|
Post by rational on Nov 27, 2019 6:32:48 GMT -5
Is evolution pseudoscience? (the subject of the thread) by Mark Johansen The Skeptic’s Dictionary contains an entry on ‘pseudoscience’ that includes ten characteristic fallacies of pseudoscientific theories.1 The list’s compiler clearly did not have evolution in mind, as the very first group the article identifies as pseudoscientific is ‘creationists’. Ironically, evolution has almost every characteristic on this list. Let’s look at how evolution exhibits the fallacies listed by these self-proclaimed skeptics, with just one example of each. 6 Some pseudoscientific theories rely on ancient myths and legends …
Okay, one that doesn’t particularly describe evolution, although evolutionary notions can be traced back to ancient pagan Greek philosophers such as Empedocles (c. 490–430 BC). This is one true point. The theory of evolution does contain some of the same hypothesis as presented by Empedocles but does not depend on them. And not many people support the idea that earth, air, fire, and wind compose everything in existence. Perhaps this will help clarify your thought process:
|
|
|
Post by Dennis J on Nov 27, 2019 6:51:20 GMT -5
I for one will stick to the Bible and trust God rather than men. Who wrote the Bible, @gratu ? Men did. So you are trusting in men that they have told you the truth. And from my observation and personal experience with men’s accounting, without trusting in God, the Holy Spirit, and His guidance, human involvement, neither assures me nor proves anything about any account, other than often only “willful honesty.” God, the Holy Spirit brings a certain degree of factual honesty to my foolish mind. That is why I ask my God for the guidance of His Holy Spirit.
Wan smile, even then... yes, “I know, I know” (mine or another’s words) are a huge warning sign of “danger ahead!”
|
|
|
Post by Dennis J on Nov 27, 2019 6:53:12 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 27, 2019 8:30:25 GMT -5
Who wrote the Bible, @gratu ? Men did. So you are trusting in men that they have told you the truth. Oh, I see I should have left it posted some longer for other than you benar. The Bible shows itself to be FAR above the capability of human intelligence at its best. And the Bible addresses the problem with men doing the writing of what God wanted written - “for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” Given the errors recorded in the bible it seems that it is beneath the intelligence of many men. There is text that states various things and with enough twisting it can seem like they were predicting events. In many cases the predictions were texts concerning contemporary events that were twisted into predictions. In many cases they were postdictions. Besides being Jewish he is also a tour guide and these videos do bring in the business. Jesus is everywhere because he has been injected to text that is unrelated except in the eyes of the believers. Appeal to both the christian and jewish tourists...
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Nov 27, 2019 8:32:14 GMT -5
Natural selection isn’t an algorithm, it’s just an uninteresting tautology. Survivors survive. I suppose you could write this in computer code, but it would be an unnecessary step, like if (x == 5) then XisFive = TRUE Contingent serendipity. Evolution News Link
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 27, 2019 8:36:19 GMT -5
Who wrote the Bible, @gratu ? Men did. So you are trusting in men that they have told you the truth. And from my observation and personal experience with men’s accounting, without trusting in God, the Holy Spirit, and His guidance, human involvement, neither assures me quite nor proves anything about any account, other than often only “willful honesty.” God, the Holy Spirit brings a certain degree of factual honesty to my foolish mind. That is why I ask my God for the guidance of His Holy Spirit.
Wan smile, even then... yes, “I know, I know” (mine or another’s words) are a huge warning sign of “danger ahead!”We are all in good hands. Trump claimed: “Somebody had to do it, I am the Chosen One.”
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 27, 2019 9:34:25 GMT -5
Awww I nowww - too bad fer you though - I just finished composing it and you pounced before that. And I see that you took the time to disable the link, which might encourage some to click the link were it WORKS. What a waste of breath you are.[/quote] I just explained what he was doing. What his profession is. Nothing against the man - just wondering how frequently you get conned by marketing (Other than by the content of the creationist, that is). You regard him as a teacher of some sort but I see him as a marketing person feathering his own nest. Others see his site as: Overall, this is a right biased, overtly Christian conspiracy website. (M. Huitsing 10/18/2017) Updated (11/11/2019)Charging $3520 (per person/double occupancy/excluding airfare) per person for an 8 night stay should provide a lot of excess money for sponsoring trips. $880 per night? One of the hotels used (INBAR HOTEL) is less than $200 per night. As I said - Great Marketing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2019 0:04:58 GMT -5
Just curious - do you know what 'ad hominem' means?
|
|
|
Post by benar on Nov 28, 2019 5:55:53 GMT -5
Who wrote the Bible, @gratu ? Men did. So you are trusting in men that they have told you the truth. Oh, I see I should have left it posted some longer for other than you benar. The Bible shows itself to be FAR above the capability of human intelligence at its best. And the Bible addresses the problem with men doing the writing of what God wanted written - “for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” So, YOU are wrong benar - I trust the Holy Spirit who "moved" men to "speak" (and to write it) -- so, it is YOU benar (and the rest of the TMB demo team) with the "trusting in men" problem. As a result there are prophesies in the OT that predated fulfillment by hundreds of years, written by men who do not possess that capability of foretelling anything at all – and this is where Amir's messgae can open the eyes of the most Biblically illiterate and even the blindest 2x2 there ever was – provided that 2x2 is open to God speaking at all. Jesus is EVERWHERE in the OT from the first verses of Genesis all the way through the OT. So rather than me trying to do what Amir Tsarfati does better than I could ever do, being Jewish, speaking Biblical languages, I'll let any who are troubled by the Bible being written by specific men (not “man” as in “mankind”) view that message – it is 50 minutes long and it is the best message on the topic of the reliability of the Bible that I have ever heard. Amir Tsarfati: Jesus in the Old Testamentwww.youtube.com/watch?v=bHf-keOlUHcCircular reasoning, @gratu. Using the Bible to prove the Bible. We might as well use the Koran to prove the Koran, or use Harry Potter to prove Harry Potter. It's a logical fallacy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2019 11:02:48 GMT -5
rathional's source? - who knows? - he didn't cite his source of "Others see his site as: Overall, this is a right biased, overtly Christian conspiracy website. (M. Huitsing 10/18/2017) Updated (11/11/2019)" Media Bias/Fact Checkmediabiasfactcheck.com/behold-israel/Excerpts Overall, this is a right biased, overtly Christian conspiracy website. (M. Huitsing 10/18/2017) Updated (11/11/2019) Behold Israel also has a blog for Amir Tsarfati that uses loaded language and promotes conspiracy theories. For example, “ The Mystery of the Rapture” and “ Amir’s Prophecy Update”, .... (Note - the links given return nothing, spin their wheels for ages loading zip) Awww I nowww – this secular would make a good 2x2 – on the level of Biblical illiteracy – which is said to be one of the most Biblically illiterate groups on earth. Talk about “Bias/'Fact' Check.” Anything Biblical 'must be a “conspiracy theory' these days.
Do you have any other BIASED source rational? After all you did say “ OtherS.” Edit -FACT Information received revealing that Behold Israel sponsored 100 tourists from around the globe on tours of Israel so far in 2019. At rational's 'cost' figure per person based on double occupancy for an 8 day tour, that would be at least a $352,000 cost to Behold Israel - without airfares. Honestly I don't think that leaves many "feathers" for Amir Tsarfati's "nest" from a registered NON-PROFIT Christian ministry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2019 13:06:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 28, 2019 23:44:19 GMT -5
rathional's source? - who knows? - he didn't cite his source of What is wrong with you? The source is listed in your own post. Your connectivity problems do not invalidate the source. I will leave that discovery up to the reader. Nope. That would have been $352,000 that Behold Israel would not have taken in as revenue. The actual cost to Behold Israel is not known because the fee structure of their suppliers if not known. As I noted the hotel prices seem to be somewhat inflated. But if you are interested you should go and go soon because, according to Amir Tsarfati, the rapture is happening soon and you might miss your chance to travel with Amir's travel company.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 28, 2019 23:45:50 GMT -5
Well put Dennis J. Nomination - Post of the Week!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 29, 2019 3:22:51 GMT -5
Natural selection isn’t an algorithm, it’s just an uninteresting tautology. Survivors survive. I suppose you could write this in computer code, but it would be an unnecessary step, like if (x == 5) then XisFive = TRUE Contingent serendipity. Evolution News Link The articles published at Evolution News are copyright by Discovery Institute and/or the respective authors. evolutionnews.org/about/
The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative, non-profit think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that advocates the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design (ID). Its "Teach the Controversy" campaign aims to permit the teaching of anti-evolution, intelligent-design beliefs in United States public high school science courses in place of accepted scientific theories, positing that a scientific controversy exists over these subjects when in fact there is none.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Nov 30, 2019 11:23:13 GMT -5
"Whenever they appear in the fossil record, swallows and bats are completely formed, and before them there is nothing presaging them or approaching them in likeness."
"Actually, in the wild, morphological mutation is the absolute rarity [..] mutations are a degenerative phenomenon, a copying error, a product of entropy in the genetic endowment. [..] Were it not for [..] defenses, mutations would in no time destroy all genetic texts. Their effect in all instances is to demolish. To say that blind mutations are the driving principle of the world, and to rely on the rare fortunate mistake, is a poor resource, quite apart from the fact that transgressions of the kind needed by Darwinian evolution have never been documented."
"Within a reasonable period of time he (Dawkins) succeeded in evoking on his monitor the outline of a fly or a verse of Shakespeare as the result of a series of blind, successive "mutations" starting with a vague sketch or a line of randomly chosen letters. Let us take the line of poetry. Randomly varying the individual letters of the alphabet in the initial nonsense makes, and then unmakes what is had made; it approached and then retreats. It would take billions and billions of years to compose the desired verse or, indeed, any verse. So much for Dawkins own calculations. Cicero was aware of the same problem, two millenia earlier, when he wrote that it would never be possible to write a verse of the poet Ennius by tossing letters randomly on the ground. So how did Dawkins manage it? What he did was to load a verse of the Shakespeare in the computer's memory, then establish the rule that any letter randomly appearing at the right place should stay put. One after the other the letters settled in their appointed places, and presto! Dawkins describes all this in his book The Blind Watchmaker, implying that living forms come about without any plan, by the play of chance. In reality, he demonstrated the opposite: Unless there is a plan, a pre-established design, nothing - nothing at all! - can come into existence. The verse that appeared so miraculously on the monitor was already hidden away, beckoning the letters to take up their places in the ranks according to Dawkins instructions."
Why is a Fly not a Horse by Giuseppe Sermonti, Professor of Genetics
dmmichgood, you are quick to call out dishonesty and deception on the creation side. Are you willing to do the same on the materialist side?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 30, 2019 13:05:12 GMT -5
In response to the dishonest attempt to portray Sermonti as against Darwin, I post this brief synopsis of Sermonti's life and work. Once again the creationists such as Ed will cherry pick to support their daft reasoning. Giuseppe Sermonti From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search Giuseppe Sermonti (October 4, 1925[1][2] – December 16, 2018)[3] was an Italian professor of genetics. Sermonti is well known for his criticism of natural selection as the deciding factor of human biology. Contents 1 Biography 1.1 Early life and career 1.2 Publishing 1.3 Philosophical perspectives 2 Bibliography 3 References 4 External links Biography Early life and career Born in Rome, graduated in agriculture and genetics, he entered the Superior Institute of Health in 1950, founding a department of Microbiological Genetics. He became professor of genetics at the University of Camerino, then at the University of Palermo in 1965, and finally moved to the University of Perugia in 1970, where he was emeritus professor and managed the Genetics Institute of the University from 1974. From 1970–1971 he presided over the Associazione Genetica Italiana.[4] He was the discoverer of the genetic parasexual recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces species. He was vice-president of the XIV International Congress of Genetics held in Moscow and he was appointed as president of the International Committee of the Working Group on Genetics of Industrial Microorganisms. In 1994 Sermonti attended an AIDS denial conference in Bologna where he spoke on the damages of campaigning against AIDS rather than HIV.[5] Publishing In 1971 Sermonti published Il Crepuscolo dello Scientismo (in English The Twilight of Scientism), a post-modernist critique of science. In 1980 Sermonti published a book Dopo Darwin (After Darwin) co-authored with Roberto Fondi, which critiqued aspects of Neo-Darwinism as the fundamental model for evolution. From 1979 to 2012, Sermonti was chief editor of Rivista di Biologia-Biology Forum. Between 1986 and 1989 Sermonti produced three books on the hermeneutics of fairy tales, entitled Fiabe di Tre Reami (Fairy Tales of Three Realms), arguing that they contained unexpressed principles of science: Snow White is the narrative of cupellation as well as of the phases of the moon; Red Riding Hood is the story of mercury; Cinderella is the tale of sulfur. In 1987 Sermonti was one of the founding members of the Osaka "Group for the Study of Dynamic Structure" which holds the view of process structuralism. Philosophical perspectives An acknowledged critic of Neo-Darwinian theory[6], Sermonti's view was that evolution encompasses more than Neo-Darwinism. At times his views have been incorrectly misrepresented and conflated with Creationism. This connection is however, a perspective that based on evidence he did not agree with. Moreover, considering his multiple documented statements denying that he was not a creationist, coupled with the content of his published works this certainly seems a substantial misreading. Like many academic critics of Neo-Darwinism parts of his work have been cherry picked by Creationists. In 1993 Sermonti published in Answers in Genesis's young earth creation magazine, an article entitled "Not from the apes", a paper that was a philosophical style critique of aspects of scientific and evolutionary theory in the sense of Gould and Lewontin's critique of 'unverifiable narrative explanations', or 'Just so Stories'. The young earth creationist Henry M. Morris cited Sermonti (along with Guy Berthault, Roberto Fondi and Wolfgang Smith) as a Roman Catholic creationist in response to John Paul II's 1996 statement on evolution, but Sermonti did not describe himself as either a Roman Catholic or a creationist.[7] Sermonti was often engaged in discussions of the processes and limits of current evolutionary theory, whether it be Neo-Darwinism or Process Structuralism with both a broad range of scientists, philosophers and theists. He was one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", a petition which the intelligent design movement uses to promote intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution. Sermonti did not deny, nor doubt evolution. He merely that the Neo-Darwinian model was not an adequate or complete form of explanation for evolution, and consequently was deserving of more rigorous critique by those studying evolution.[8][9] Sermonti attended the Kansas evolution hearings with the Discovery Institute in 2005 but no transcript of his testimony exists as the court reporter could not understand what he was saying due to his strong Italian accent.[10] His book Dimenticare Darwin (Forgetting Darwin) was published in 2003 and was translated into English as Why Is a Fly Not a Horse?[11] which was published by the Discovery Institute and edited by Jonathan Wells. In the book, he denies being a creationist, saying that "For the reservations I harbor about Evolutionism, I have been accused of being a Creationist. I am not: if I am allowed, I would only aspire to being a creature".[12] Bibliography Genetics of Antibiotic-Producing Microorganisms, 1969, (Wiley, London) ISBN 0-471-77635-1 Il Crepuscolo dello Scientismo (Twilight of Scientism), 1971, 2002, (Nova Scripta, Genoa) ISBN 88-88251-01-4 Dopo Darwin (After Darwin), with R. Fondi, 5 editions, 1980–1984 (Rusconi, Milan) ISBN 88-18-02515-5 "Not from the apes". Creation. 15 (3): 13. June 1993. Fiabe di Tre Reami (Fairy Tales of Three Realms), 1985–1989, 2004 (La Finestra, Trento) ISBN 88-88097-31-7 Why is A Fly Not A Horse?, 2005 (Discovery Institute Press). ISBN 0-9638654-7-1 Tra le quinte della scienza, 2007, Di Renzo Editore, ISBN 88-8323-175-9 References www.lanuovabq.it/it/sermonti-lo-scienziato-senza-anello-mancante www.fuis.it/elezioni-siae-lista-num-4-autori-italiani-sezione-dor/articoli1492 www.lindau.it/Autori/Giuseppe-Sermonti KSDE.org Alternative AIDS Conference:Bologna Italy Archived 2006-06-18 at the Wayback Machine Fuso, Silvano (May 11, 2002). Antidarwinism in Italy. CICAP. Retrieved July 29, 2009. Henry M. Morris Evolution and the Pope Kenneth Chang (2006-02-21). "Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-05-05. "Signatories of 'A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism'" (PDF). The Discovery Institute. April 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-05. Transcript of the Kansas evolution hearings Andrea Bottaro, Of Form over Substance: a review of Sermonti Archived 2006-09-09 at the Wayback Machine, Panda's Thumb June 19, 2005 and ncse.com/rncse/25/3-4/review-why-is-fly-not-horse Giuseppe Sermonti (2005). Why is a Fly not a Horse?. Discovery Institute. p. 18. ISBN 978-0-9638654-8-9.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 3, 2019 19:23:11 GMT -5
“Nope. That would have been $352,000 that Behold Israel would not have taken in as revenue. “ HUH??? Not only do your display YOUR Biblical illiteracy, now you display youtr lack of knowledge regarding the funding of non-profit Christian ministries. And oh, I wonder why you display such illiteracy – even 2x2s know the Bible better than you display, but share your illiteracy regarding the funding of non-profit Christian ministries. The funding is from the sale of the tour packages. $352,000 is the amount of revenue they would not have received had they provided the tours you mentioned at no charge. I have traveled enough to know that the prices quoted were significantly higher than the rack rate of the hotels people said they were offered. Should we assume you are an international traveler? How many pages does your passport have?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 3, 2019 21:16:41 GMT -5
Is evolution pseudoscience? Nope. It should be noted that the quotation above is no longer on the AAAS.org site. An honest report would have stated it was an op ed piece written by Mary Midgley, not closely associated with AAAS. But honesty has never been the creationist's strong suite.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 3, 2019 22:14:01 GMT -5
“”Richard Dawkins said that ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist’. “ Again, you missed the whole quotation and thusly the actual meaning. Another example of creationists misrepresenting other people to support their beliefs. A fun explanation.A lot of us came from our parents. I have always assumed it was the same for theists. Some atheists have the wherewithal to do things that helps others. Some may even help other species. Not many atheists ever damn other humans to an eternity of pain and suffering simply because they hold different beliefs. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a single verifiable case of anyone continuing after death? Billions of dead people and not so much as a murmur from beyond the grave. This is just incorrect. Why would an atheist be required to know everything? The only point is that the atheist does not believe any deity or deities exist. Creationists try this argument over and over without success. “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”Credited to Albert Einstein
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 3, 2019 22:30:28 GMT -5
Awwww I nowww - but I quoted what was quoted and as you have indicated no longer can be seen in full context if those bad bad bad bad "creationist's" source quoted whole context. Instead of blindly quoting dishonest sources and then claiming it is not your fault why not try something new - try thinking for yourself. Sounds like you are claiming it is not your fault - you are only following orders. One edit more - wait for it...
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Dec 3, 2019 22:35:37 GMT -5
Awwww I nowww - but I quoted what was quoted and as you have indicated no longer can be seen in full context if those bad bad bad bad "creationist's" source quoted whole context. Instead of blindly quoting dishonest sources and then claiming it is not your fault why not try something new - try thinking for yourself. Sounds like you are claiming it is not your fault - you are only following orders. Claiming to be a christian and thinking for oneself is a total oxymoron.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Dec 4, 2019 12:54:58 GMT -5
1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted space-time energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted space-time energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago. 2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence. 3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. – 4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) – 5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).- 6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (G. Gonzalez; Hugh Ross). – 7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. – 8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) – 9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. – 10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. – 11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)– 12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’ (C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis. 13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. – 14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) – 15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening. 16. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule). Evolution News
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Dec 4, 2019 15:15:55 GMT -5
"To be sure, New Atheists could be very, very bad at arguing that God does not exist. There was, for example, Lawrence Krauss writing a book about how something can come from nothing while attributing material qualities to the latter. There was Richard Dawkins trying to refute the famous “Five Ways” of Aquinas without even attempting to understand their terms. (“Whereof one cannot speak,” groaned Wittgenstein, “Thereof one must remain silent.”) There was Christopher Hitchens striding into philosophy like an elephant onto an ice skating rink and saying:
…the postulate of a designer or creator only raises the unanswerable question of who designed the designer or created the creator.
Why is it unanswerable? People have certainly tried to answer it. Answers readily came centuries prior to Hitchens himself, actually. Hitchens is free to take issue with Aquinas’ distinction between contingent and necessary existence if he wants, but he’s not free to suggest no answers have been offered. How does the concept of the “necessary being,” for example, fail? Hitchens offers no sign of knowing what it is, because that “unanswerable” is not a logic conclusion but a rhetorical sledgehammer swung at the reader’s skull.
I know atheists can make better arguments. But the New Atheists never felt obliged to, because they were so confident in their own rationality that they never learned about the ideas they were mocking."
Ben Sixsmith, “New Atheism: An Autopsy”
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 4, 2019 17:52:25 GMT -5
"To be sure, New Atheists could be very, very bad at arguing that God does not exist. There was, for example, Lawrence Krauss writing a book about how something can come from nothing while attributing material qualities to the latter. There was Richard Dawkins trying to refute the famous “Five Ways” of Aquinas without even attempting to understand their terms. (“Whereof one cannot speak,” groaned Wittgenstein, “Thereof one must remain silent.”) There was Christopher Hitchens striding into philosophy like an elephant onto an ice skating rink and saying: …the postulate of a designer or creator only raises the unanswerable question of who designed the designer or created the creator. Why is it unanswerable? People have certainly tried to answer it. Answers readily came centuries prior to Hitchens himself, actually. Hitchens is free to take issue with Aquinas’ distinction between contingent and necessary existence if he wants, but he’s not free to suggest no answers have been offered. How does the concept of the “necessary being,” for example, fail? Hitchens offers no sign of knowing what it is, because that “unanswerable” is not a logic conclusion but a rhetorical sledgehammer swung at the reader’s skull. I know atheists can make better arguments. But the New Atheists never felt obliged to, because they were so confident in their own rationality that they never learned about the ideas they were mocking." Ben Sixsmith, “New Atheism: An Autopsy” Well your first sentence either shows that you have never read Krauss' book or you are being dishonest. I would say you never read the book and you don't know better. I do think you believe what you post. But the fact is this. A Universe from Nothing (I imagine this is the book you are referring to) isn't about nothing as you are interpreting it. Read the book. It's really a good read. If you have read it already, could you please explain to me what Krauss meant by 'nothing'.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 4, 2019 23:22:32 GMT -5
1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted space-time energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted space-time energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago. I wonder where you learned this. Sounds like a creationist point of view. In general the concept is the big bang started as a singularity, a point of infinite density and gravity. This does not imply the absence of energy-matter. The universe is continuing to expand due to the initial acceleration. No god needed. One theory is that it will continue to expand. And the expantion will result in cooling. There are several theories that follow this. One, the Big Bounce, proposes that the universe has gravity pulling all the bits back together resulting in a singularity (Big Crunch) and then a following Big Bang. It could vibrate forever - No God Required (NGR). Reference supporting this idea? A complete stop reletive to whom? Does time stop or does it become infinite? Also, where are you getting these 'predictions'? This is like claiming that a container is 'fine tuned' to the the shape that water will take when it is filled. This fails to take into account organisms that generate energy from sulfer. Of course the universe seems fine-tuned to us - it’s the only one we know! First of all, unique is an absolute. Something is or is not unique. It cannot be almost unique nor extreemly unique. The earth is part of the solar system around one of the billions and billions of stars just in in our galaxy. And it is one of hundreds of billions of galaxies that can be observed in the universe. Our planet is simply a mediocre member of a mediocre solar system in a mediocre galaxy. And towards the end of the life of the sun the earth will be engulfed and all will come to an end. So much for the finly tuned habitat of mankind. Not quite right unless you want to consider stromatolites complex. They were around for more than a billion years before multicell red algea appeared. Basalt rocks in Quebec, Canada, show evidence of water about 4 billion years ago. The stromatolites appeared about 3.4 billion years ago. I guess in the big picture 0.6 billion years could be considered abruptly - especially if you are trying to support your belief. I wish I had scrolled down earlier and learned that this was just a cut and paste from the Discovery Institute. Intelligent design creationism - a pseudoscience that maintains that the physical world show signs of having been designed by an intelligent being most often the christian god.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 4, 2019 23:30:58 GMT -5
"To be sure, New Atheists could be very, very bad at arguing that God does not exist. There was, for example, Lawrence Krauss writing a book about how something can come from nothing while attributing material qualities to the latter. There was Richard Dawkins trying to refute the famous “Five Ways” of Aquinas without even attempting to understand their terms. (“Whereof one cannot speak,” groaned Wittgenstein, “Thereof one must remain silent.”) There was Christopher Hitchens striding into philosophy like an elephant onto an ice skating rink and saying: …the postulate of a designer or creator only raises the unanswerable question of who designed the designer or created the creator. Why is it unanswerable? People have certainly tried to answer it. Answers readily came centuries prior to Hitchens himself, actually. Hitchens is free to take issue with Aquinas’ distinction between contingent and necessary existence if he wants, but he’s not free to suggest no answers have been offered. How does the concept of the “necessary being,” for example, fail? Hitchens offers no sign of knowing what it is, because that “unanswerable” is not a logic conclusion but a rhetorical sledgehammer swung at the reader’s skull. I know atheists can make better arguments. But the New Atheists never felt obliged to, because they were so confident in their own rationality that they never learned about the ideas they were mocking." Ben Sixsmith, “New Atheism: An Autopsy” Well your first sentence either shows that you have never read Krauss' book or you are being dishonest. I would say you never read the book and you don't know better. I do think you believe what you post. But the fact is this. A Universe from Nothing (I imagine this is the book you are referring to) isn't about nothing as you are interpreting it. Read the book. It's really a good read. If you have read it already, could you please explain to me what Krauss meant by 'nothing'. I think you are right snow - it is just a cut and paste.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 4, 2019 23:49:10 GMT -5
"To be sure, New Atheists could be very, very bad at arguing that God does not exist. There was, for example, Lawrence Krauss writing a book about how something can come from nothing while attributing material qualities to the latter. There was Richard Dawkins trying to refute the famous “Five Ways” of Aquinas without even attempting to understand their terms. (“Whereof one cannot speak,” groaned Wittgenstein, “Thereof one must remain silent.”) There was Christopher Hitchens striding into philosophy like an elephant onto an ice skating rink and saying: …the postulate of a designer or creator only raises the unanswerable question of who designed the designer or created the creator. Why is it unanswerable? People have certainly tried to answer it. Answers readily came centuries prior to Hitchens himself, actually. Hitchens is free to take issue with Aquinas’ distinction between contingent and necessary existence if he wants, but he’s not free to suggest no answers have been offered. How does the concept of the “necessary being,” for example, fail? Hitchens offers no sign of knowing what it is, because that “unanswerable” is not a logic conclusion but a rhetorical sledgehammer swung at the reader’s skull. I know atheists can make better arguments. But the New Atheists never felt obliged to, because they were so confident in their own rationality that they never learned about the ideas they were mocking." Ben Sixsmith, “New Atheism: An Autopsy” Who is this person called "Ben Sixsmith?"
Is “New Atheism: An Autopsy” a book that he has written? If it is a book I can't seem to find it.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Dec 6, 2019 16:22:17 GMT -5
"To be sure, New Atheists could be very, very bad at arguing that God does not exist. There was, for example, Lawrence Krauss writing a book about how something can come from nothing while attributing material qualities to the latter. There was Richard Dawkins trying to refute the famous “Five Ways” of Aquinas without even attempting to understand their terms. (“Whereof one cannot speak,” groaned Wittgenstein, “Thereof one must remain silent.”) There was Christopher Hitchens striding into philosophy like an elephant onto an ice skating rink and saying: …the postulate of a designer or creator only raises the unanswerable question of who designed the designer or created the creator. Why is it unanswerable? People have certainly tried to answer it. Answers readily came centuries prior to Hitchens himself, actually. Hitchens is free to take issue with Aquinas’ distinction between contingent and necessary existence if he wants, but he’s not free to suggest no answers have been offered. How does the concept of the “necessary being,” for example, fail? Hitchens offers no sign of knowing what it is, because that “unanswerable” is not a logic conclusion but a rhetorical sledgehammer swung at the reader’s skull. I know atheists can make better arguments. But the New Atheists never felt obliged to, because they were so confident in their own rationality that they never learned about the ideas they were mocking." Ben Sixsmith, “New Atheism: An Autopsy” Well your first sentence either shows that you have never read Krauss' book or you are being dishonest. I would say you never read the book and you don't know better. I do think you believe what you post. But the fact is this. A Universe from Nothing (I imagine this is the book you are referring to) isn't about nothing as you are interpreting it. Read the book. It's really a good read. If you have read it already, could you please explain to me what Krauss meant by 'nothing'. Quantum waves. Which are something to which he attributes creative qualities, yet calls his book, "A Universe from Nothing". Deceptive. Desperate.
|
|