reject the question.

Of course, your answer to my first question was a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

I'm just trying to stop you from drowning out the fundamental questions with your irrelevent subject changes.

So, what would falsify ID?

Show some spine and answer the question that will show us that you're willing to enter an actual debate, rather than the shotgunning of already-answered questions and bald assertions.

I'm hardly cornered. I've answered pretty much everything you've thrown, but you refuse to see it.

What would falsify ID?

It's easy to win a debate if your theory is rigged to always appear right, even if it's wrong.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Pal,

You are the one that changed the subject.

The original topic was the strawman behind your commentary of ID.

Then you changed it to the Definition of ID.

Now you are changing it to your what you perceive as "I got you" question.

If you want me to answer your question. I will gleefully do it, but since you will not post the last statement I made before you decided to abruptly switch gears than you will have to come over to my blog and answer my question first.

I think after 90 posts, it is fair to say that it is my turn.

I think its time for you to take your hands off from your ears and stop singing the "I am smart. You are stupid song."

Bronze Dog said...

Well, then, please tell me what I got wrong about ID. You never really elaborated on this alleged straw man.

Bronze Dog said...

As for the "I got you", well science has to be falsifiable. If ID isn't falsifiable, it's not science.

Infophile said...

Lemme see, I think he already all but admitted it was unscientific. Ah, here it is:

I appreciate your analysis. And you are right we are left with #1. But that makes the Designer unscientific, not the design. This is more than can be said of evolution.

He tried to defend it by splitting hairs, but in a theory than includes a designer (nay, necessitates it), when you admit the designer must be unscientific, the entire theory is. His lying attempt to turn it around on evolution does nothing to change this.

Oh yeah, and I believe he also said:

What urks evolutionists like yourself so much is that ID scientists who are more qualified than both you and I take the supernatural out of the equation.

Seeing as he's now admitted that only a supernatural designer is possible in ID, this statement is clearly false.

Of course, falsifiability is another criterion ID fails. Personally, I doubt he actually will answer the question, as he quite simply can't.

So, Weapon, here it is. I dare you to prove me wrong here. One more post without an answer will be taken as an admission that you cannot answer it. (I know, normally that isn't fair to do, but he's been evading it so long that there's really no other excuse at this point.)

Answer the question, or you're admitting you can't. An answer of "more evidence than you've given" or something along those lines is not acceptable. Your answer must be a specific example of evidence.

bigdumbchimp said...

What urks evolutionists like yourself so much is that ID scientists who are more qualified than both you and I take the supernatural out of the equation.

Yes all the "ID Scientists".

Steve laughs at the scary huge numbers of ID Scientists.

Bronze Dog said...

The reverend takes comment #100.

What I find funny is that the supernatural takes itself out of the equation: So far, the only really good definitions for "supernatural" involve D&D game definitions or the self-destructive "no effects" one.

If Weapon is referring to some other definition of "supernatural", I'm curious how IDers are planning on taking it out of the equation. Are they a high enough level to cast antimagic field?

"Supernatural" is just a woo word adopted so that their natural phenomena (if they exist at all) are magically rendered immune to natural science. In short, it's a word game to get a free pass.

bigdumbchimp said...

Word games are their only weapons.

A PR campaign is essentially a widespread word game, and all ID is, is a very large and somewhat chaotic PR campaign.

Anonymous said...

A very successful one mind you.

Bronze Dog said...

Too bad their research has pretty much no success whatsoever. Haven't even gotten to the point of making ID testable (falsifiable).

Anonymous said...

I think their success is apparent from the whining they get from the evolutionists.

THe devastating truth is that atheistic evolutionists have always been in the minority.

The masses know better.

Evolutionists rebuttal: all they're all stupid.

Bronze Dog said...

I think their success is apparent from the whining they get from the evolutionists.

Typical Doggerel. Ever consider the possiblity that we're "whining" because you make up lies? Ever consider the possibility that we argue because we CARE about the truth?

Probably not. If you did, you wouldn't be playing such subject changes: Our emotional states do not magically alter facts.

THe devastating truth is that atheistic evolutionists have always been in the minority.

The masses know better.

Evolutionists rebuttal: all they're all stupid.


1. Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity. Truth is not a democracy, despite what all the psychics, alties, and other assorted newage woos will tell you.

2. The argument is fallacious, so it's hardly "devastating". Science doesn't operate by the rules of American Idol.

3. They aren't all stupid. Most are probably victims of a bad educational system being held back by millenia old superstition and people who play modern retrofits of old rhetorical tricks.

bigdumbchimp said...

A very successful one mind you.

Successful spreading the "science" of ID? Tell me that falsifiable theory again?

Or is it's success measured in it's ability to distort a real, well backed by evidence theory?

Infophile said...

The masses know better.

Ever read Lord of the Flies? There's one scene early on where the boys in it take a vote on whether or not there's a beast on the island. At first, they vote that no, there isn't, and the result of this vote was taken as the truth.

Later on, though, more and more boys start believing in this beast, and the strength of the belief intensifies. They even erect totems to it and leave it offerings. The tide of public opinion had shifted, and now the majority believed in the beast.

Did the change in public opinion change whether or not the beast existed? Nope. It either existed or didn't exist the whole time. Taking a vote on its existence is a completely pointless matter; the truth won't obey the results of the vote.

The reality is that the beast didn't exist physically, but was a product of their minds. It represented the evil in human nature, and as they made more sacrifices to it and fell deeper into depravity, they made it more real.

It's a metaphor for both religion and evil. As a religious entity, belief in it certainly did make it more real to the boys, but in truth, it never existed physically. A boy who didn't believe in it (such as Ralph, Piggy, or Simon) would see no evidence of the physical beast, though all suffered from the actions of the believers.

austinatheist said...

I had a feeling Weapon would be back just as soon as you turned comment moderation back off.

"The original topic was the strawman behind your commentary of ID.

Then you changed it to the Definition of ID."


Unfortunately for Weapon, in order to address the alleged stawman of ID, he will have to give a proper definition of ID in order to show that a false, or decoy thesis has indeed been attacked. What an IDiot (not ad hominem)!

Anonymous said...

Ever consider the possiblity that we're "whining" because you make up lies? Ever consider the possibility that we argue because we CARE about the truth?

Actually, if you cared about truth you would not censor things that oppose your presupositions. Apparently, the only "truth" you care about is your PZ Myers monkey truth.

Bronze Dog said...

I don't think it's unreasonable to put a dam on Kilikian flooding. You were also getting very repetitive in the ones I did stop. Nothing new in them, and they tended to include that randomness straw man you invented for the purpose of knocking over and declaring victory.

Perhaps you'd like to get back to that straw man you accused me of.

Anonymous said...

I'm trying to nail you down to one of the most fundamental questions that determines if there's any debate to be had, and you reject the question.

Actually I said that I would gleefully answer your question so long that you first answer mine.

I think if you would be intellectually honest, you would not change the subject so drastically, and have true dialogue by answering some of my questions (especially after spending 90 plus posts on the question you presented, which was also outside of the context of your original post).

Bronze Dog said...

Actually I said that I would gleefully answer your question so long that you first answer mine.

Which one?

Anonymous said...

Bronze dog,

"Fallacy of Popularity"

Apparently, everything is a fallacy to you. And everything has a convenient alternate meaning. I guess if you will be consistent you will stop appealing to the majority of scientists that you feel support evolution.

Bronze Dog said...

Apparently, everything is a fallacy to you. And everything has a convenient alternate meaning. I guess if you will be consistent you will stop appealing to the majority of scientists that you feel support evolution.

When have I ever used that as an argument in favor of evolution?

Anonymous said...

Bronze,

I am not sure if you personally have used that argument but you must agree that it is a popular appeal that you guys make.

The more recent one was made by bigdumpchimp.

Your silence demonstrates your agreement in my opinion.

austinatheist said...

"Apparently, everything is a fallacy to you."

It only seems that way because, apparently, everything you have to say is fallacious. We're waiting patiently for a valid argument (foot tapping).

Bronze Dog said...

I consider evolution's popularity with scientists a weak argument. I generally don't like arguments from authority, even legitimate ones. The strongest argument I follow for evolution is that it works so well.

Silence on what opinion?

So, what was that question you wanted me to answer? It's hard to sort it out from your flood.

austinatheist said...

"Your silence demonstrates your agreement in my opinion."

As someone once had to point out to an overbearing monarch, "Silence is not ascent!"

austinatheist said...

Did you just erase all of those comments? If so, that's it! You and your "arguments" are beneath me, and they should be beneath you.

You are fucking retarded.

Anonymous said...

I am not sure what you are talking about. But I erased nothing.

Anonymous said...

Bronze Dog,

I said that you would have to go to my blog to answer it. It's waiting there for you.

austinatheist said...

Ah, plausible deniablity. You are the most intellectually dishonest fuck I have encountered thus far in the blog-o-sphere. May your God have mercy upon you if you show up at my place.

G FCK YRSLF!!!

Bronze Dog said...

Why not just ask it here, rather than play link tag?

Or at least give me a direct link, rather than just "your blog".

Infophile said...

His question is here. I already answered it for him, but he's pretending that never happened.

austinatheist said...

Ah, now I see what I did. This is what happens when three people argue in two different threads at the same time.

austinatheist said...

Oh, excuse me, FOUR people. YEESH!

bigdumbchimp said...

I am not sure if you personally have used that argument but you must agree that it is a popular appeal that you guys make.

The more recent one was made by bigdumpchimp.


Uh, wrong. The appeal to popularity is not what I used. I demonstrated a long list of experts in the field, well educated and actually dealing with Evolutionary theory not appealing to a popularity contest by saying the "masses know better". Big difference Weapon.

bigdumbchimp said...

many

Anonymous said...

Summary of the Discussion in The Bronze Dog Question


What new fossil finds, if any, have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago?


To answer the question Bronzedog had to “refine” the definition of “intermediate transitional fossils:” a definition that does not even fit the context of Darwin’s quote.

When I said:
If the definition of "transitional forms" is as the evolutionists have redefined then Darwin's self-imposed contradiction is meaningless. What do you think Darwin's definition was when he confronted the objection?

He answered:
So, if a definition changes to be clearer, it's magically rendered without meaning.

Upon which I answered:
No. But the correct definition should be determine by the context of the quote. Otherwise why have the quote? But it goes to show you how unstable evolution is that it has to redefine terms to adjust to the gaping holes that keep rotting through the theory.

He had nothing more to say concerning the scarcity of intermediate forms other then:

We've been finding chunks of it.


The best he could do is to avoid the question at hand and switch the subject to what I believe. I already gave him that opportunity and after 90 posts he could not prove his thesis. The result was mere assumptions, similar to his recent post concerning intermediate fossils:

We've been finding chunks of it. It's easier to assume that more of the same will be found.

And they wonder why I say that evolution is one big knotted up conjecture.



The rest of the post I spend talking with austinatheist about things that had nothing to do with the post. Apparently, the best he could do is provide hypothetical situations that had nothing to do with what I believe nor what he believed. Off course we all know that evolution is based on the same type of hypothetical situations rather than pure facts.

So I guess its time for me to answer their question:

What Would Make ID Falsifiable?

austinatheist said...

"The rest of the post I spend talking with austinatheist about things that had nothing to do with the post. Apparently, the best he could do is provide hypothetical situations that had nothing to do with what I believe nor what he believed. Off course we all know that evolution is based on the same type of hypothetical situations rather than pure facts."

I took up a substantive aregument with Weapon about things that had direct bearing upon his beliefs. Apparently, the best he could do is ignore the import of my objections. Off course we all know that intelligent design is based on the same evasive contortions rather than really real reality.

austinatheist said...

Yes, by saying "really real reality" I mean to mock Weapon's notion of "pure facts." I smell a familiar double standard.

Bronze Dog said...

Boy, did it get noisy during my nap.

To answer the question Bronzedog had to “refine” the definition of “intermediate transitional fossils:” a definition that does not even fit the context of Darwin’s quote.

Funny, I thought Infophile had posted a link to information about transitional fossils that I endorsed. Oh, yeah, that's right. He did.

[Off Topic] But instead of focusing on the very core of our argument, you whine about the possible refining of a definition. Are you one of those pedants who claims that the "verbing" of "access" and other words means we aren't speaking English anymore and that we should just burn all the dictionaries?

Of course, you failed to realize that the definition refinement has little to do with our answer. You just HAD to justify your word games by focusing on that tiny, tiny detail. [/Off Topic]

Don't bother responding to that subject change. Look at the references in that link. Pull your fingers out of your ears. That's not going to make those fossils vanish.

Me: We've been finding chunks of it. It's easier to assume that more of the same will be found.

And they wonder why I say that evolution is one big knotted up conjecture.

I suppose next you're going to say that just because the sun rose yesterday doesn't mean it'll rise tomorrow. It's reasonable to assume that we'll find the same sorts of things we found before. Which is easier: Assuming (tenatively) that the universe's rules stay the same, or assuming that they'll change at seemingly random whims?

It's not reasonable to assume that the sun didn't rise on one day just because we haven't found the records for that particular day. Just because we don't know all the details yet, we can't assume the rulebook was thrown away, like you seem to have done.

So is "The sun will rise tomorrow" an unreasonable hypothesis?

austinatheist said...

And please, no eroneous appeals to Joshua 10: 13-14.

Infophile said...

After all this time, YOU ANSWERED THE WRONG QUESTION! The question Bronze Dog asked was, "What sort of evidence would falsify ID?"

The key word there is "evidence." What you're asking for is not evidence. To fully meet your criteria, we'd have to map out the genes of a ridiculous number of individual organisms, and then show the results of each of those genes. We'd also have to make arguments for why each of these organisms would survive.

In the end, only a complete simulation of Earth over the period of a few million years would satisfy you. Those goalposts just broke the speed of light.

Let me make this clear: Falsifiability requires evidence, not an explanation. What evidence would falsify ID?

Anonymous said...

Well at least you know that evolution has NO EVIDENCE.

Bronze Dog said...

For the absurd definition of "evidence" you use.

Evolution has lots of scientific evidence.

A few small examples:

All cats have the same error in their gene for tasting sweet stuff.

The human eye has all the signs of being jury-rigged, rather than designed with optimal sight in mind.

Evolution works well enough for coming up with practical applications. Sometimes it even outsmarts human designers despite having no intelligence.

Of course, Intelligent Design doesn't have anything like that: It relies on the shortcomings of evolution: It relies on us not knowing everything.

That's why the gathering of knowledge is anathema to ID.

Of course, Weapon could prove me wrong by setting falsification critera that doesn't reference competing hypotheses and theories.

You know: Make a scientific theory that stands on its own, rather than involve others in a false dilemma.

Anonymous said...

We must be back to the semantics game I guess.

Maybe by the time you graduate college you have a better grasp of definitions of common words.

Or maybe you can have a grasp right now if you would spend more time studying.

Anonymous said...

Evidence for evolution:

All cats have the same error in their gene for tasting sweet stuff.

Ha! He-he. hi-hi. ha-ha-ha-ha.


Thanks for the laugh.

The best an evolutionist can do to prove that they came from a monkey.

I will have to use this on my blog. Thanks man. I love you.

Ha!

Bronze Dog said...

Yes, we are back in semantics games. I'd prefer you'd stop substituting proud declarations of playing them for evidence, especially since you seemed to say that there's no evidence for air a while back.

Bronze Dog said...

Evidence for evolution:

All cats have the same error in their gene for tasting sweet stuff.

Ha! He-he. hi-hi. ha-ha-ha-ha.


I see that you fail to grasp that that strongly implies that all cats have a common ancestry. Do you have a design explanation for why God would make the same mistake so many times?

The best an evolutionist can do to prove that they came from a monkey.

If we're going by the dictionary definitions, I think we have strong evidence of you performing a straw man.

Maybe by the time you graduate college you have a better grasp of definitions of common words.

Maybe you can take an ethics course so that you can learn that making shit up about people is objectively wrong. And, in this case, completely, utterly irrelevant.

Baseless accusations about my level of education doesn't magic away the scientific studies I refer to. It doesn't magic away the implications, either.

Anonymous said...

What Evolution is Claim as Evidence for Evolution. # 1

Anonymous said...

Ha! Dawkins caught in Denial.

Tubridy: Back to the original question, have you any evidence for me?

Quinn: Well I will say the existence of matter itself. I will say the existence of morality. Myself and Richard Dawkins have a clearly different understanding of the origins of morality. I would say free will. If you’re an atheist, if you’re an atheist logically speaking you cannot believe in objective morality. You cannot believe in free will. These are two things that the vast majority of humankind implicitly believe in. We believe for example that if a person carries out a bad action, we can call that person bad because we believe that they are freely choosing those actions. … And just quickly an atheist believes we are controlled completely by our genes and make no free actions at all.




Tubridy: What evidence do you have, Richard Dawkins, that you’re right?


Dawkins: I certainly don’t believe a word of that. I do not believe we are controlled wholly by our genes. Let me go back to the really important thing that Mr. Quinn said.

Quinn: How are we independent of our genes by your reckoning? What allows us to be independent of our genes? Where is this coming from?

Dawkins: Environment for a start.

Quinn: Well hang on but that also is a product of if you like of matter. Okay?

Dawkins: Yes but it’s not genes.


Quinn: What part of us allows us to have free will?

Dawkins: Free will is a very difficult philosophical question and it’s not one that has anything to do with religion, contrary to what Mr. Quinn says…but…

Quinn: It has an awful lot to do with religion because if there is no God there’s no free will because we are completely phenomena of matter.

Dawkins: Who says there’s not free will if there is no God? That’s a ridiculous thing to say.


Quinn: William Provine for one who you quote in your book. I mean I have a quote here from him. “Other scientists, as well, believe the same thing… that everything that goes on in our heads is a product of genes and as you say environment and chemical reactions. That there is no room for free will.” And Richard if you haven’t got to grips with that you seriously need to because many of your colleagues have and they deny outright the existence of free will and they are hardened materialists like yourself.

Anonymous said...

He-he. Richard Dawkins just got kicked in the rear!

Dawkins: I’m not interested in free will what I am interested in is the ridiculous suggestion that if science can’t say where the origin of matter comes from theology can. The origin of matter… the origin of the whole universe, is a very, very difficult question. It’s one that scientists are working on. It’s one that they hope eventually to solve. Just as before Darwin, biology was a mystery. Darwin solved that. Now cosmology is a mystery. The origin of the universe is a mystery; it’s a mystery to everyone. Physicists are working on it. They have theories. But if science can’t answer that question then as sure as hell theology can’t either.


Quinn: If I can come in there, it is a perfectly reasonable proposition to ask yourself where does matter come from? And it is perfectly reasonable as well to posit the answer, God created matter. Many reasonable people believe this and by the way… I mean look it is quite a different category to say look we will study matter and we will ask how

Dawkins: But if science can’t answer that question, then it’s sure as hell theology can’t either.

Tubridy: Richard, if ...

Quinn: Sorry — if I can come in there — It’s a perfectly reasonable proposition to ask oneself where does matter come from. And it’s perfectly reasonable as well to posit the answer God created matter. Many reasonable people believe this.


Dawkins: It’s not reasonable.

Quinn: It’s quite a different category to say “Look, we will study matter and we will ask how matter organizes itself into particular forms,” and come up with the answer “evolution.” It is quite another question to ask “Where does matter come from to begin with?” And if you like you must go outside of matter to answer that question. And then you’re into philosophical categories.


Dawkins: How could it possibly be another category and be allowed to say God did it since you can’t explain where God came from?

Quinn: Because you must have an uncaused cause for anything at all to exist. Now, I see in your book you come up with an argument against this that I frankly find to be bogus. You come up with the idea of a mathematical infinite regress but this does not apply to the argument of uncaused causes and unmoved movers because we are not talking about maths we’re talking about existence and existentially nothing exists unless you have an uncaused cause. And that uncaused cause and that unmoved mover is, by definition, God.

Anonymous said...

DAWKINS IN DENIAL OF HIS OWN STATEMENTS

Tubridy: Can I suggest that the next question is quite appropriate. The role of religion in wars. When you think of the difficulty that it brings up on a local level. Richard Dawkins, do you believe the world would be a safer place without religion?

Dawkins: Yes, I do. I don’t think that religion is the only cause of wars. Very far from it. Neither the second World War nor the first World War were caused by religion, but I do think that religion is a major exacerbater, and especially in the world today, as a matter of fact.




Tubridy: OK. Explain yourself.


Dawkins: Well, it’s pretty obvious. I mean that if you look at the Middle East, if you look at India and Pakistan, if you look at Northern Ireland, there are many, many places where the only basis for hostility that exists between rival factions who kill each other is religion.




Tubridy: Why do you take it upon yourself to preach, if you like, atheism and there’s an interesting choice of words in some ways — that you’ve been accused of being something like a fundamental atheist. If you like, the “High Priest” of atheism. Why go about your business in such a way that that’s kind of ...trying to disprove these things. Why don’t you just believe in it privately, for example?


Dawkins: Well, fundamentalist is not quite the right word. A fundamentalist is one who believes in a holy book and thinks that everything in that holy book is true. I am passionate about what I believe because I think there’s evidence for it. And I think it’s very different being passionate about evidence from being passionate about a holy book. So I do it because I care passionately about the truth. I really, really believe it’s a big question. It’s an important question, whether there is a God at the root of the universe. I think it’s a question that matters, and I think that we need to discuss it, and that’s what I do.

Quinn: Ryan if I could just say...

Tubridy: Go ahead.

Quinn: Richard has come up with a definition of fundamentalism that obviously suits him. He thinks a fundamentalist has to be somebody who believes in a holy book. A fundamentalist is somebody who firmly believes that they have got the truth and holds that to an extreme extent and become intolerant of those who hold to a different truth. And Richard Dawkins has just outlined what he thinks the truth to be and that makes him intolerant of those who have religious beliefs.


Now, in terms of the effect of religion upon the world, I mean, at least Richard has rightly acknowledged that there are many causes of war and strife and ill will in the world, and he mentions World War I and World War II. In his book he tries to get Nietzsche off the hook of having atheism blamed for example, the atrocities carried out by Josef Stalin, and saying that these have nothing particularly to do with atheism.

But Stalin and many Communists who were explicitly atheistic took the view that religion was precisely the sort of malign and evil force that Richard Dawkins thinks it is. And they set out from that premise to, if you like, inflict upon religion sort of their own version of a “final solution.” They set to eradicate from the earth true violence and also true education that was explicitly anti-religious. And under the Soviet Union, and in China, and under Pol Pot in Cambodia explicit and violent efforts were made to suppress religion on the grounds that religion was a wicked force; and we have the truth, and our truth would not admit religion into the picture at all because we believe religion to be an untruth. So atheism also can lead to fundamentalist violence and did so in the last century. And atheists…





Tubridy: We’ll allow Richard in there.

Dawkins: Stalin was a very, very bad man and his persecution of religion was a very, very bad thing. End of story. It’s nothing to do with the fact that he was an atheist. We can’t just compile lists of bad people who were atheists and lists of bad people who were religious. I am afraid there were plenty on both sides.


Quinn: Yes, but Richard you are always compiling lists of bad religious people. I mean you do it continually in all your books, and then you devote a paragraph to basically trying to absolve atheism of all blame for any atrocity throughout history. You cannot have it both ways! You cannot…

Dawkins: I deny that.

Quinn: But of course you do it. Every time you are on a program talking about religion, you bring up the atrocities committed in the name of religion. And then you try to minimize the atrocities committed by atheists because they were so anti-religious and because they regarded it as a malign force in much the same way you do. You are trying to have it both ways.

Anonymous said...

DAVID QUINN WON HANDS DOWN.

Bronze Dog said...

You've got a very, very strange definition of "denial."

Dawkins butchers a straw man built by Quinn, therefore he's in denial?

Of course, the problem with "free will" is that it's hard to get a meaningful definition for it. Webster's doesn't help much.

Of course, even if Dawkins and others claimed there was no free will... so what?

Also, objective morality has nothing to do with deities. Quite frankly, I've seen far too many people use deities as justification for moral relativism.

You've also got a very silly idea of who beat who:

Because you must have an uncaused cause for anything at all to exist.

Baseless premise.

You come up with the idea of a mathematical infinite regress but this does not apply to the argument of uncaused causes and unmoved movers because we are not talking about maths we’re talking about existence and existentially nothing exists unless you have an uncaused cause. And that uncaused cause and that unmoved mover is, by definition, God.

Word games. Excludes a perfectly reasonable scenario by arbitrarily defining it as unreasonable for absolutely no reason. Argument by "because I said so!"

Followed immediately by the school of "make shit up about Dawkins" and creative redefinitions of atheism.

I certainly wouldn't want to win by Quinn's fell means.

Anonymous said...

DAVID QUINN WON HANDS DOWN

Anonymous said...

The Bronze Dog Denial I suppose.

Bronze Dog said...

Let me see if I've got your definition of "denial" down with an example.

"BD says people came from monkeys! (Dictionary definition)"

BD: Stop making shit up. I never said that.

"BD's in denial!"

Sounds to me like "denial" means spitting out the words you put into people's mouths.

Anonymous said...

Remind me to buy you a dictionary when and if you graduate from college.

Bronze Dog said...

Let me guess: It's the blank one you and Quinn write in as needed.

Anonymous said...

Actually I will let you pick which one so long as you decide to read it through.

Anonymous said...

Evolution happens. ID is a silly hypothesis. Next topic?

Anonymous said...

What he really meant to say is that evolution happens and their is no such thing as intelligent design.


You know the cover the ears and sing the "your stupid I'm right" song.


It works all the time for the evolutionist.

Bronze Dog said...

There is no Intelligent Design hypothesis. It needs to be falsifiable in order to be a hypothesis.

Anonymous said...

I provided you with one falsifiable situation which you opted to copout.

Intelligent design always makes an appeal to the scientific method. Of course that would escape you.

Bronze Dog said...

I suppose next you're going to tell Randi to prove that every spoon bending Uri Geller performed was trickery, and expect him to provide the time machine necessary. Heck, you're essentially asking me to travel back in time and prove that all spoons bent anywhere or anything were bent by natural forces.

All you're doing is making it where anything short of an absolutely perfect victory for evolution is a win for you. Also, scientific theories aren't dependent on the failure of other scientific theories. They have to stand on their own. Nice double standard, there.

Shifting the burden of proof is not an answer.

Setting up false dilemmas is not an answer.

Special pleading is not an answer.

Besides, a hypothetical failure for evolution is not a victory for ID. If evolution was falsified tomorrow, ID would make precisely zero progress.

Anonymous said...

Heck, you're essentially asking me to travel back in time and prove that all spoons bent anywhere or anything were bent by natural forces.

Actually, I am asking you to prove what you and the GTE claim to believe. GTE said that over long periods of time one kind (taxon order) of specie evolved into another kind (ie. chimpanzee into a human) At best your testimony serves to prove that you need more faith than me to believe in evolution.

Bronze Dog said...

I thought you were providing an answer for how to falsify Intelligent Design.

Instead you're essentially doing this:

Scientist: Tell me how Intelligent Falling can be disproven.

Intelligent Fallist: It can be falsified if you can prove that gravity works the way you say it does by traveling to every point in time and space and verifying it.

Anonymous said...

Actually Bronzedog all you would have to do is provide one instance.

Again your own comments betray you because you cannot provide one instance where one animal kind (taxon order) evolved into another kind. The fact is (as you said) it is utterly impossible. And indeed evolution as defined by GTE is ridiculously impossible.

Congratulations you have more faith than me.

Bronze Dog said...

Oh, so you're changing your tune again.

Macroevolution has been observed.

You have awfully low standards for "impossible" kind of like those guys who lie about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. According to them, I do way more than six impossible things before breakfast. In fact, according to 2LoT abusers, breakfast itself is an impossible event.

So, why, pray tell, is evolution impossible? That mystical, magical stop sign that prevents small changes from accumulating?

Anonymous said...

That mystical, magical stop sign that prevents small changes from accumulating?

Bronzedog, a chimpanzee turning into a man can hardly be considered a small change.

Your doubletalk betrays you.

Bronze Dog said...

Bronzedog, a chimpanzee turning into a man can hardly be considered a small change.

Your doubletalk betrays you.


Thou shalt not bear false witness.

I never called chimpanzee to man a small change. I never said such a thing ever occurred.

Your straw men betray you.

When you're losing the argument, you make stuff up. That's called "lying."

Anonymous said...

I never said that you did, what I did say is that your doubletalk betrays you.

So you can stop giving me the itchy-twitchy dance.

Bronze Dog said...

Maybe you want to try saying that in a coherent manner, because the words you're posting have little relevance to what I post, as usual. I'm seriously entertaining the idea that you're a copy/paste bot.

The only relevance they seem to have is that you seem to think poking needles into a badly drawn characature of evolution will cause evolution to keel over. Voodoo, in other words.

But if that's not what you're doing, the words you post make no sense.

Anonymous said...

Obviously they do, for otherwise it would not stir the emotion of anger that you seem to have.

Bronze Dog said...

So, you telling lies about evolution followed by suddenly changing topics to some hypothesis dug up from an edition of the D&D Player's Handbook I've never heard read without notifying readers of the subject change sot that people might mistake it for my view gets me angry. Big whoop.

Am I supposed to just nod when you consciously or unconsciously imply I'm saying something I vehemently disagree with?

Anonymous said...

fdgsgf

Anonymous said...

Why can Creationists &/or Intelligent Design (ID) advocates solve Sudoku Number Puzzles so quickly?

THEY JUST PUT A “G” IN ALL THE EMPTY SQUARES.

It’s just a matter of faith! It’s the same method creationists and now ID specialists resort to in trying to prove their unsustainable “intelligent design theory”. Creationists can just stop searching for reality by just assuming all gaps in current understanding and/or knowledge of evolution must be filled with a (G=god) solution. As Prof Richard Dawkins explains in chapter four of The GOD Delusion; “If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default must fill it.” Saves them having to think and question I suppose.

Much like the progress one makes by eliminating the possible numbers in each square as a Sudoku puzzle is solved, “gaps shrink as science advances and God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide.” This of course “worries thoughtful theologians” however the greater worry for scientists (and the rest of us) is that groups through politics or fear will walk away from the “essential part of the scientific enterprise [that is] to admit ignorance.”

Nothing is more dangerous than a, ‘I have all the answers’ arrogant preacher followed by a bunch of non-thinking ‘god-botherers’ driven by blind faith who absolve themselves from their societal responsibilities with the comfort of unquestioning feeble-minds!

Although some see Dawkins as a bit of a raver and less scientific in his arguments than he could (should) be, if you read Pascal Boyer's "Gods, Spirits and the Mental Instincts that Create Them", Dawkins’ 'emotional' approach to battling the “ID” lobby is also needed.

caliibre

Anonymous said...

kdsfakjdsh

Anonymous said...

dsfadf

Anonymous said...

Again your own comments betray you because you cannot provide one instance where one animal kind (taxon order) evolved into another kind. The fact is (as you said) it is utterly impossible. And indeed evolution as defined by GTE is ridiculously impossible.

Congratulations you have more faith than me.

Anonymous said...

In his autobiography Unended Quest, Karl Popper writes, ‘I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible fromework for testable scientific theories … This is of course the reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accpeted. Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that on ultimate explanation has been reached.’
Karl Popper views evolution not as a science, but as a ‘possible framework’ on which to build ‘testable scientific theories’. Creationist academics have successfully argued that their belief system is a better framework upon which to build scientific theories.

Carl Wieland from Answers in Genesis comments:
You’re in effect saying that a scientist may not have a broad historical model which has all sorts of supporting data, if one aspect of that model has prima facie problems. You seem to be adopting the Popperian falsification criterion after Karl Popper. Evolutionists tend to regard Popper as a great philosopher of science when they can use this criterion to bash creationists, but regarded him as naïve when he attacked evolutionary theory on the same grounds!

It’s unproductive for us to get embroiled in debates on what counts as ‘science’, since philosophers of science can’t agree. This is especially so when many evolutionists, surprisingly including one as astute as the late Stephen Jay Gould, first attack creation as being ‘untestable’, then go on to explain how it has been examined, i.e. tested, and proven false!

Thomas Kuhn’s famous book on scientific revolutions showed that real scientists don’t work the way Popper said. In reality, scientists can tolerate many anomalies in the ruling paradigm, and it takes a lot for this to be overthrown and replaced with a new paradigm. And Imre Lakatos pointed out on a logical level that theories don’t stand on their own, but are protected by auxiliary hypotheses. The falsification can be applied to one or more of these, while leaving the core theory intact.

ALSO
Don Batten comments:

So, Darwinism never predicted anything, it was modified to accommodate the observations. In fact, because Darwinism is so malleable as to accommodate almost any conceivable observation, science philosopher Karl Popper proclaimed that it was not falsifiable, and therefore not a proper scientific theory in that sense.

What about the predictions of evolution vs creation? The track record of evolution is pretty dismal. On the other hand, modern science rides on the achievements of past creationists .….

Popper’s notion that evolution is not a falsifiable scientific theory is underlined by the many ‘predictions’ of evolutionary theory that have been found to be incompatible with observations; and yet evolution reigns. For example, there is the profound absence of the many millions of transitional fossils that should exist if evolution were true . The very pattern in the fossil record flatly contradicts evolutionary notions of what it should be like—see, for example, Contrasting the Origin of Species With the Origin of Phyla. The evolutionist Gould has written at length on this conundrum.

Bronze Dog said...

Again your own comments betray you because you cannot provide one instance where one animal kind (taxon order) evolved into another kind. The fact is (as you said) it is utterly impossible. And indeed evolution as defined by GTE is ridiculously impossible.

Congratulations you have more faith than me.


Making stuff up as always. So, which "taxon order" are you talking about? That as nebulous as "baramin"?

Karl Popper views evolution not as a science, but as a ‘possible framework’ on which to build ‘testable scientific theories’. Creationist academics have successfully argued that their belief system is a better framework upon which to build scientific theories.

Yawn. Old, old PRATT fall.

For example, there is the profound absence of the many millions of transitional fossils that should exist if evolution were true .

Dead wrong.

1. This isn't a sorcerous world where everything is preserved. Fossils can be destroyed.

2. It's often hard to make fossils, especially when the subject doesn't have hard bits.

3. How do you know they're missing? One of them could be dug up tomorrow.

As for disagreements and changes to evolution: That's healthy. Are you one of those people who say that the spherical Earth theory is exactly as wrong as the flat Earth theory because the Earth's a little flat at the poles?

Of course, evolution can be falsified. Rabbit in Cambrian rock is the classic example.

As for the vast majority of "contradictions": They're either outright false, or not contradictions at all. If you knew anything about evolution or the arguments I've been making (since you never bother to argue with the real me, just the delusion you invent), you'd know that.

Anonymous said...

1. This isn't a sorcerous world where everything is preserved. Fossils can be destroyed.

And your point is?

Anonymous said...

"2. It's often hard to make fossils, especially when the subject doesn't have hard bits."

Well I am glad that you admit that the fossil record for evolution is scarce. Nothing to brag about.

Anonymous said...

3. How do you know they're missing? One of them could be dug up tomorrow.


Yes, I am sure Santa Clause may show up tommorrow as well.

Anonymous said...

As for disagreements and changes to evolution: That's healthy. Are you one of those people who say that the spherical Earth theory is exactly as wrong as the flat Earth theory because the Earth's a little flat at the poles?


Well, I am glad that you agree that evolution is not the answer to everything. Even some of your own field contradict your faith in evolution. The arrogancy behind it lies in the fact that you consider it as gospel truth while at the same time admitting to disagreements.

You can't have it both ways.

Anonymous said...

Of course, evolution can be falsified. Rabbit in Cambrian rock is the classic example.

This is called using your own theory to falsify itself. I think the whole "Cambrian Rock" thinkg begs the question.

Anonymous said...

As for the vast majority of "contradictions": They're either outright false, or not contradictions at all. If you knew anything about evolution or the arguments I've been making (since you never bother to argue with the real me, just the delusion you invent), you'd know that.


Of course the old elitism showing up again: "If you do not agree with me than you are ignorant."

Right.

Try this one: Make your position clear BRONZEDOG

Bronze Dog said...

Seems the long comment I made got eaten. To cut it down to it's essence:

1. Weapon, don't make stuff up about my views. Try learning basic biology before you bash evolution. There's a difference between how it happens in comic books and reality. There's a difference between Polymorph Other spells (fictional) and sex (real). Learn the difference.

2. There's a difference between evolution and geology. The radioactive decay rate of certain isotopes exists independently of evolution. If you'd like to show the method is inherently flawed, go over to JREF headquarters and change the decay rate of something. Or ask God to do it for you. Go ahead and prove all the physicists wrong.

3. How's it "begging the question" to ask for something to show up where it shouldn't show up? Evolution predicts against a rabbit (as well as many other recent life forms) showing up in a certain set of rocks. If one shows up there, evolution is wrong. It's that simple.

Anonymous said...

1. Weapon, don't make stuff up about my views. Try learning basic biology before you bash evolution. There's a difference between how it happens in comic books and reality. There's a difference between Polymorph Other spells (fictional) and sex (real). Learn the difference.


The problem that you have is that I know it too well. You preffer hide it behind mumble-jumble.

Find yourself a degree before you start lecturing me or anyone else of ignorance.

Anonymous said...

"2. There's a difference between evolution and geology. The radioactive decay rate of certain isotopes exists independently of evolution. If you'd like to show the method is inherently flawed, go over to JREF headquarters and change the decay rate of something. Or ask God to do it for you. Go ahead and prove all the physicists wrong.

GTE pervades all the sciences. Did they forget to tell you this as well.

Anonymous said...

"3. How's it "begging the question" to ask for something to show up where it shouldn't show up? Evolution predicts against a rabbit (as well as many other recent life forms) showing up in a certain set of rocks. If one shows up there, evolution is wrong. It's that simple.

One would have to drink the same coolaid you had before he accepts the whole Cambrian Rock layer and all the layers fabricated by evolutionist. In short, you are using evolution to prove evolution. That begs the question.

Bronze Dog said...

Weapon, your silliness knows no bounds. Evolution pervades all of science? Wrong. All science is thus far in agreement with evolution. That's what you'd expect. If you're claiming that nuclear physics is contaminated with the falsity of evolution, you should hurry up and inform NASA that a large number of their probes don't work, and some computer manufacturers that those RTG laptop "batteries" are doomed to failure.

But I would expect such things from a person who can't tell the difference between a comic book and a biology textbook.

Your complaint of "begging the question" is incoherent. There are certain rocks out there labeled "Precambrian", and if a rabbit fossil shows up in one of them, evolution is wrong. It's that simple. It doesn't matter if everything we know about nuclear physics is wrong. If a rabbit shows up in Precambrian rock, we can probably say both are bogus.

The problem that would ensue, however, is that it would essentially say that technology we've been using only works because we harnessed the real laws of physics by dumb luck.

Next, I suppose you'll be saying the speed of light isn't constant and that all the scientists in the world have been lying to us, and thus all the GPS units in the world don't work.

Why don't you send an email to JREF? If you can make a radioactive isotope change its rate of decay, you could walk away with a million dollars.

Unless you're willing to do that, I'll stick with presuming that NASA doesn't operate solely on luck.

bigdumbchimp said...

Bronze Dog I think you've passed the point of diminishing returns with this fool. If he's claiming that finding certain fossils in certain layers of the geological record wouldn't disprove evolution, it's not just that he has a problem with evolution it's that he has a problem with problem solving.

Bronze Dog said...

Yeah, I think we've established that Weapon here has about as much understanding of evolution as Jack Chick has of Dungeons & Dragons.

To use an analogy: He's essentially doing the same as saying that we believe Lee Harvey Oswald teleported the bullets into JFK, and all the "mumbo-jumbo" about chemically propelled projectiles, ballistics, seating positions, line of sight, and so forth are designed to cover up the absurdity. Of course, the only remaining conclusion is that God teleported the bullets into JFK, the rifle into Oswald's hands, and Oswald into the warehouse as if that's more viable.

I'm going to close the thread at about noon on Friday. Comments made after the closing will be deleted unless they're truly jaw-droppingly spectacular.

austinatheist said...

"Find yourself a degree before you start lecturing me or anyone else of ignorance."

BD has a degree, and so do I (B.A. Philosophy), and I'm sure most everyone that frequents this blog has their own as well. But since he didn't specify, I suspect Weapon would prefer that we have worthless divinity degrees from some seminary. So yeah, if that's all it takes to call you, Weapon, ignorant, then you are ignorant, to say the least.

Bronze Dog said...

Plus, of course, degrees are irrelevant. All that matters are the validity of the arguments. Weapon can't get past his Chick tracts and crack open a biology text to see what evolution really is. Therefore, he makes fun of X-Men comics and such.

Distracting people from arguments by making allegations about the opponent's education level is one of the tactics I don't like. Only reason I did it with you, Weapon, is because you lack the most fundamental understanding of the world around us. The bottom line is that if you say the arguments we're making are wrong (despite not knowing anything about them), you're saying all the technology we've developed based on those principles can't work.

So, Weapon, what REALLY powers all those deep space probes they say are powered by RTGs? Witchcraft?

bigdumbchimp said...

So, Weapon, what REALLY powers all those deep space probes they say are powered by RTGs? Witchcraft?

Well that's obvious isn't it?

Prayer powers the deep space probes.